A Rookie 1984 Michael Jordan or a Current Kobe Bryant?

[QUOTE=MaxFly]Indeed... the point I'm making is that the stats themselves need context.

Earlier, you said:



You bolded a few to indicate which stats Jordan won and which Bryant won, furthering the argument that it's arguably that Jordan's rookie season was better than Bryant's present season. Unfortunately, you're comparing stats that have 23 years between, so I'm just providing the context. Someone looking at those stats would say that 28.2 points is 28.2 points, or 6.5 rebounds is 6.5 rebounds and that there's no difference between eras where as that's not the case at all.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. In fact, I even said I would take Kobe over the rookie MJ because of the experience factor -- something you can't measure by stats.



[QUOTE=MaxFly]Well we're comparing two players at specific times during their careers. Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about.

In 1987-1988, Larry Bird shot 52.7% from the field. Michael Jordan shot 53.5% from the field. Now just looking at those numbers, some would conclude that Larry and Michael shot at a similar efficiency, and some would even conclude that Michael Jordan was a little more efficient. The problem is that Larry took a little more than 4 times as many threes as Jordan did that season. Larry's eFG%, taking into account three point shooting, was 55.6%. Jordan's eFG% was 53.7%. This illustrates why we should try to look at stats while taking context into consideration... even more so when we're comparing stats across eras where different styles were played.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't really comparing Larry to MJ...(2 different positions and all that). But if i [I]were[/I] to make a point arguing for MJ I [I]could[/I] point out that [I]some people[/I] would be more impressed that a 6-6 shooting guard who slashed to the basket and upheld the bulk of the team's offense on his shoulders while also doing a damn good job anchoring the defense could shoot a higher percentage than a world-class player and champion with multiple titles playing on a team that shared the offensive load and wasn't "as much" of a defensive presence. I could argue that. :)

[QUOTE=MaxFly]Agreed, that's why I've brought up the point that Jordan's stats in 1984-1985 in comparison to Bryant's stats this past year don't necessarily indicate that Jordan had a better season.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. It doesn't necessarily say MJ had a better season. It also doesn't necessarily say Kobe had a better season. I'm really just impressed that the guy put up those numbers fresh out of college. Numbers that...taken at face value...could have put him in serious consideration of the MVP this past year. And I'm even more impressed that...in 1985, he didn't and [I]shouldn't[/I] have won. Larry Bird's numbers were ridiculous that year. I started watching in 87 (and since have collected dvds of many games prior), so researching the 84/85 season surprised me a little.

[QUOTE=MaxFly]Incidentally, the conversation between Da_Realist and me is what all these conversations should look like. No one's calling anyone names, getting upset, or making ridiculous claims. We're having a reasoned and respectful discussion about ball without the added drama.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. :cheers:

