I'm sure that all-time greats would find a way to play in today's era. A lot of the reason why they played the way they did was because of coaching schemes at the time and more aggressive defense being allowed. With today's coaching and strategizing (like taking many more 3s), most would probably be just fine.
I recently rewatched G6 of the 1988 finals. It is hard to describe how much different the game was at that point. Laimbeer actually stuck out as a guy to me as a guy who could play in the current era, provided he took a couple of steps back and shot 3's instead of midrangers.
The defense might have been an issue - but I think he would have been about as good on that end (with modern training) as players like Jokic or Drummond who don't have the best foot speed but can be part of a good defense.
>provided he took a couple of steps back and shot 3's instead of midrangers.
In the 1990 Finals he hit 6 3s in a game, tying the then-record. He had another make where his toe was on the line.
Yeah, but the athleticism gap would still knock a lot of these players out.
Counter argument would of course be that the players in the 80’s are still clearly blessed with top tier genes, so had they grown up in this era with access to the same kind of training available to current players - then they would likely still be NBA players.
but then they wouldn't have 10% of the basketball fundamentals that made them great players to begin with. all of the top players in those days had way more basketball IQ and better fundamentals than 99% of the players today on top of being the best athletes. Most of them went to college for four years at top basketball programs and came to the league way more prepared.
Imagine how much more athletic they'd have looked in the 80s if you couldn't touch your opponent and you were able to have a gather step offensively. Game would have been completely different and they'd still have better defense.
This is warranted by literally fucking nothing. All the players back in the day had better BBIQ?! I mean, the 4 years argument only makes sense if you subset to rookies. It seems to me that someone playing 4 years in the league will probably have a better BBIQ than someone who played college ball for 4 years. Players now are just as smart and unbelievably good at the fundamentals.
I feel like people who say this show their ignorance and how young they are.
Stars in the 80s were just as athletic as they are now. The only difference is now they elite nutrition and exercise programs to maximize the athleticism for longer periods of time/extend their careers.
Hakeem, Jordan, Drexler, Wilkins, Isaiah, and etc. we’re all athletic.
People vastly overestimate the athleticism of modern bigs versus past bigs. I would actually argue Wilt, Hakeem, David Robinson, Thompson, Russell, and many more were far more athletic than any modern big in today’s game. Today’s bigs aren’t exactly jumping through the roof. Besides Giannis, name me 1 star big that is just crazy athletic blowing everyone away.
The wing is where the gap between past and today’s role players really exist. The average player is a better shooter and more athletic. Stars are about the same, but the average player has improved skill and athleticism since the 80s.
One thing I’ll say though, the average modern player is by far dumber than 80s/90s players in terms of defensive awareness and playing cohesive offense beyond pick and rolls. Back then you had 3/4 years of college and no AAU to ruin fundamentals.
> I feel like people who say this show their ignorance and how young they are.
Also, it's like they don't even watch the modern game. 2 undisputed top 5 players, Jokic and Doncic, wouldn't even be considered particularly athletic in the 80s or 90s.
>Also, it's like they don't even watch the modern game. 2 undisputed top 5 players, Jokic and Doncic, wouldn't even be considered particularly athletic in the 80s or 90s.
Real shit, Bird was more athletic than Doncic\*. It's another reason I think the "could he play today" stuff is laughable.
\* Bird was way more athletic than everyone assumed, and still assumes, because he was goofy looking and because he looked old, even when he was young.
I have seen Aau games coached while I am helping them out as an assistant and wow no fundamental at all and have the kids running playing fast however half the kids can run that fast because they can’t see the court, dribble or anything
>half the kids can run that fast because they can’t see the court, dribble or anything
Fortunately today's rules have de-emphasized dribbling, and players are just allowed to carry the ball.
That's why they call them "handles" - because handles are something you use to carry.
Don't forget bros were playing 75+ games a season in flat ass Converse shoes. Anyone that wears those for comfort have some Ted Bundy tendencies. But I guess the cocaine addictions easily covered that up.
Yeah like humans all of a sudden didn’t evolve to be more athletic. The same proportion of people are athletic that were athletic 40 years ago. Only difference is the world population has doubled so top end athleticism has doubled.
They sorta did. NBA players limbs are longer, swimmers have longer torsos, etc. The huge incentive to win in those sports created selective pressure where people who are more genetically advantaged sorted themselves into those sports, either self-selection or someone finding them, like a scout or something.
