Does Nikola Jokic's dominance change people's perspectives on 1980s NBA players?

[Street Hunger]

Nuggets center Nikola Jokic has the vertical leap of a YMCA player. He's actually athletic, and that he can certainly run, cut, move around, like he looks lumbering and an athletic but he's able to physically move the way a skilled center needs to be able to move.

But physically he reminds people of lots of 1980s players that had limited vertical leaps.

He pretty much is athletic if you ignore the lack of vertical leap.

He showed that skill is more important than the ability to fly through the air.

So does this change anyone's perspective on great NBA players from the 1980s who also could not throw down impressive dunks but otherwise had just as much skill as anybody today?

Maybe great 1980s players would fit in fine in today's NBA.

[FKAri]

I don't think so. Jokic has a highly unusual skill set. His ability to create for himself and others is not something any big from the 80s can replicate.

When people say bigs from the past would struggle today. It's not because of athleticism. It's because the game has changed in such a way that the talents/skills that the old school big brought is just less valued today. Likewise the talents of some modern players(big and small) would be less valued in the past. Look at how Roy Hibbert's career nosedived because the league pulled the rug out form under him. Or a guy like Jahlil Okafor who would definitely have a roster spot in the 80s. Not today. The job description has just changed.

[Mask the Embiid]

Ben Simmons being an all star multiple times in this era debunks all that bs ppl use to say. Bob petit, Jerry west, Elgin Baylor, bill russel, ect ect….all these dudes would still dominate today.


A 6’10 guy who refuses to shoot was a multi time alll star @ PG in the pick and roll era….let that sink in. Larry Bird/ Magic Johnson would both be the best player right now today. Dominque Wilkins…Clyde drexler…. All stars every year

[3ba11]

American NBA players get exposed and look ordinary in international play because today's spaced-out, hands-off, beginner format yields a bunch of planned-out, robotic gather-steppers and neat jumpshooters

We lost to France in 2020 Olympics and then only won by 5 in the gold medal game..

So imagine if France was replaced by the best players from 1990 NBA - it would be a complete wipeout

It started with the ball-dominators that entered the league in 2003 draft (Wade, Lebron, Melo) and the Nash/D'Antoni brand that took hold at the same time - this brand lost in 2004, 2006 and close games ever since.. People say that international talent is catching up but the talent gap is still utterly massive in the gold medal game

so the issue is brand of ball and the fact that the international format (more physicality, less spacing) yields superior pure instinctual players pound-for-pound without any athleticism (Jokic) - this is similar to all the guys in prior eras like Bird, Magic, and tons of other 20-30 ppg players that needed higher skill to navigate unspaced environments and higher physicality that mirrors the international game.

[SouBeachTalents]

Everyone knows the 80's was a very strong era with many dynasty level teams. It wasn't until the 90's that the league became very weak, before rounding back into form in the 2000s.

[3ba11]

Everyone knows the 80's was a very strong era with many dynasty level teams. It wasn't until the 90's that the league became very weak, before rounding back into form in the 2000s.

Unlike the frequent team-hopping of today's era where a long-standing organic team like the Nuggets is less common, every contender in the 90's was a long-standing organic juggernaut that was battling with many other organic juggernauts (parity)... So it took everything going perfectly to come out of the 90's West, but the teams that did were freight trains with everything going for them.. So the 92' Blazers were a freight train with everything clicking and going perfect - it was their banner year, so they beat all the other organic juggernauts that year.. Ditto for the 93' Suns, 96' Sonics, and 97' or 98' Jazz - these were battle-worn juggernauts with everything going for them - Jordan basically beat 6 Nuggets teams (organic chemistry teams) to win the title and never needed a 7th game.. Ultimately, Lebron's inferior brand of ball and talent-based winning (all-star team strategy) gets defeated by organic chemistry teams and their superior brand like the Nuggets, Mavs, Spurs, Warriors, Magic or any of the 90's contenders.

[97 bulls]

Everyone knows the 80's was a very strong era with many dynasty level teams. It wasn't until the 90's that the league became very weak, before rounding back into form in the 2000s.

Who were all these dynasty level teams I'm the 80s?

[3ba11]

Who were all these dynasty level teams I'm the 80s?

He'll say the Celtics, Lakers and Pistons

But the reality is that the 80's were top-heavy.. One team in each conference (maybe 2 in the East) had a free run to the Finals or ECF by virtue of being a super-team against a bunch 1-star teams for the most part - a player on the super-team has an obvious advantage over someone that plays in a parity league and therefore battles teams of comparable talent REGULARLY instead of just the Finals.

[97 bulls]

He'll say the Celtics, Lakers and Pistons

But the reality is that the 80's were top-heavy.. One team in each conference (maybe 2 in the East) had a free run to the Finals or ECF by virtue of being a super-team against a bunch 1-star teams for the most part - a player on the super-team has an obvious advantage over someone that plays in a parity league and therefore battles teams of comparable talent REGULARLY instead of just the Finals.

But the Pistons "Dynasty" came at the tail end of the 80s. They win in 89 and 90. So if that's the case, can we also say the Spurs dynasty also counts into then90s because they won their first championship in 99?

