Kyle Kuzma on todays point guards being the best ever.

[Kblaze8855]

"It makes no sense, because, like, you cannot compare the '60s, and granted, I did see what Jerry West said. And I love Jerry West. He's an OG, and he's a savage for what he said, because that's some real s**t. You know what I mean. ... I'm not trying to disrespect nobody, but, like, the point guards of today are unbelievably talented.

"They're way more elite than any point guard in the history of any, like, you know what I'm saying from an athletic standpoint, man. Granted, you know Magic Johnson. Yes, he's coming in this era, and he's whooping a** straight up. Isiah Thomas, he's whooping a**; you know what I mean. Allen Iverson.




More of the usual acknowledging the stars would be great leaning on the assumption there are always a few all time standouts and ignoring all the forgotten players who gave them hell.


Kevin Johnson literally sent Allen Iverson to the locker room to cry he abused him so bad. Stockton had elite athletes wondering if they even knew how to play the game.


Mark Price and Chris Paul on the same floor….Price would look about the same level.

Young people are usually willing to acknowledge the best players could play in any time but never think through what it means when those players get routinely outplayed by guys they don’t know anything about.

[warriorfan]

Most players will construct arguments that say their era is the best ever. These guys are competitive and don’t want to feel like they weren’t or aren’t playing in the most competitive era. Simple as that. Do you remember JJ Reddick’s outburst a little while ago when doing a segment with SAS? Players can get very emotional over this debate, and of course have big biases.

[John8204]

This is likely the worst era for PG's because the majority of quality PG's are really SG's (Curry, Doncic, Dame, Young, VanFleet) or guys from the last generation (CPIII, Westbrook) or famously injured (Wall, Rose).

If we are talking peak...Oscar, West, and Walt is likely the greatest three PG's of a generation. Depth...80's had Isiah, Magic, Stockton, Archibald, Price, Dennis Johnson, Maurice Cheeks, Moncrief.

[FultzNationRISE]

The sheer math is that as the talent pool has grown by leaps and bounds since the 80s, the level would grow as well. A lot of kids around the world might have had elite potential but never even picked up a basketball in 1975. Today every single kid on the planet is at least exposed to basketball.

Theres just going to be higher total numbers of “freakishly good basketball players” available, because the number of kids playing has grown by billions. That will raise the average level of the league. Theres no avoiding it. Doesnt mean the old guys couldnt play. Just means that for every one Jerry West or Magic Johnson in years past, theres probably 3 or 4 of each of those guys playing now.

[Clifton]

I was watching some Bad Boy Pistons lately and had a similar thought. Isiah is/was thought of as the best PG-sized PG of the 20th century, right? Led a two-time champion, borderline dynasty in the 80s alongside Magic and Bird. Held back the MJ dynasty for, like, multiple years, with clutch play in close series.

But then I watch some Iverson tape and it's like dang. When I go from Jordan to Lebron I don't see a superior athlete, a "2.0 version." But I do see that going from Isiah to Iverson. Everything on a basketball court seemed way easier to him, and it seems to me he was just more talented. Isiah was clutch as hell and had amazing court sense and always got it done, but he had to work so hard. And do we even remember Iverson as a top-5 6'4-under guard of the 21st century?

Now you compare that to what guys like Westbrook and Rose could do with their athleticism, what Nash and Curry could do with their offensive virtuosity... with the *best* PG of the 20th century... are we sure the position isn't just objectively stronger now?

(I will stand pat on this, though: I am not a Paul over Isiah person. To me they're dead even until the last 6 minutes of a close playoff game, when Isiah usually pulled through and Paul usually pulled a muscle.)

[TheGoatest]

Most players will construct arguments that say their era is the best ever.

The difference is that the arguments in favor of the modern era can be backed up by facts and data, whereas the arguments favoring the "good old days" are based on some "Back in my day..." circle-jerking, accompanied by this attitude:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/044/247/297.png

[Xiao Yao You]

I was watching some Bad Boy Pistons lately and had a similar thought. Isiah is/was thought of as the best PG-sized PG of the 20th century, right? Led a two-time champion, borderline dynasty in the 80s alongside Magic and Bird. Held back the MJ dynasty for, like, multiple years, with clutch play in close series.

But then I watch some Iverson tape and it's like dang. When I go from Jordan to Lebron I don't see a superior athlete, a "2.0 version." But I do see that going from Isiah to Iverson. Everything on a basketball court seemed way easier to him, and it seems to me he was just more talented. Isiah was clutch as hell and had amazing court sense and always got it done, but he had to work so hard. And do we even remember Iverson as a top-5 6'4-under guard of the 21st century?