[QUOTE]Don't put too much stock into that all defense thing.Tmac got screwed in 02-03 and Mj got the samething in 87.I have watched kobe all this year and i don't understand how he gets it this year.Most of the time they just keep giving u itevery year like the all-star gm[/QUOTE]
what the hell are you rambling on about? we are talking about 2000 kobe here, and kobe hadn't ever been selected in an all-nba defense team before that season so your argument is mute. and tmac has never been deserving of an all-nba defense birth
[QUOTE]LMAO off Mj had 20ft jumper from his rookie season.WTH are u talking about??All he did was take 20ft,16ft jumpers early in his career.If he didn't have those jumpers everyone would of backed off of him so he couldn't drive. [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=wP-EIeGW4lk&feature=related[/url] He had a jumper from 20ft in FACT don't get it twisted.[/QUOTE]
yes, because 1 game full of jordan highlights is going to accurately show what type of game he had :applause: . i can play this game too: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=K-vRqz36iOU[/url] 2000 kobe abusing 2nd team all nba defender scottie pippen
[QUOTE]I started watching in 1993, I doubt you watched it much earlier than that.[/QUOTE]
what you doubt doesn't matter
[QUOTE] Thanks for the laugh.[/QUOTE]
you're laughing because of that one quote? i'm in tears with laughter at every word of every response you make
[QUOTE]No it doesn't. You're forgetting that taking shots uses a lot of energy. The more shots he took the less energy had so he couldn't go to the basket as much per shot. Not to mention his jumper improved a lot from his rookie season to his thread season. He took 8 more shots per game in his 3rd year than he did in his rookie season.[/QUOTE]
easily the worst "argument" yet. if getting tired was a factor he wouldn't have played more minutes in the years after his rookie season, but he did
[QUOTE]Pointless argument.[/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]You're an idiot. My point is you can't compare a second options wins to a firrst options wins. You can't hold it against Grant Hill that Kobe won more games because if Kobe and Hill trade places then that laker team probably wins 70 games.[/QUOTE]
if thats how it is then you also can't compare first option stats to second option stats. you can't hold it against kobe that he only averaged 22ppg because if hill was on the kobe and hill trade places then hill probably averaged 18 ppg
[QUOTE]12 wins and 70 losses will but when did they lose 70 games without Kobe?[/QUOTE]
they only won 12 games without kobe, what would've happened if kobe missed the whole season is heresay
[QUOTE]In fact for the entire 3peat I think the Lakers were 31-6 or 31-7 without Kobe.[/QUOTE]
:roll: another pathetic argument. example of this argument: say in the entire 18 years in utah when they didn't have karl malone they went 1-0. omg this equals 100% win record :roll: ..pathetic
[QUOTE]And how do you know Kobe could have even led a team to the playoffs at that point in his career?[/QUOTE]
because he was a better player
[QUOTE]Penny averaged 21.4 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 5.6 apg on 48.7% shooting.

Much higher than his season averages.[/QUOTE]
his minutes were up, he averages 2 points per 36 better than what he did in the regular season. torched? not exactly :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]Kobe averaged 21.0 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.4 apg on 45.2% shooting

Well below his season averages[/QUOTE]
+ a game winning shot. game 5 was a blowout lakers victory, so kobe didn't really need to contribute as much as he had the previous games. first four games: 22ppg, 4.5rpg, 3.5apg, 2.25spg, 1.75bpg on 47% shooting - better than his regular reason numbers. not to mention the lakers would've been 1-1 going into 2 straight away games if it wasn't for kobe.
[QUOTE]I keep backing up my arguments but you are in denial and convinced you are right whcih is really funny.[/QUOTE]
its funny getting clowned post after post? you're a strange individual
[QUOTE]Yes[/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]No he wouldn't have. He was the first option on a horrible team right after Jordan retired and he didn't even average 20 ppg.[/QUOTE]
you missed the point
[QUOTE]What the f*ck is the point of cutting one f8cking letter out of the word?[/QUOTE]
its one less letter i have to press? what the **** is the point of having the letter "a" in the word "yeah"? dumb ****
[QUOTE]And you base that on nothing.[/QUOTE]
except facts
[QUOTE]And your point is? A lot of teams take a while to get going in the playoffs. The Lakers had homecourt and in reality weren't going to lose that series.[/QUOTE]
:roll: more pathetic statements. the lakers weren't going to lose that series? easy to ****in say 8 years after it happened
[QUOTE] :roll: [/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]His 1st team all-defense selection wasn't even deserved.[/QUOTE]
who was more deserving and why?
[QUOTE]Kobe's 3 point shot wasn't even that good in 2000 either.[/QUOTE]
it was twice that of michael jordans..you're not doing yourself any favors by saying stupid **** like that

[QUOTE=Shep]what you doubt doesn't matter[/QUOTE]

Well then state your age and tell me when you started watching the NBA.

[QUOTE]you're laughing because of that one quote? i'm in tears with laughter at every word of every response you make[/QUOTE]

Thanks again. :roll:

[QUOTE]easily the worst "argument" yet. if getting tired was a factor he wouldn't have played more minutes in the years after his rookie season, but he did[/QUOTE]

You just backed up my argument. With playing more minutes and taking far more shots it's obvious he'd lose some of the energy necessary to drive to the basket.

[QUOTE]if thats how it is then you also can't compare first option stats to second option stats. you can't hold it against kobe that he only averaged 22ppg because if hill was on the kobe and hill trade places then hill probably averaged 18 ppg[/QUOTE]

You aren't factoring in that as a first option without Shaq Kobe would have faced far more double teams. We don't know how 2000 Kobe would have handled those double teams. Hill's assists also may have gone up with Shaq although his rebounds probably would have been slightly down.

