Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 3, 2021 17:46:42 GMT


The physical defense didn't affect the scoring average because those players grew up with that style of play. Put an 80s-90s superstar in todays league and they wouldn't believe how easy it is to score. Put today's superstars in the late 80s-90s (post McHale clothesline, prime Bad Boys and Ewing Knicks era, so stop using a lone game from 1983 as the quintessential '80s-90s era' NBA) and they'd start crying after their first hard foul. I'm not mellowmoviereview so you don't need to defend LeBron to me. LeBron predates the soft league we have on our hands now. I take more issue with the pure shooters that don't do much else, like Curry and Klay, or flop artists like Harden. These guys wouldn't have thrived in those days (again 'those days' being the latter half of the 80s and the entire decade of the 90s), they would've been serviceable at best. Harden I could see being a quality player, but Klay and Steph would've been role players. Never mind hard fouls, some good ol' hand checking would've made their life miserable.
Learn more about those eras. Read about the style of play, not just statistics. Jim Loscutoff had his number retired by the Celtics and he averaged 6 points a game for his career. His nickname was 'Jungle Jim' because he was built like a beast and his job was to come into the game and throw people around if they got out of line. That role doesn't exist in today's NBA. See? Even when the league was putting up tons of points in an up tempo style of play, the game was still rough in a way it just isn't today.
The athletes today are as talented as they've ever been in this league, that isn't a question. I don't love the three point crazy format (which is highly ironic if you had grown up playing basketball with me), but today's NBA requires a level of skill from more of its players overall than it did in the past. They aren't a bunch of bums out there. But there is an enormous difference in physicality from the old days to today, and that should be taken into consideration when comparing legacies and the overall impact on a player's accomplishments.
We've had this discussion before. You always bring up hypothetical scenarios on how todays player wouldn't have dominated in the 80s and 90s and how players from those eras would have dominated today. You stated that the physical defense didn't affect the scoring average because those players grew up with that style of play. What makes you think todays players couldn't have adjusted their game to the physical style play of those eras? There's literally no way to know this since it's completely hypothetical. You're trying to prove something that can never happen.
Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson would have been "role players"? Hahahahahahaha you have great imagination.
Your bias against todays game is obvious and your close-mindedness shows. You're hellbent on trying to prove something that's just a big fantasy.
This is typical "old heads" thinking. They refuse to let go of the past.
We have had this discussion before, and I've explained it before. Which do you think is the bigger adjustment, going from physical defense to no defense, or vice versa? Ok then. My bias against today's game is obvious because I've openly stated it many times. The difference is, I've seen basketball in real time in the 80s and 90s and today, so I know the difference. Klay Thompson is Dale Ellis (a very good player, hardly a legendary talent) in the 80s-90s, Curry is Steve Kerr. That's my opinion and you can disagree with it, but it isn't fantasy. It's an argument based on experience from being a basketball fan since the 1980s. I watched basketball in real time back then, and I read books about the history of basketball. You should try it sometime, maybe then you'll outgrow the goofy 'old heads' stuff.

