Could They Play In Today's Era

[pauk]

All those & any player ever could play in any era, question is simply if they could play/produce as well as they did back then.

[Pointguard]

Some of the arguments you've used here before, couldn't be further from the truth, simple as that. Some stuff even left me like
And you're getting more and more into very subjective grounds...


And you can keep talking about 'this' being more athletic than 'that', things of that nature, so on and so forth... But you're missing some facts, some important things, some stuff that can't be ignored and basically "kills" everything you wanna base your arguments onto:
-Steve Nash was considerably smaller than Pete, and less athletic... 2x MVP in this era, just to name something;
-You wanna talk about Westbrook or Rose... Stephen Curry ain't even seeing them as far as athleticism while being smaller too, but he can kill them in any given night, and at this point I'd rather have him on my team than those other two;
-5' 11.75" Chris Paul after sustaining injuries that took plenty of his athleticism was still able to be considered the best PG in the league;
-Goran Dragic is smaller than Maravich, not as skilled, not more athletic either... 20/6 on 51/41 just last year;
-Manu Ginobili is one of the best SG's of this era, still balling past-30. His teammate Tony Parker is a FMVP;
-36 years old Kobe Bryant, in his 19th season, after a torn achilles, is leading the league in scoring;
...(so on)
You can keep bringing up Westbrook and so on, athleticism this and that, but just don't neglect some examples like the ones above.

Coming up nowadays, if he was playing at his peak today, Pete Maravich would've been the best SG in the league at this point (by little though, mostly because of his playing "ways").
Not saying he would be better than he was, not at all, he would be...... what he was, give or take a "few", adjusting to today's "style" and game. And you got many examples/facts from both eras, that can be used to "view" things that way.

And, like I've mentioned before, you've said some extremely "wrong" things here that imho make this discussion futile, no point in going further, I'm done here.

Extremely wrong things??? Please point out one thing where I am wrong or supposedly "far from the truth." You have said this what three times already and not once come back with any substance. Don't say nonsense like that and don't back it up. If you aren't old enough to know conceptual differences from truths why are you defending Maravich where the whole argument is conceptual.

OK, so when I ask questions then you should be able to answer them. Simple enough right.

I had one theme from the beginning that I keep harping on that you avoid at all cost.

Name me the skill, attribute or asset that Maravich had that made him elite in his time, that made his team win and would be even better in today's game. Curry, Gin, Nash and Paul are all deeply ingrained in their teams winning and functioning at high levels. I don't know of any team where they made their team significantly worse. Perhaps, you can tell me?

Its guess work if Maravich can be on a winning team as the best player? In fact, he only took a winning team and turned them into a loosing team? Or is that premise wrong?

You are just telling me that he had this and that but is this and that is automatically good enough to make him elite in another era when he wasn't then? He had more freedom to score when he was in his prime, than any other player in the game ever had in their prime.

Point out one thing wrong here. Simple enough.

And we are supposed to just agree with you because you said it?