Now you compare that to what guys like Westbrook and Rose could do with their athleticism, what Nash and Curry could do with their offensive virtuosity... with the *best* PG of the 20th century... are we sure the position isn't just objectively stronger now?

(I will stand pat on this, though: I am not a Paul over Isiah person. To me they're dead even until the last 6 minutes of a close playoff game, when Isiah usually pulled through and Paul usually pulled a muscle.)

Thomas over AI anyday

[bison]

The difference is that the arguments in favor of the modern era can be backed up by facts and data, whereas the arguments favoring the "good old days" are based on some "Back in my day..." circle-jerking, accompanied by this attitude

"modern era can be backed up by facts and data"

https://i.ibb.co/hCp7QN5/artworks-Q61q2-Ip-GG3x0-Qv-IQ-FRIy-Hw-t500x500.jpg

[TheMan]

The difference is that the arguments in favor of the modern era can be backed up by facts and data, whereas the arguments favoring the "good old days" are based on some "Back in my day..." circle-jerking, accompanied by this attitude:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/044/247/297.png

Facts and data skewed by rule changes that favor offense over defense, those facts and data? You cannot possibly be dumb enough to not realize this.

[Kblaze8855]

Whats always funny is watching the “It always improves. The league is better than ever.” fans realize how quickly it comes for them. There were actually players from the 80s in the league when I was hearing that argument on here back in the day. Is gonna be like 2030 when kids will dismiss Lebrons era and it will be hilarious.

[fsvr54]

He didn't even really make any kind of point

[FultzNationRISE]

Whats always funny is watching the “It always improves. The league is better than ever.” fans realize how quickly it comes for them. There were actually players from the 80s in the league when I was hearing that argument on here back in the day. Is gonna be like 2030 when kids will dismiss Lebrons era and it will be hilarious.


It’s not at all the same because the league is now completely global and theres no avenue to significantly expand the talent pool in the coming years.

The difference in the amount of kids growing up watching and playing basketball in 1978 vs 2015 is in the actual billions. When you expand the talent pool that dramatically, simple probability says the level will increase.

There are no kids remaining anywhere who dont see basketball as a ticket to hundreds of millions of dollars if they can make it to the pros. And they all have access to training if they want it. So the growth factor wont apply going forward and the natural level of talent (not withstanding innovation in technique and tactics) shouldnt change much.

It just is what it is.

[3ba11]

.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/sQIt9WGhhds


Today's fan looks at a clip like that and says "wow great passing and IQ"

But that's beginner basketball compared to the plays that Stockton, KJ and company had to make in the unspaced, physical format of prior eras (advanced format).

People don't realize that the game has been dumbed down into an easy format (spaced out, no-impede, aka no defense) where you can get a wide open dunk on every play

[TheMan]

It’s not at all the same because the league is now completely global and theres no avenue to significantly expand the talent pool in the coming years.

The difference in the amount of kids growing up watching and playing basketball in 1978 vs 2015 is in the actual billions. When you expand the talent pool that dramatically, simple probability says the level will increase.

There are no kids remaining anywhere who dont see basketball as a ticket to hundreds of millions of dollars if they can make it to the pros. And they all have access to training if they want it. So the growth factor wont apply going forward and the natural level of talent (not withstanding innovation in technique and tactics) shouldnt change much.

It just is what it is.

While I get your point, the talent pool has expanded but I think you are overestimating it, by a lot. Most of the foreign talent comes from Europe, the most popular sport is still football (soccer), most of Europe's best athletic talent gravitates towards soccer,, and I believe also Africa, football is more popular there too. The talent pool has grown, but I think you are overstating it.

Another thing, football is popular because all you need is a ball, you can use rocks as goal posts, you still need a hoop and a backboard to play basketball so it's not as easily available to kids as football is. The best athletes in America gravitate towards basketball whereas the best athletes in Europe and Africa are playing football.

[FultzNationRISE]

While I get your point, the talent pool has expanded but I think you are overestimating it, by a lot. Most of the foreign talent comes from Europe, the most popular sport is still football (soccer), most of Europe's best athletic talent gravitates towards soccer,, and I believe also Africa, football is more popular there too. The talent pool has grown, but I think you are overstating it.

Another thing, football is popular because all you need is a ball, you can use rocks as goal posts, you still need a hoop and a backboard to play basketball so it's not as easily available to kids as football is. The best athletes in America gravitate towards basketball whereas the best athletes in Europe and Africa are playing football.