[QUOTE]they only won 12 games without kobe, what would've happened if kobe missed the whole season is heresay[/QUOTE]

Well all the information available points to the team still being very good.

[QUOTE]:roll: another pathetic argument. example of this argument: say in the entire 18 years in utah when they didn't have karl malone they went 1-0. omg this equals 100% win record :roll: ..pathetic[/QUOTE]

Comparing 1 game to 37 or 38? :roll: That's nearly half an NBA season while 1 game means nothing considering there are 81 more and you can get lucky in 1 game.

[QUOTE]because he was a better player[/QUOTE]

Nice complete argument! :roll: Even if he was the better player(which he wasn't) that still doesn't mean he was the better leader. The fact is Kobe at 21 may have not been mature enough to lead a team for 82 games.

[QUOTE]his minutes were up, he averages 2 points per 36 better than what he did in the regular season. torched? not exactly :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I don't care about per 36, I care about the points in the boxscore after the game. Penny averaged nearly 6 points over his season average against Kobe while outscoring Bryant so yes he torched him.

[QUOTE]+ a game winning shot. game 5 was a blowout lakers victory, so kobe didn't really need to contribute as much as he had the previous games. first four games: 22ppg, 4.5rpg, 3.5apg, 2.25spg, 1.75bpg on 47% shooting - better than his regular reason numbers. not to mention the lakers would've been 1-1 going into 2 straight away games if it wasn't for kobe.[/QUOTE]

A gamewinning shot is nice and that was in game 2 I believe so that really changed the series because if he misses the series is tied and that shot put the Lakers up 2-0. However one shot doesn't decide who the better player is.

Not to mention Kobe averaged 22.5 ppg over the 22 ppg he averaged those first 4 games, he averaged 6.3 rpg in the regular season which is much better than the 4.5 he averaged in those 4 games, he averaged 4.9 assists in the regular seaosn much better than the 3.5 in those 4 games and he shot 47% in the regular season matching his shooting % from those games.

If you are going by the first 4 games then these are Penny's averages

24.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 6.5 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.0 bpg on 53.7% shooting

Those destroy Penny's seaosn averages.

[QUOTE]its funny getting clowned post after post? you're a strange individual[/QUOTE]

I guess if I were you I wouldn't want to face reality either.

[QUOTE]you missed the point[/QUOTE]

Your point was a weak one because Kukoc had a chance to be the first option and averaged 5-6 ppg below what you used as an example on a horrible team.

[QUOTE]its one less letter i have to press? what the **** is the point of having the letter "a" in the word "yeah"? dumb ****[/QUOTE]

Because "yeh" sounds f*cking retarted.

[QUOTE]except facts[/QUOTE]

What facts? The fact is that the Lakers went 12-3 without Kobe with Shaq in the lineup. So the fairly small sample we have of the 2000 Lakers without Kobe shows they were a good team during that stretch. That is the only thing to base how good they would ahve been without Kobe, everything else is just guessing.

[QUOTE]:roll: more pathetic statements. the lakers weren't going to lose that series? easy to ****in say 8 years after it happened[/QUOTE]

It was obvious. The Lakers were at home with the best player and they had the much better team. Didn't Shaq have a 30-20 game and the Lakers won easily?

[QUOTE]who was more deserving and why?[/QUOTE]

Eddie Jones because he was easily the best perimeter defender back then and his only competition for that title was Scottie Pippen. Jones could shut down a good scorer much more often than Kobe. Kobe got torched by several players who weren't exactly Allen Iverson.

[QUOTE=Shep]it was twice that of michael jordans..you're not doing yourself any favors by saying stupid **** like that[/QUOTE]

And Jordan's driving game was more than twice that of Kobe's.