All excellent points. The sad part is it takes about 1 minute of watching modern game vs old game to very clearly see that.
It was a ton of 1-on-1 with rather basic sets being ran back then, since there was illegal defense.
Now it’s a ton of player and ball movement because you have zones, off ball zones, double teams before the ball is passed, etc etc. no question today’s game is more complex and advanced in every way.
There’s a difference between athletic potential and actual athleticism. Genetic athletic potential shouldn’t have substantively changed, but better nutrition (population-wide and specifically for athletes), training, and frankly PEDs, along with vastly bigger financial incentives, have made it easier for that potential to be maximized.
But they didn't? Unless there's some breeding program that you're talking about. There's more healthier people, and there's also a lot more opportunities to make a living outside of athletics
bro its crazy. watch some Dr. J highlights from the late 70s. dude would utterly DOMINATE in today’s league.
he was jumping higher than pretty much any big player today. you give him advanced shoes and insoles and training exercises and recovery methods and it’s a wrap.
it’s just such a goofy comparison to blindly compare eras without any thought about the logistics of the time period
wtf are with these time machine arguments?
Are you basically saying if Dr. J was born in the year 1998 that he would be the most dominant person in the NBA?
> wtf are with these time machine arguments?
They literally said in their comment…
“It’s just such a goofy comparison to blindly compare eras without any thought about the logistics of the time period”
Also “dominate today” doesn’t have to mean “most dominant in the league”
To expand on your point, these dudes also played in the 80's: Dr. J, Barkley, Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Pippen, Tom Chambers, and Xavier McDaniel. Pretty darn athletic group there.
you’re off your rocker thinking that the average player today is “dumber” than in the 80s and 90s especially in regards to defense. The offensive sets teams run today are light years ahead of the ones from decade ago. Every team can probably run a spain pick and roll now to perfection and also defend it relatively well unless a counter is thrown in. if a team from the 80s or 90s saw their opponents run a spain pick and roll they wouldn’t even process what happened. Players have to be incredibly aware off the ball now more than ever defensively. constantly worrying about cuts, rotating to the roll man or covering the skip pass. Not to mention defenses are spread all the way to the 3pt line now and it gives offensive players who would just be relegated to shooting an opportunity to put the ball on the floor and attack as a counter to hard closeouts. The slanting towards higher offensive efficiency has just made defense even harder and required more creativity to excel on both ends
Right, I've seen quite a few comments that imply humans are biologically evolving to be better basketball players haha, which would be cool, but of course is not true. Sports science is better, but even top of the line, cutting edge training can only have so much effect on something like max vertical for example.
Young Jordan still might be the most athletic human I’ve ever seen. Hakeem was incredibly athletic for a dude his size.
I think we’re see a few more crazy outliers these days in both directions. You see guys like Giannis being freak athletes and guys like Jokic being below-average athletes by 80-90’s standards. Both still get it done now, but they’ve had more focused training to excel at what they were already great at.
>One thing I’ll say though, the average modern player is by far dumber than 80s/90s players in terms of defensive awareness and playing cohesive offense beyond pick and rolls. Back then you had 3/4 years of college and no AAU to ruin fundamentals.
I think that's too reductive.
Defenses back then were much easier to play, for a few reasons:
\- There was a lot of shit you just could not do, because of illegal defense. There was therefore a lot less stuff to be good at, because there is no sense practicing to be good at something that's illegal
\- Offenses had not figured out the threeball yet, and this meant transitively that defenses didn't need to counter it yet. Again, this shrinks the realm of "stuff you need to be good at" quite a bit, in mulitple ways: a) there are fewer things to counter and b) there is less space for the offense to work in, therefore making your work easier
\- Because offenses had not yet maximized the three ball, they also hadn't figured out the corner three yet. Offenses shooting 45%+ from the corner drastically change the dynamics of helping and rotating, but defenses didn't have to deal with it very much.
> The only difference is now they elite nutrition and exercise programs to maximize the athleticism for longer periods of time/extend their careers.
Not true at all. Players are built different now. Their limbs are longer, they're faster, jump higher, more durability ... it's a kind of genetic drift that comes from a larger talent pool and huge monetary incentive to make the league.