And we need to take into consideration, that none of these dynasty teams played the best version of their competition. And as you said, the West was extremely weak. The Celtics did win 3 titles, but they didn't best any team that would be considered world beaters. They best the Houston Rockets in 86, the Lakers in 84 (a nobody feels that was the best team of the 80s Lakers) and they best the 40-42 Rockets.

So what's so impressive about the 80s Celtics and Lakers dynasties?

[3ba11]

But the Pistons "Dynasty" came at the tail end of the 80s. They win in 89 and 90. So if that's the case, can we also say the Spurs dynasty also counts into then90s because they won their first championship in 99?

And we need to take into consideration, that none of these dynasty teams played the best version of their competition. And as you said, the West was extremely weak. The Celtics did win 3 titles, but they didn't best any team that would be considered world beaters. They best the Houston Rockets in 86, the Lakers in 84 (a nobody feels that was the best team of the 80s Lakers) and they best the 40-42 Rockets.

So what's so impressive about the 80s Celtics and Lakers dynasties?

they won all the titles in the 80's except the Pistons at the end and the sixers sandwiched in the middle - they had all the league's best players until expansion evened everything out in the 90's

[97 bulls]

they won all the titles in the 80's except the Pistons at the end and the sixers sandwiched in the middle - they had all the league's best players until expansion evened everything out in the 90's

Right and as I said, they both had questionable runs.

The Celtics didn't beat anybody special to win their 3 championships. And the Lakers had a cake walk in the West every year. And then add in the fact that even when they played each, they played inferior versions of each other.

[rmt]

I am always surprised that when greats are compared, they are usually brought forward to today's game. Rarely are current players imagined moving back in time and playing back in the day. Would Jokic be as admired going up against the Russells, Wilts, Waltons, DRobs, Hakeems, Shaqs, Ben Wallaces, etc with the rules back then? Or does the lack of big men defender (and please don't mention Gobert) in today's game allow him to run wild and seem so impressive (which he is)? Short of Embiid, who plays against Jokic but twice a year and will probably never meet in the Finals, where are the decent defenders at center position?

Just like in tennis, would Nadal have won 22 Grand Slams in past eras with those non-homogenized surfaces and those racquets and strings? Maybe that's why I'm such a fan of Roger Federer whose game would stand the test of time - no matter the era.

[Thorpesaurous]

There's some good stuff in here.

I do believe the 80s player fits in better now than is generally considered. And I actually think they fit in better now than the general 90s player. A part of it is that the league watered down with the expansion in the 90s. But an undiscussed difference between the 80s and the 90s is how the illegal defense started getting called, and what teams did to counter it. The jump between the average athlete in the 80s to the 90s is huge. I'm not talking about the high end guy, but the mid roster guy, became way way more athletic, and way way less skilled. Especially at the bigger positions. The ability to get across the lane to help defend became a bigger asset than knowing how to play. When the illegal D was replaced by the Defensive 3 seconds in the 2000s, it began to shift back. That sort of shrunk the bigs. Then outlawing the hand check shrunk the wings to a degree. Less athletic bigs were required because they could cheat defensively in ways they couldn't before, which allowed the focus to be more on skill. The wings had to get quicker to keep their hands off, so less size tended to help. But in addition, with the allowance of that defensive "cheating" to be allowed, more shooting was needed to force the spacing.

I believe Jokic would struggle (relatively speaking) in the 90s. The forced spacing would make him a force offensively, but he would find defensively he would a far bigger liability than he is now. In the 80s I think he's a much smoother fit. I even think the extra physicality that was allowed would probably help him. And a lot of the 80s guys who couldn't athletically hang when exploiting the Illegal D rules became part of the design, would find the current league easier to play in than the one they were in. And the higher average skill level I think would play up. I do believe some of those guys might have to move up a position, SF to PF, etc., but I think many of them would fit well.

[Im Still Ballin]

There's some good stuff in here.

I do believe the 80s player fits in better now than is generally considered. And I actually think they fit in better now than the general 90s player. A part of it is that the league watered down with the expansion in the 90s. But an undiscussed difference between the 80s and the 90s is how the illegal defense started getting called, and what teams did to counter it. The jump between the average athlete in the 80s to the 90s is huge. I'm not talking about the high end guy, but the mid roster guy, became way way more athletic, and way way less skilled. Especially at the bigger positions. The ability to get across the lane to help defend became a bigger asset than knowing how to play. When the illegal D was replaced by the Defensive 3 seconds in the 2000s, it began to shift back. That sort of shrunk the bigs. Then outlawing the hand check shrunk the wings to a degree. Less athletic bigs were required because they could cheat defensively in ways they couldn't before, which allowed the focus to be more on skill. The wings had to get quicker to keep their hands off, so less size tended to help. But in addition, with the allowance of that defensive "cheating" to be allowed, more shooting was needed to force the spacing.

I believe Jokic would struggle (relatively speaking) in the 90s. The forced spacing would make him a force offensively, but he would find defensively he would a far bigger liability than he is now. In the 80s I think he's a much smoother fit. I even think the extra physicality that was allowed would probably help him. And a lot of the 80s guys who couldn't athletically hang when exploiting the Illegal D rules became part of the design, would find the current league easier to play in than the one they were in. And the higher average skill level I think would play up. I do believe some of those guys might have to move up a position, SF to PF, etc., but I think many of them would fit well.

McHale and Ruland would shred the modern game. Could you imagine what Kevin would do with all of that space?