[QUOTE=Shep]what the hell are you rambling on about? we are talking about 2000 kobe here, and kobe hadn't ever been selected in an all-nba defense team before that season so your argument is mute. and tmac has never been deserving of an all-nba defense birth

yes, because 1 game full of jordan highlights is going to accurately show what type of game he had :applause: . i can play this game too: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=K-vRqz36iOU[/url] 2000 kobe abusing 2nd team all nba defender scottie pippen

what you doubt doesn't matter

you're laughing because of that one quote? i'm in tears with laughter at every word of every response you make

easily the worst "argument" yet. if getting tired was a factor he wouldn't have played more minutes in the years after his rookie season, but he did

:lol

if thats how it is then you also can't compare first option stats to second option stats. you can't hold it against kobe that he only averaged 22ppg because if hill was on the kobe and hill trade places then hill probably averaged 18 ppg

they only won 12 games without kobe, what would've happened if kobe missed the whole season is heresay

:roll: another pathetic argument. example of this argument: say in the entire 18 years in utah when they didn't have karl malone they went 1-0. omg this equals 100% win record :roll: ..pathetic

because he was a better player

his minutes were up, he averages 2 points per 36 better than what he did in the regular season. torched? not exactly :rolleyes:

+ a game winning shot. game 5 was a blowout lakers victory, so kobe didn't really need to contribute as much as he had the previous games. first four games: 22ppg, 4.5rpg, 3.5apg, 2.25spg, 1.75bpg on 47% shooting - better than his regular reason numbers. not to mention the lakers would've been 1-1 going into 2 straight away games if it wasn't for kobe.

its funny getting clowned post after post? you're a strange individual

:lol

you missed the point

its one less letter i have to press? what the **** is the point of having the letter "a" in the word "yeah"? dumb ****

except facts

:roll: more pathetic statements. the lakers weren't going to lose that series? easy to ****in say 8 years after it happened

:lol

who was more deserving and why?

it was twice that of michael jordans..you're not doing yourself any favors by saying stupid **** like that[/QUOTE]
LOL I was talking about Kobe this year.I said people make the all defense team because they made it the year before.U obviously never watched tmac in 03.He played the best one on one defense while getting 100 blks and 100 stls.
I wasn't posting the highlights to show off MJ rookie season.I was posting it to show u he had a jumper from 20ft since his rookie year.If he didn't people would of just backed off him so he couldn't drive.

however bad kobes all deffensive selection was this year it pales in comparisson to last year when he openely admitted publicly a number of times that he wasnt playing good deffense cause the offensive load was such that he needed to conserve energy on deffense.

kobe himself wouldnt have even selected himself to an all deffensive team last year, total proof that these things are done off reputation, an utter farce of the highest order....

[QUOTE=ukplayer4]however bad kobes all deffensive selection was this year it pales in comparisson to last year when he openely admitted publicly a number of times that he wasnt playing good deffense cause the offensive load was such that he needed to conserve energy on deffense.

kobe himself wouldnt have even selected himself to an all deffensive team last year, total proof that these things are done off reputation, an utter farce of the highest order....[/QUOTE]
exactly this guy shep things he should get it even if he isn't playing defense.Look shep is just a homer.Look how shaq almost gets voted in the all star game when he out of his prime.It's nonsense really.Mj didn't have a reputation of a defensive player in 87, but he played great defnse yet he was critized for scoring too much and not playing defense.The following year He did the same exact thing, but the media just started noticing and he got DPOTY.Thats BS.Why isn't Ron artest on the team every year.I watch him and he plays way better defense then even bowen, but because bowen is on the spurs he gets reconized.I gurentee u if artest was on the spurs and was winning chips he would be on the all-defensive team.

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]
I wasn't really comparing Larry to MJ...(2 different positions and all that). But if i [I]were[/I] to make a point arguing for MJ I [I]could[/I] point out that [I]some people[/I] would be more impressed that a 6-6 shooting guard who slashed to the basket and upheld the bulk of the team's offense on his shoulders while also doing a damn good job anchoring the defense could shoot a higher percentage than a world-class player and champion with multiple titles playing on a team that shared the offensive load and wasn't "as much" of a defensive presence. I could argue that. :) [/QUOTE]

You make a few good points. What I was saying was that someone who looks at stats without taking into account any additional context may inaccurately interpret those stats... but I think we agree on that point.