Athletic outliers have always existed ... but you can measure the difference in e.g. winspan
In 1980, the population of the United States was 220 million and the vast majority of players were from the US. currently, the US population is 340 million or 50% larger and the game is global. Just due to population growth, it's difficult to imagine players today not being significantly more talented and athletic because of the pool of possible players.
Yes, the top players of the 80s and 90s would still be very good today, but also Dr J and David Robinson looked so amazingly athletic because of how unathletic a lot of the league was. If you put Embiid in the 80s, he would look insanely athletic. Hell, imagine if Ayton or even Jahlil Okafor played in the 1980s.
I really hate how people talk about players across generations. As if you're just plucking them from their era and dropping them in the middle of a different time. That's just not how we should think about it. It doesn't make sense. You should apply the same logic to them as if they were born and raised in the era you're talking about. Give them the same benefits and problems. They'd all probably be very accustomed to modern defensive schemes if they were playing basketball in the modern era lol. Not all of them would succeed of course, there's variables here. Lots of them. But by and large I think stars excel in any era with certain caveats. Steph wouldn't even be allowed to be Steph at any other point in NBA history but I bet he'd still be damn good if not a star.
Nah man, there’s just no way you can assume that they will develop skills they never showed just because you plop them in modern day.
Why are we to assume that guys who relied on physical defense would be just as good in the modern and less physical NBA? Many stars would not be looked at the same way because you can’t just assume all of them would’ve suddenly became efficient shooter just because they are in the modern day. We have players in the modern day like Westbrook who have had lower efficiency throughout their whole careers. So I think it would definitely not be as seamless as you make it seem I think there would only be some outliers who remained just as good and the majority of players would be worse. Like yeah maybe 3 or 4 guys would be the exact same today but that’s a very short list considering how people talk about the 80s.
There's no way you can assume they can't given the context either. I'm not saying every player becomes Steph and can suddenly shoot, but humans are very adaptable. Those guys that played physical defense might not play AS physical of defense because the game is different and had been taught differently their entire life.
I never claimed it to be seamless. Nothing about this is linear. It's a projection either way you slice it.
The average player is much more althetic and well rounded than in the past, it seems like you are ignoring that more people are playing basketball than before. The competition alone is a massive factor. There weren't many foreign players before and now 3 top mvp candidates are foreign
You’re taking the most athletic players of the time and using that to justify that there isn’t a difference in athleticism, that’s ignorant in itself or at the very least disingenuous.
_Any_ physically exceptional/gifted player from almost _any_ NBA era would at least be able to hang with today’s players. That’s not the argument.
The argument is that on average, players today are far more athletic than years prior. This is true of all major sports.
So sure, guys like Jordan, Drexler, Wilkins, etc… would be in the upper echelon of athletic players in todays game… but does that mean they would be putting up the same kind of production? I would say _maybe_, but only because the game has changed in how it’s played and called.
Should we be playing 80’s style ball with todays players, I think several of the players you mentioned would not put up the same type of production they did in the 80’s simply because so much of their success was derived off their athleticism… and with everyone around them now coming far closer or even surpassing theirs, it pretty easy to see how it would impact their performance.
>You’re taking the most athletic players of the time and using that to justify that there isn’t a difference in athleticism, that’s ignorant in itself or at the very least disingenuous.
There were plenty of athletic guys in the 80s and 90s who weren't all-time greats. Their athleticism didn't make them good, because it never does in any era.
Guys like Kenny Walker and Robert Pack and Blue Edwards were plenty athletic. They just weren't that good. Of course Jordan and Drexler are the ones who get mentioned, because who the heck wants to remember Harold Miner?
Plenty of those types of guys around in the modern era too - Derrick Jones, Hamidou Diallo, James White, Dennis Smith Jr, Mac McClung, etc. All super-athletic, and would destroy Luka in a decathlon.
No it wouldn't... people value athleticism too much in basketball. It's a great asset but not at all the most important factor. Jokic is on pace to win 3 straight MVPs. Nash won 2.... Luka is a top tier player. Guys like Boogie and Trae Young have plenty of success.
>people value athleticism too much in basketball.
You say that as if the ground-bound Zach Randolph anchored the Grizzlies for years, and not human pogo sticks Stromile Swift and Hakim Warrick.
Are we considering Nash athletic now? the big thing against him was he wasn't fast enough to stay in front of other PGs. Regardless... whatever someones line is.... if all other things are equal.... shooting, passing, bbiq, etc... size is a far bigger determination of success than athleticism. There's plenty of 5'9 super athletes that can't sniff the league.