I’m not saying the increase in talent level is proportionate with the increase in access. Just that to SOME degree - the actual extent of which would be impossible to ever measure - the overall talent has a high probability of being greater now just due to sheer numbers.

Recall that decades ago baseball was a more popular sport than basketball here in the US, and no less than Michael Jordan would have chosen it if he’d been good enough to go pro from the start. Some would-be basketball stars probably DID choose it, and we’ll never know. Additionally there were probably plenty of young athletes in the 70s and 80s whose athletic mentors advised them to focus on track and field and become a famous olympian and get on a Wheaties box, rather than go play the less prestigious basketball with a bunch of coke heads. We’ll never know how many quality NBA players the league missed out on due to competition from other sports.

Nowadays, nobody is turning down basketball. And there are just simply more total numbers of global youth than in 1980 as well.

Im not tryin to take anything away from old heads, it’s just simply the logical conclusion.

[colts19]

Facts and data skewed by rule changes that favor offense over defense, those facts and data? You cannot possibly be dumb enough to not realize this.

This.

[Kblaze8855]

. It’s not at all the same because the league is now completely global and theres no avenue to significantly expand the talent pool in the coming years.


Ill remind you you said that when current 13 year olds are using the same argument against the 2010s in 6 years. I promise you it will happen. Every word of it. They don’t now and never will care. The past was worse. The end. That is how every generation has and will see it. It’s even in the same generation at times. I heard that Penny was the evolution of Magic and Jordan in 1995.

Shit had never and will never end.

[FultzNationRISE]

Ill remind you you said that when current 13 year olds are using the same argument against the 2010s in 6 years. I promise you it will happen. Every word of it. They don’t now and never will care. The past was worse. The end. That is how every generation has and will see it. It’s even in the same generation at times. I heard that Penny was the evolution of Magic and Jordan in 1995.

Shit had never and will never end.


There will always be people who think new is better, and always will be people who think old is better. Of course youll continue to hear people from both sides insisting on their preference til the end of time.

Im just saying... you can analyze it from the perspective of numbers and logic and make a reasonable conclusion. Reaching a shared conclusion with one of the two groups does not mean you held it as a preconceived notion the way they did.

[FKAri]

He didn't even really make any kind of point

"Like yo listen respect to the OG n stuff. But nowadays? Sheeeeit. But you can't compare. And those guy woulda whooped ass today too. But they're so elite today. The athleticisms. Nomsayin? But still"


Ill remind you you said that when current 13 year olds are using the same argument against the 2010s in 6 years. I promise you it will happen. Every word of it. They don’t now and never will care. The past was worse. The end. That is how every generation has and will see it. It’s even in the same generation at times. I heard that Penny was the evolution of Magic and Jordan in 1995.

Shit had never and will never end.

And it will continue to be true until the number of people playing basketball globally starts declining(which it eventually will as more and more kids turn to video games).

But that's only referring to talent pool. Level of play is also aided over time by optimizations in skill training, tactics, health, and incremental gains in knowledge regarding how to play the game.

[bison]

People don't realize that the game has been dumbed down into an easy format (spaced out, no-impede, aka no defense) where you can get a wide open dunk on every play

This.

So while guys like FagzNationRISE can claim today's players are more athletic and talented, you could just as well argue they are also considerably less skilled than players 20-30 years ago.

[bizil]

In terms of OVERALL DEPTH, this is the best PG era ever. Due to the rules changes AND it being more accepted to have score first PG's. With that said, Magic is a better player THAN ALL OF THEM! With that said, Isiah would be the best PG under 6'3 IN THE LEAGUE! From an athletic ability standpoint, KJ at 6'1 is just as athletic as Ja.

And in terms of OVERALL floor generalship, this is era is WORSE than the all the other eras. Because ONCE AGAIN most of the elite PG's are score first. And to be honest Steph is the ONLY ONE in today's league who can sit at the table AS WE SPEAK with Magic, Isiah, and Oscar on a GOAT level. By that I mean has a resume just as good, better, or damn close to better. The other PG's in today's league don't have the resume yet. And EVEN on a peak-prime level, I have Magic, Isiah, and Oscar among the top 5 PG's ever.

From there, the ONLY ONES from today I would throw in those next two slots are Steph and CP3. Need to see some more from Luka to put him on that level. And I consider Harden more of a SG. Dame, Kyrie, Russ are already HOFers in they retired today. But on a peak-prime level, I give Steph and CP3 the edge.

BUT ONCE AGAIN in terms of overall depth, this is the best PG crop of all time. Magic would be the best PG in the today's league. And Isiah would be the 3rd best only behind Steph. And floor general wise, Magic and Isiah would be the top 2 PG's in league. With CP3 up there with them.