I think in the same way, when we compare stats from 85 and 2008 without looking at the style of basketball played in those eras and some of the other factors that may affect those stats, we may end up applying those stats inaccurately to our arguments. We may come to conclusions that we think those stats support though the stats themselves are skewed.

[QUOTE]Agreed. It doesn't necessarily say MJ had a better season. It also doesn't necessarily say Kobe had a better season. I'm really just impressed that the guy put up those numbers fresh out of college. Numbers that...taken at face value...could have put him in serious consideration of the MVP this past year. [/QUOTE]

But here's the problem... How do we know that he would put up those numbers in this day and age. The stark numbers themselves translate well, but there are questions as to whether a rookie Jordan would be able to recreate them now. A player like Jordan is built to exploit that eras fast paced style of basketball, and I think his numbers from that era reflect that somewhat.

I would take current Kobe over rookie Jordan. Even though it could be argued that Michael was a better player, a superstar 11 years of NBA experience along with championship experience will beat out a superstar in the developing stages in the developing stages. There's no way to replace veteran leadership when you're that good of a player.

[QUOTE=juju151111]I agree completly.Do you know how hard it is to talk about Mj vs Kobe on any forum without someone just saying nonsense.Anyways i have a question mcfly.Why didn't rebounding decrease for centers in the 90s and 80s?If the game started using more set offense which resulted in less shots wouldn't players rebounding drop?Hakeem and Shaq rebounded the same in 80s,90s,00s.Well they could just be Great rebounders no matter what, but the less shots would of indicate a drop in rebounding right?[/QUOTE]

This is a good question.

The reason rebounding didn't see a significant decrease for centers is that the number of rebounds available per game didn't see a significant decrease. Normally, you'd think... well, fewer shots taken per game would mean fewer rebounds available... but the answer lies in why there were fewer shots taken per game; defenses got better and made it more difficult to score, and especially to do so, quickly. As a result, though the number of shots decreased, the number of missed shots stayed relatively the same. In 1985, teams, on average, missed 3,718 shots per year. In 2008, teams, on average, missed 3627 shots a year. That's a difference of about 1.1 fewer missed shots a game per team. Also, remember that teams are taking more threes now than back then, and the three is, by it's very nature, a lower percentage shot.

I'd also add that because teams in the 80s played such a faster pace of basketball, centers didn't always get back to rebound fast break misses or quick shots.

[QUOTE]The same thing can be argued with stls,asts,blks etc...In What ever era Mj was still getting the same amount of stls.This is the reason i think people put too much stack in eras.The only eras that were not advance was the 50s and 60s.You still have to put the basket in the hoop.Also U could just look at Mj shots per gm in his rookie year and Kobe shots per game in his MVP year.[/QUOTE]

If I told you that next season, Lebron would only play high scoring teams and teams that gave up a lot of points like the Suns, Nuggets, Warriors and Grizzlies, do you think there would be a good chance that that would affect his numbers?

[QUOTE=MaxFly]
But here's the problem... How do we know that he would put up those numbers in this day and age. The stark numbers themselves translate well, but there are questions as to whether a rookie Jordan would be able to recreate them now. A player like Jordan is built to exploit that eras fast paced style of basketball, and I think his numbers from that era reflect that somewhat.[/QUOTE]

My personal opinion is that it would be easier for the young slashing MJ to score with with the loss of handchecking and physicality along with the addition of the 3-second defensive rule. Here's an excerpt from an old Scottie Pippen article that gives his point of view on the differences in the eras (one that I agree with)...

[QUOTE=Scottie Pippen]

[URL="http://www.nba.com/blog/blog30.html"]NBA.com blog archive[/URL]

[B]Can't Compare Kobe and MJ[/B]
The eras in which they played are completely different
Kobe Bryant's 81-point performance the other night against Toronto was certainly incredible, but it is unfair to try and compare what Kobe did to what Michael Jordan did in his playing career or what he could have done for that matter.