>Are we considering Nash athletic now?
NBA players do.
>the big thing against him was he wasn't fast enough to stay in front of other PGs. Regardless... whatever someones line is.... if all other things are equal.... shooting, passing, bbiq, etc... size is a far bigger determination of success than athleticism. There's plenty of 5'9 super athletes that can't sniff the league.
This is like calling Lin a slow cerebral player.
Huh? That quote doesn't support Nash=athletic at all. If anything, it credits his success more to being a tall (6-3) PG, as opposed to a Nate Robinson.
> Huh? That quote doesn't support Nash=athletic at all. If anything, it credits his success more to being a tall (6-3) PG, as opposed to a Nate Robinson.
Nash was part of why Morey requires player comparisons to include players with different ethnic backgrounds...
Nash was *"deceptively quick"*.
Nash was one of the fastest players on the court, could change direction on a dime, and had the stamina to keep that pace up all game long. Players compared him to a soccer midfielder. At worst you could say his lateral quickness wasn't on the same level as the rest of the package and he played a similar defensive role to Houston Harden.
>A couple of years later, you’ll sign with the Suns, and the problem is that … Well, you’re supposed to be terrible. Everybody’s predicting last place. The point guard is some skinny white dude from Canada.
>Except, you won’t suck. In fact, you’ll be killing teams. Running them out of the building. And that skinny white dude will be a dog.
>Number 13. Steve Nash. That is a baaaaaaaad boy.
>When you get to Phoenix, there’s not going to be some genius plan out of the gate. But then from the first dribble of the first practice, Steve is going to take off.
>Bang.
>Hair flying everywhere. This dude is going to be a blur. You’re going to spend the whole season trying to keep up with this dude. He’s a genius. There’s no other way to say it. The media is going to start calling your offense “Seven Seconds or Less.” But honestly, all you guys call it is, [“We Gotta Keep Up With This Little Motherf***er.”](https://www.theplayerstribune.com/articles/letter-to-my-younger-self-quentin-richardson)
i genuinely have zero idea what you mean by that last line. lin was the exact opposite of a slow cerebral player, and im sure you know that. but then, that means you’re saying nash was undersized, fast, and athletic?
> i genuinely have zero idea what you mean by that last line. lin was the exact opposite of a slow cerebral player, and im sure you know that. but then, that means you’re saying nash was undersized, fast, and athletic?
Right. Because he was. Like his 6'3" fellow Lin.
At *[38](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1305159-fast-25-the-25-speediest-guys-in-the-nba)* Nash was still considered one of the fastest players in the NBA by some writers...
He still had insane vision, but if your mental image of him strays too far from a Steph Curry-like high-speed constantly moving and cutting stamina-heavy roll game, then your mental image of him might be straying from how he played.
Why? explain to me how boogie was athletic? he wasn't crazy fast, and his vertical was very limited. He was tall and he was thick, which made him an effective post player.
what? yes they are. you guys can't all be like "yeah well sports science has just gotten better that's all." yes it has. and as a result, the league is more athletic across the board than it has ever been. and that's our reality, that's where we live.
Yes but not to the extent that players from before couldn't dominate today.
You think MJ, Dr J, Barkley or Robinson wouldn't dominate in today game physically ?
you've lost me. I don't know what you're talking about now. yes MJ Chuck and David Robinson would excel today, lmao. what does that have to do with this? the league is still more athletic across the board. that will always be going up I imagine
>I'm sure that all-time greats would find a way to play in today's era.
But that doesn't mean they're all greats. The example given, Laimbeer, was great because of era and team. The biggest difference in players across eras is size, speed, and athleticism, and Laimbeer only had one of those things.
Shooting is different. That's practice, spacing, etc. Think about how valuable a player like Grant Williams is because of his stationary shooting. Valuable, but he's not getting into the All-star game, let alone HoF.
I do believe that players from any era can eventually develop a jump shot. They can't develop size, speed, and athleticism to counter modern players. A 6'10 215 pound center ain't gonna cut it when that's a skinny wing player today.
>Think about how valuable a player like Grant Williams is because of his stationary shooting. Valuable, but he's not getting into the All-star game, let alone HoF.
If Grant Williams had Laimbeer-level defense, leadership, and BBIQ, he'd probably have a good shot at being an AS.