[bizil]

I was watching some Bad Boy Pistons lately and had a similar thought. Isiah is/was thought of as the best PG-sized PG of the 20th century, right? Led a two-time champion, borderline dynasty in the 80s alongside Magic and Bird. Held back the MJ dynasty for, like, multiple years, with clutch play in close series.

But then I watch some Iverson tape and it's like dang. When I go from Jordan to Lebron I don't see a superior athlete, a "2.0 version." But I do see that going from Isiah to Iverson. Everything on a basketball court seemed way easier to him, and it seems to me he was just more talented. Isiah was clutch as hell and had amazing court sense and always got it done, but he had to work so hard. And do we even remember Iverson as a top-5 6'4-under guard of the 21st century?

Now you compare that to what guys like Westbrook and Rose could do with their athleticism, what Nash and Curry could do with their offensive virtuosity... with the *best* PG of the 20th century... are we sure the position isn't just objectively stronger now?

(I will stand pat on this, though: I am not a Paul over Isiah person. To me they're dead even until the last 6 minutes of a close playoff game, when Isiah usually pulled through and Paul usually pulled a muscle.)

Only thing is Isiah was a pass first PG who could DOMINATE GAME SCORING! AI came in the league as a score first PG. Then Larry shifted him to the SG spot. AI even considers himself an SG FLAT OUT! But for me, just think it's WAY MORE RARE to have a pass first PG who can ALSO dominate scoring. Magic and Isiah were those type of legends. I'm not sure their have been 10 PG's in NBA history who have that combo. I'm not talking about one season of doing it. I'm talking about over the long haul, that type of PG.

[Gohan]

Kuz knows wats up. Iverson in this era is even better than curry arguably. I truly believe that

[Norcaliblunt]

I dont completely buy the idea that the talent pool has grown astronomically larger. Maybe a little bit, but for every new kid who has been exposed to basketball and started playing theres another kid who has done the same with everything else that has grown in popularity. Jui Jitsu, MMA, skateboarding, BMX, Dirt biking, Golf, Soccer, video games, jacking off all day to internet porn, eating soybeans while transitioning from male to female, etc. Kids have all sorts of access to other things limiting that bored freakish nature to master one thing. It all balances itself out.

[FKAri]

I dont completely buy the idea that the talent pool has grown astronomically larger. Maybe a little bit, but for every new kid who has been exposed to basketball and started playing theres another kid who has done the same with everything else that has grown in popularity. Jui Jitsu, MMA, skateboarding, BMX, Dirt biking, Golf, Soccer, video games, jacking off all day to internet porn, eating soybeans while transitioning from male to female, etc. Kids have all sorts of access to other things limiting that bored freakish nature to master one thing. It all balances itself out.

Astronomically? Maybe not but it has grown and its been more than enough to offset the factors that have hindered that pool(like modern distractions you mention). Being exposed to more things just means gravitating to the thing you naturally excel at. Hence why the talent pool in every virtually sport has grown in the last 30 years.

That's not to say there aren't negatives to modern basketball talent and development. Most of these negatives are especially strong in the US. So if someone wants to make an argument that modern American players aren't what they used to be, I'm willing to entertain it. But overall? No. Modern talent as well as training exceeds that of the past. It's bound to continue to improve but at some point in the future it's going to either taper off or reverse depending on various factors.

[NBAGOAT]

i'm bit surprised no one has mentioned there's simply more people on Earth now. There were a bit more than 4 billion people on Earth in 1980, there's 8 billion in 2022. It doesnt exactly work this way but if you think the top whatever small percentage of people are good enough to play in the NBA, then there should be double that number in 2022 compared to 1980. The very very top end may not follow any trend whether it's top 5, 20, 50.

However I do look at rosters from even 10 years ago and I dont think the average 9th guy off the bench back then is as good/useful etc as a current 9th guy off the bench. It's just my opinion but multiple guys who arent in the NBA right now would if they were born earlier. Also cant ignore the europe thing, there absolutely were guys in Europe in the 90's who couldve played in the NBA but didnt.

[MrFonzworth]

"modern era can be backed up by facts and data"

https://i.ibb.co/hCp7QN5/artworks-Q61q2-Ip-GG3x0-Qv-IQ-FRIy-Hw-t500x500.jpg

:roll::roll::roll:

[light]

More of the usual acknowledging the stars would be great leaning on the assumption there are always a few all time standouts and ignoring all the forgotten players who gave them hell.