In the era when Michael played, it was a physical game. Defense was promoted. Guys took pride in it. Today defense is no longer a part of the game. Guys are driving to the basket. There are rules where you can't step in front of them. To me, it is taking away from the game seeing a guy like Tony Parker taking advantage of the rules. He is shooting 55 percent from the field. That says something about the game itself. In the history of the NBA, I'm sure a point guard has never led the league in field goal percentage. It's a different game now. It's really not about being tough and physical because the NBA isn't a physical game anymore. When you talk about how the Knicks and Bulls used to battle in the early '90s, the Oakleys, and Pat Ewings, the Masons, and how they would have the ability to use their hands to put you in a trap position. There is no way you can even triple team a guy now and stop him. Any contact is a foul. I can't compare the two players because I see it as two different games. If I'm guarding Kobe Bryant in today's game, I couldn't be the defender I was known as.

The defensive rules, the hand checking, the ability to make contact on a guy in certain areas, the ability to come over in the lane to stop guys from getting to the basket, that's all been taken away from the game. There is no contact up on the floor. The way I played Magic Johnson in the '91 Finals, I would have fouled out the first time down court. To compare how someone would have played Michael Jordan, Chuck Daly would send someone to wear him down. Even though he may get 30 or 40 points, they're going to be a hard 30 points. But in today's game, you can't put that physical wear and tear on a guy. It's a free ball type of game. If you are shooting it well, you can score 80, as you've seen because you are going to get to the foul line.

Officials have very quick whistles now because they're promoting scoring. Let's not forget, three years ago, this league was trying to figure out how they could get the scoring back up, how they could drive the fans back into loving the game, and this is what they were building on. They changed the field of rules. Those rules are huge in the game today. They benefit the perimeter guy. Back in the day, you may get one guy to score 40 points in a month. When Michael Jordan scored 40, it was all over the front page of a newspaper. Now you can pretty much have 40 points at halftime. Until the league went and changed the rules and tried to get some of that bully ball out, you couldn't come out and perform like that every night. The game was too physical. You were too sore the next day and you were just tired and physically worn down. The game seems so fun and free now. Guys are making a living just standing out there shooting jumpers.

If you want to say that Kobe could get 100, I would say that Michael could get 100. If Kobe could get 81, I think Michael could get 100 in today's game. I think the psychological style that Michael was able to master in the game, puts him far beyond Kobe. But Kobe's youthfulness has put him in a position where it looks like he is overtaking Michael. Kobe has 10 years in this league. That is a lot of experience to have and still be a very youthful player.

I would love to see what would have happened the other night if the rules had been the same as in past years. Kobe is as close to being like Mike as anybody, but you can't make the comparisons anymore. Tracy McGrady can probably, from a numbers standpoint, put up the numbers Michael Jordan put up. He has that type of ability. Dirk Nowitzki can put up those kinds of numbers. The game is built for those guys to put those shots up. If they get touched, they get to the foul line. I would say Kobe is the most polished of all of them as far as being able to handle the ball and create his own shot and opportunity. But this is what the game is going to turn into. Guys are going to start to score 40 points regularly. It may become an average.

I don't think Kobe will get 100. What he did is what like Wilt did, a once in a lifetime experience. Given the fact that he shot a heck of a percentage it could have been better, but I don't think he still could have gotten to 100. It would almost have to be perfect and the game would have to go to overtime. I think a lot of things would have to come into play for him to get that.

With that said, I am sure Phil doesn't want to coach that type of game. It's not his style. I don't expect it to happen again. Phil will probably do everything in his power to make sure it doesn't. I don't think Phil is going to try to promote what Kobe has done more than anything because he has damaged his whole team. You just scored 81 points. Do you need your teammates? Are they going to step up when you need them or are you going to continue to pound them like you've been doing and be selfish just to get some individual accolades?

From a leadership perspective I think Kobe has taken a step back. Look at what he has to live up to now. You just scored 81 points. If you scored 81 points, your team should pretty much go out and win at least 75 percent of their games the rest of the year. Is that fair to say? You just compared yourself to Wilt. Can you go out with your team and do that or are you just going to go out and score tons of points every night? Are you going to get back to the point where you are shooting a lot of shots and you're teammates are not shooting and you're losing?

Right now, Kobe has willed the Lakers to a 22-19 record. It will be interesting to see what happens the rest of the way.
[B]Posted by Scottie Pippen - Jan 24 2006 4:28PM[/B][/QUOTE]

This thread is just going in circles. :oldlol:

I really don't see how you can compare the two at those points in their careers. Kobe of '08 vs Jordan from '92 or '93 would make much more sense in terms of age, game, and overall basketball intelligence.