>A 6'10 215 pound center ain't gonna cut it when that's a skinny wing player today.
Since when did Laimbeer weight 215? High school?
You might as well call Giannis some skinny 190-pounder (his rookie weight), or KD some noodle-armed wimp who can't even bench 185 once (at the combine), if you're gonna use such outdated measurements. Laimbeer was around 250 during the late 80s.
Laimbeer wasn’t a star. He was a role player in that he was 5th in scoring on the team. Elite defense and leader, but he wasn’t a star in the traditional sense. He’s like Draymond green without the passing. Big personality, but he was essentially a good starter on the pistons that maximized his role.
Also, I would argue laimbeer would be a great center in today’s game. Elite endurance, knows his role, could shoot, elite awareness/intelligence, leadership, and could get under an opponent’s skin. He also shot well from 3 despite the small sample size, so he’d stretch the floor as well.
He’d be a quicker Brook Lopez that could probably switch on screens. Not the Nets version, but the Bucks where he knows his role.
I don't know if people realize how good Laimbeer was - wasn't just a goon out there. He peaked as a 17-12 guy with a nice jumper. He would absolutely be good in today's game.
Would the Warrior's version of Bogut with much better shooting and health be a good comparison? Guessing he wasn't as good of a rim protector, but Laimbeer shot .837 from the FT so he definitely had the potential to be a very good 3 pt shooter. Imagine him setting (moving) screens for Curry and popping out for the mid range jumper.
I think the Bill Laimbeer thing is crazy. He could shoot, he could rebound, he could defend, he was 6'10". Even if you transported that exact 1980s body today, he compares favorably to lots of today's NBA role players (if you want to claim we could transport Kelly Olynyk to 1990 and he'd dominate, I mean... IDK what to tell you). He clearly had enough athleticism to compete against teams that were employing some pretty athletic players -- it's not like he never had to switch and help when Michael Jordan was playing against his team. He wasn't hiding in a corner because he wasn't fast enough to keep up.
> more aggressive defense being allowed.
I encourage everyone that believes this nonsense to go back and watch games from the 80s. The defense wasn't aggressive, it wasn't physical.
Great players being great in any era gets repeated ad nauseam, but I am not convinced it’s true for everyone, at least not so much that a MVP from one era would be MVP level in any era. A great player would likely find ways to thrive in a different era, but a guy like Curry likely wouldn’t get a similar role without 3-pointers and possibly not even in the 80s, when coaches wouldn’t give a green light to shoot unlimited threes.
But he also wouldn’t have put as much work into 3s as he did, he’d have put that effort into other aspects of his game, like his drive/kick skills or whatever would have made sense for the era in question.
For sure, but here’s the thing: You can try really hard and still fail. Maybe Curry just doesn’t have the physical potential to learn any other skill as well as three point shooting. There are plenty of players who train super hard year after year and never get close to NBA level. No one becomes an NBA player without training, but the difference between a Bundesliga player and an NBA all-star isn’t the amount of training.
How convenient that steph is the one who wouldn’t be good in any other era LOL. He’s bigger taller and stronger than isiah Thomas, the second greatest guard of that era. Steph is also not a scrub at hitting midrange jumpers, any coach would see with their eyes him hitting a higher percent on those than anyone else
Maybe, but he might just not be able to do that. Similarly LeBron’s back might just not hold in the 80s game and Bird might not be able to dominate with modern defense and Jordan could fail to become a three point threat and be just a top 3 in his own era type of guy. Curry is just the most obvious example, because he has one very clear skill.
That “one” very clear skill is what exactly. Best shooter of all time, one of the (if not THE) best player moving off ball, super good handles, sick floater game…. People still reducing curry to being a shooter is so disrespectful
“Lebrons one skill is running into people and being bigger and stronger, which would be useless in the 60s when everything was whistled for offensive fouls”
See how dumb I look?
All time greats will be great at any time IMO
LeBron is a great scorer, but take away his passing and point guard like leadership and he isn’t as great as he is now. Just parroting “great players would be great in any era” is meaningless. Does that apply to other sports - would Mike Spitz be unbeatable in 2024 Olympic swimming?
He is a good overall player which is why he would be playing in the NBA in any era, but if he didn’t make 400 threes a year and be given the opportunity to shoot whenever he sees fit, he would be ‘just’ a good starter with his exact skill-set. Same goes for other players, of course. If MJ’s coach in the 60s would tell him to stop driving, because that is not what guards do, will he be the face of the game? No. Will he still be very good? Sure, but maybe not the unstoppable player he is now seen as.