Kevin Johnson literally sent Allen Iverson to the locker room to cry he abused him so bad. Stockton had elite athletes wondering if they even knew how to play the game.


Mark Price and Chris Paul on the same floor….Price would look about the same level.

Young people are usually willing to acknowledge the best players could play in any time but never think through what it means when those players get routinely outplayed by guys they don’t know anything about.

Mark Price would not look like he's on the same level as Chris Paul. That's insane. Chris Paul would dominate Mark Price.

You need to watch more full games of the 80's and 90's Cavs instead of Mark Price highlights.

[Kblaze8855]

Mark Price would not look like he's on the same level as Chris Paul. That's insane. Chris Paul would dominate Mark Price.

You need to watch more full games of the 80's and 90's Cavs instead of Mark Price highlights.

Ive seen mark price play in person. I’ve seen mark price look like the best player on the floor at times Michael Jordan was also on it. He could play with anyone. All the top points of the last probably 35-40 years years could.

The aggressive scoring points are the ones who’s approach changed the most. Guys like Paul and Price?

They’re gonna put up similar numbers in 1988 or 2020 though it’s possible price today would be expected to use his outside shooting more and score more as a result.


Paul, Timmy, Price, Stockton, Kj, Deron, Rose, Isiah, Nash, Parker, Payton…whoever. They will get work and give work to each other and look on a similar level on the same court with the differences being each specific matchup and game plan. Not a one of them would routinely destroy anyone else on that list.

People on here often said Deron was better than Paul because he had his number individually too.

Not that it was true either.

Your level is determined by your performance vs the league. In one random league without knowing the rules or style in place any of those players could look the best on any given night.


If all time status meant shit in a game we wouldn’t routinely see hall of famers look worse than role players in any random encounter. Paul isn’t a lock to destroy prime Jose Calderon or Mark Jackson. He damn sure isn’t a lock to destroy Mark Price.

Random game…Paul might have 16/12 or 19/10 Price might have 17-9 or 24/8. Never know.

The difference on the court damn sure isn’t whatever people wanna make it. It never is.

The vast differences we make between star players is rarely reflected in day to day performance.

Michael Jordan or Kobe types will usually but not always outplay a Kendall Gill or Rip Hamilton. As far apart as those players are you still aren’t shocked if both score 25 and have similar nights. Chris Paul and Mark price? That’s a tossup.


All these comparisons are if talking on the same court at the same time.

Paul might have a statistical edge with the play styles and Price having to watch Brad post up for 7 seconds at a time instead of freelance but the end of the day? You’d get a similar level of performance.

[Johnny32]

yes points and every other position on the court is more skilled now. it's not up for debate.

[Kblaze8855]

yes points and every other position on the court is more skilled now. it's not up for debate.

There are players on every team with the unofficial position of dunker who aren’t expected to do anything but roll hard towards the basket on screens. These bigs(and occasionally wings playing in big spots) never develop post games, never shoot, and most can’t pass out of a double because they don’t get doubled enough to develop it.

They are most certainly not more skilled than bigs who used to be the focal point of offenses. They are generally more athletic. That’s why they shoot record numbers from the field. Low skill play finishers dunking everything shooting 65 sometimes 70 percent because they don’t do anything difficult.

Centers are considerably more neutered than guards have been improved.

[DMAVS41]

I think it is fair to say that the depth of the current league is considerably better than it was 50 years ago just based off the talent pool being so much bigger. I don't have an issue with someone saying that.

However, this notion that Mark Price couldn't hang with a player like Chris Paul...that is just absurd. You could watch them both play and a a reasonable basketball mind could easily come away thinking Price is a better player....and if you want to talk about eras...in this era...Price would be shooting like 8 threes a game. He'd probably be a routine 50/40/90 guy and people absolutely would be debating who is better between the two.

What I don't get...is when guys like Love and Nash and Price and Stockton and hell...even old Chris Paul...all play great and more than hold their own against all time great players / athletes...in the modern era....so many just ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Like Blaze said...a few years from now...people will be saying that Chris Paul couldn't hang with prime Ja Morant.

[sdot_thadon]

I can see Kuz's point, I beleive from a skill standpoint pgs are as good as they've ever been, and with more size than they've ever had. But, you can't make these assumptions without considering what an ueashed Jerry West or Oscar Robertson, etc would be capable of. And by unleashed I mean being allowed a ton more freedom in handling the ball and footwork. This would speed up any player by default. This is the most forgotten aspect of comparing 60s and even 80s players to current guys. Tall guys weren't really allowed to do much dribbling without getting called for a carry.