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]My personal opinion is that it would be easier for the young slashing MJ to score with with the loss of handchecking and physicality along with the addition of the 3-second defensive rule. Here's an excerpt from an old Scottie Pippen article that gives his point of view on the differences in the eras (one that I agree with)...[/QUOTE]

I think that with the slower game, prevalance of half court defenses and offenses, prevalance of shading, and the doing away of true isolation plays, young Jordan would not have put up the scoring numbers that he did his rookie season. Again, that fast paced full court era catered to players with Jordan's skill and talent.

As his career went on, Jordan improved his mid range game in order to adapt to the slower, half court style of play.

Notice how Scottie doesn't mention that the average team back in 1984 averaged 10 more points a game than teams do now. He doesn't mention that the game was faster... that it was easier for slashers to take advantage of the full court game, attacking defenses before they were set... basically, If I'm to take what Scottie said at face value, I have to believe that teams back in 1984 who gave up 110 points a game on average, made it more difficult to score than teams today that give up 100 points.

[QUOTE=MaxFly]This is a good question.

The reason rebounding didn't see a significant decrease for centers is that the number of rebounds available per game didn't see a significant decrease. Normally, you'd think... well, fewer shots taken per game would mean fewer rebounds available... but the answer lies in why there were fewer shots taken per game; defenses got better and made it more difficult to score, and especially to do so, quickly. As a result, though the number of shots decreased, the number of missed shots stayed relatively the same. In 1985, teams, on average, missed 3,718 shots per year. In 2008, teams, on average, missed 3627 shots a year. That's a difference of about 1.1 fewer missed shots a game per team. Also, remember that teams are taking more threes now than back then, and the three is, by it's very nature, a lower percentage shot.

I'd also add that because teams in the 80s played such a faster pace of basketball, centers didn't always get back to rebound fast break misses or quick shots.



If I told you that next season, Lebron would only play high scoring teams and teams that gave up a lot of points like the Suns, Nuggets, Warriors and Grizzlies, do you think there would be a good chance that that would affect his numbers?[/QUOTE]
I know it would affect his stats, but not everyone back then was a fast break team.Mj knew how to stl the ball in his era and he did the same thing in this era.When he was 40 he got 123 stls, but playing in only 67 games and was injured.My point was If u know how to rebound,stl,blk u still get the same stats in this era.My point is if u take Kobe and put him in the 80s and early 90s he won't start averging 2 stls a gm because he doesn't have the anticipation like say iverson does.How would players know play in that era??They complain about every touch foul on the perimeter and get calls for handchecking.I also think old skool players will have a hard time adjusting to the new rules and some defenders who were great back trhen would be subpar know.Dumars could move his feet good, but he relied on shoving Mj alot to tire him out.How would would Mj play if he doesn't get touched on the perimeter?

[QUOTE=MaxFly]I think that with the slower game, prevalance of half court defenses and offenses, prevalance of shading, and the doing away of true isolation plays, young Jordan would not have put up the scoring numbers that he did his rookie season. Again, that fast paced full court era catered to players with Jordan's skill and talent.

As his career went on, Jordan improved his mid range game in order to adapt to the slower, half court style of play.

Notice how Scottie doesn't mention that the average team back in 1984 averaged 10 more points a game than teams do now. He doesn't mention that the game was faster... that it was easier for slashers to take advantage of the full court game, attacking defenses before they were set... basically, If I'm to take what Scottie said at face value, I have to believe that teams back in 1984 who gave up 110 points a game on average, made it more difficult to score than teams today that give up 100 points.[/QUOTE]
Dwade put up 28ppg and could barley shoot from 16ft.Mj has a rookie had a game 18ft and in.Dwade in this era just like Mj did.Gong hard to the basket with no fear of getting hit to the ground.So u would believe wade can averge 28ppg playing this style, but Mj couldn't.Mj tried to improve his game every year.He didn't do it because he thought the way the game was played was going to change.The resason he worked on his jumpers so much after his first retirement is because he was not has explosive anymore.