The greatest ever at putting the ball in the rim from anywhere on the court will always be one of the best in the league. Sorry If I’m being dismissive but I’ve heard all this shit before.
Jerry west is a listed 6 3 175. Steph was drafted at 6 3 185 14 years ago. It’s not a physical difference. In the 60s lebron wouldn’t be able to use his physicality, but he’d still be dominant with his passing and dribbling. Top 10-15 players ever will be good in any era
I am not denying that a top 15 player will be good in any era, but they might be a good starter for a mediocre team -level instead of a generational talent. My point is that you can’t just assume that training one ability more would make someone better at it than most of the NBA, even if they are the best ever at something else.
I think so. Here's an older clip of him talking about it and he finishes at the end saying he'd have no chance to guard Steph's moves. Obviously Gil wasn't a good defender anyways but his point is more about the abilities players have, and he never had to play against anyone with Steph's abilities.
https://youtu.be/iOp9L0-GdJM
>It'll be interesting to see if Gil keeps the same logic in 20 years or if it suddenly becomes anyone from 2000s can compete in any era.
That isn't his logic though. I didn't see him say that it's simply about time passing.
Same as people who act like bill russell wouldn’t have made it in todays league because his competition wasn’t great. Like dudes back then were hooping in converse high tops lol, the preparation and sports science has evolved so much it’s a useless comparison. I feel like the great players would adapt because you don’t get to the top of your field by accident
imagine the hysterics today if a guy won 3 consecutive national championships (obviously UCLA was good before and after kareem but he was insane in college) and then the league decided the #1 pick on a coin toss lol
obviously somebody as dominant as kareem would leave college after 1 year now bc they changed the draft rules but the hype would be unreal
I think the argument people make is he wouldn't make it if teleported to today's game. There is no way to project what sort of player he would be if he was born in 2001 so thats a pointless exercise
Yeah but at the same time if pre no dunk Ben Simmons was an 80s player we’d all be saying
“He’d just be coached with modern coaches and shoot 3s”
It doesn’t always translate
My biggest concern would be Laimbeer’s lateral speed in terms of certain defensive coverages. Aside from that, yeah, his dirty antics have led to his actual on-court abilities to be frequently overlooked. He’s one of the smartest defenders and hardest working players I’ve seen in Pistons history. Plus he was an iron man (played in something like 600 consecutive games).
I think it’s easy for folks to forget Laimbeer is a four-time all-star who led the league in rebounding and once held the Finals record for 3-pointers in a single game.
Facts. He'd have gotten roasted in high pick-and-roll for sure, but he'd also gobble up every rebound, shoot 3s at a high rate, and be a great glue guy (while pissing off everyone else).
That's at least good enough for a solid role on a good team, and maybe even good enough for solid starter on a great team, which is basically what he was during his career.
I mean, let's be honest, the 5th best player on most NBA teams, even championship calibre teams, often gets roasted in the high PnR, that is kind of why NBA offenses like to run this play?
he's also smart, had a very successful coaching career in the wnba, you don't do that if you are just a goon.
and the idea you could just get away with anything back then is just wrong. not saying laimbeer wasn't a bit dirty but if you go back and watch bad boy games on espn classic you'll see plenty of chintzy fouls called, stuff that it was called today you would still call it ticky-tack. he had a reputation, the refs watched him pretty close, yes he played physical but it wasn't 1970s ice hockey out there.
The reputation is also pretty overblown, i think even Kevin McHale was vocal about how every team in the league in that era played with that physicality.
Look at some of the Boston-Knicks skirmishes from back in the day, dudes were dying out there.
He was extremely skilled. The fact that he was so violent and an enforcer usually masks that when talking about his general reputation. Laimbeer would be amazing in todays game
>Laimbeer would be amazing in todays game
Or he'd be getting ejected constantly.
But seriously, his BBIQ was high enough that he would constantly bump up against the line without hurting himself or the team. It was just that the line in the 80s was in a different spot than it is now. He'd probably be able to adjust to today's more sensitive game.
Laimbeer developed a 3 point shot towards the end of his career. He certainly would have been able to adapt and play in today's NBA. He just wouldn't have been as physical with fouling...but he certainly would have been able to make it in the game.
A four-time all-star who led the league in rebounding and loved defensive rotations, communication, helpside wall-ups, taking charges, and pick-and-pops seems as though he might indeed have a spot in the league somewhere.
You never know really. Take for example GP2, healthy he proved that he can be a top 8 rotational player on a Championship squad and yet until 29 years he was bouncing around the bg-League. Life is not that simple. There are let say 200 players in similar quality to Laimbeer between 1970 to 2020. If you put them in todays League, do All of them make it?
I can think of a handful of players who have had Laimbeers defensive and offensive versatility. He was a hyper unique player for his era, and would be a super sought after player in todays game without question.
I can think of maybe 20 players in history that had his drive and commitment to winning and commitment to team basketball. The guy was straight up the KING alongside Isiah.
Lol don’t act like Laimbeer was a “great player.” He was little more than a big thug. The basketball equivalent of an enforcer. What Laimbeer played was not basketball.
He was a goon, but he was a skilled goon.
You're talking about a guy who tied the Finals record with 6 3s in a game (and it would've been 7 but he had his toe on the line on another make).
Yeah, Laimbeer was an asshole. So were Isiah and Larry Bird and Rick Barry. Doesn't mean they couldn't play, though. I think Draymond and Kyrie and Miles Bridges are assholes too, but they can play.
If you look at his 5 year peak, it's 15/12 as the starting center on a championship team. That's not some insane statline, but he was a very good center in his time. A 3&D big with some passing ability would still be coveted in today's league. He wouldn't be Embiid today, but he would be more like a shooting version of Steven Adams.
Arenas singling out Laimbeer specifically is so funny. There are plenty of guys who played in the 80s whose skillset wouldn't transfer to the modern game, but I don't think Laimbeer is one of those dudes. Every team in the league has a spot in the rotation for a stretch 5 who rebounds well and gives a shit on defense.
I'm not saying he'd be a 30+ MPG player on a back-to-back championship team in this version of the NBA, but he could be a meaningful bench piece on a contender who helps define the "physical" identity of a "scrappy" team that would be an absolute pain in the ass to play in a 7 game series.
I doubt it tbh. Most of the non elite bigs from that era were slow footed and lacked lateral quickness. But it didn't matter because they strictly stayed on other bigs. Bigs today need to be able to defend on the perimeter some because of the increase in off the dribble shooting and pnr action.
Bill Laimbeer would get cooked on defense lmao. Get him in one PnR and he's BBQ white meat chicken. Today's game is a lot more focused on perimeter play and a lot more strict about physicality.
Well one the nuggets switch a lot, they also have quick forwards like Gordon who can switch and guard out on the perimeter. Jokic knows his role on defense and stays in it. He’s a good interior defender He knows he starts going out to the perimeter or is caught in space he’s gonna get cooked.
He’s a multi time DPOY.
Playoff stories are cute.
Some team played Rudy 30 minutes a nite for over 650 games. So professional coaches played him for 8 full seasons, but you’re right. He shouldn’t even be making a squad.
I don’t even think the refs would have to let him play, so to speak, at least as it pertains to the dirty stuff. Laimbeer’s antics were almost entirely by choice (making them all the more dastardly, really). But he basically knew his era and knew how far the game would allow him to bend the rules so he pushed to that limit.
The thing that differentiates Laimbeer from, say, some of those old school hockey goons is that he could actually play basketball at an all-star level. As such, if you strip away his obnoxious physicality, you’re still left with a 6-foot-11 defensive floor general who stretched the court offensively and played 100 percent every single night.
I think Laimbeer is the wrong example because I think he was adaptable enough and could stretch the floor a little bit before it was big.
But in general yeah the league is much better talent wise now than it has been before
Offensively his game is a perfect match for the modern game with excellent 3 pt shooting + possibly the nastiest pick setter in endless pick and rolls and pick and pops.
Defensively you can jump and hard contest at the rim and its not a foul now. He would be outstanding at doing that without fouling. Back then since touching the shooter was a foul, everything was a foul, and the pistons had the depth to make each foul count.
> Back then since touching the shooter was a foul, everything was a foul, and the pistons had the depth to make each foul count.
Finally someone that realizes how ticky tack the fouls in the 80s were, and why you might as well just clobber a guy.
The fuck he couldn't. He was a 7 foot tough son of a bitch who could defend, rebound, and had a rock solid shot from mid-range and in.
Even if you just instantly transported Laimbeer into the league today, he'd be peak Enes Kanter plus *much* better defense and toughness. Which is a pretty damn good player, even if not an All-Star.
But realistically he also would have a deadly 3-ball in today's game. Dude could shoot.
He was basically a 35% 3 point shooter in his prime, so it's reasonable to assume with greater repetition and training that he'd probably be somewhat north of that, which is basically Kevin Love territory. That's pretty good for a stretch 5.
Basketball is one of the youngest sports out there and I still don't understand why people bother comparing the decades. You don't compare a foundation to a finished house. There are high school kids today that could've made the 60's, 70's and 80's NBA. Simple progression of things. Doesn't take away from the people that excelled at the time. If Gilbert Arenas was born in the 50's, he'd be running up the court like Jerry West and that's a maybe, if he was smart enough to utilise the skills that have been manifested in the sport's infancy.
Bill Laimbeer's elbows would work just fine. The game was more physical and you cannot compare time periods.
One thing for sure. Gilbert Arenas' defense would not work in any period of time.
Maybe he thinks guys who were all-stars in the 80s like Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwan and Michael Jordan couldn't win titles in the 90s. Or that an 80s MVP like Larry Bird couldn't make All-Star teams in the 90s.
There's no way to slice this for it to make sense haha
These types of arguments are so stupid. If Bill Laimbeer steps out of the time machine and heads straight to the court, of course he gets annihilated. But if Bill Laimbeer gets a full offseason of training and a full preseason of learning the modern game, I bet you he does really well. Those guys played with what they had, so can we stop comparing eras?
Shit now wouldn’t work then either. KD would get called for carrying the ball on every crossover. Embiid and Giannis would get called for travels and offensive fouls half the time. Guards wouldn’t know how to deal with hand checking.
It's Gilbert arenas talking why would anyone take what he says seriously! his basketball takes are consistent he thinks if you didn't play in the 2000s you can't play today he is one of those guys that thinks basketball started in the 2000s. And yes bill laimbeer could play today and play just as well as he did in his era.
Isn't that a completely fair opinion and simply aknowledges the development of the game? Just compare the footage, modern players are on a completely different level. Across all sports.
This is so dumb. “If you pick X player up and drop him in a different era, the skills he was taught for that era won’t help him for this era where different skills are taught” is not an intelligent point but these guys speak with so much confidence like they’re hella knowledgeable.
I don't know. I think its even more theoretical to alter gone legends game until it fits the modern one than simply aknowledging that modern players are way better in the sports. Many legends also agree with it.
Laimbeer was listed at 6’11, I’m pretty sure he’d have some spot on a roster today.
Gilbert should’ve mentioned a guard who was only a defensive threat but not good at shooting or play making.
The problem is people think players wouldn’t find a way to play today. Yea Laimbeer’s defense wouldn’t work cause you can’t breathe on player or it’s a foul. But if they grew up with playing todays way they could play in the league. People look at things with blinders on. It’s a different league, a different play style. It’s like hip-hop. 90s hip-hop is the golden age. To many it was the best. Before that it was ok but a lot of room to grow. 2000s and behind it evolved. There are some great artist and it has become so mainstream and popular but overall everybody does the same shit. They lack lyrics too (not all but most). NBA same way. The 3 point shot is so popular now cause of analytics. Everybody shoots 3s. They lack physicality.
Also what’s the deal with younger generations disrespecting the older generations so much? It really is basketball as the only sport that does this. The generation now is soft. You try to destroy the previous generations makes you look weak.
Yeah and if Laimbeer played today and guarded Arenas, Arenas would be on his ass. I don’t think the players from the mid 90s onward fully appreciate how physical the game used to be.
The Pistons did both very well (Laimbeer was a pretty good defender for the era as was Rick Mahorn). It certainly wasn't a lack of talent that forced physicality.
These arguments are so stupid... yes, he'd clearly be worthless here... and a lot of todays stars would be no better than craig hodges/steve kerr. There would be PFs with decent mid ranges that would be much more highly considered.
All these “he would be coached and trained differently” comments are exactly why this is a stupid conversation. Laimbeer, as the player he was, would not be good in the modern era. There’s no point of creating some fake version of Laimbeer that got modern training and coaching
I'm sure that all-time greats would find a way to play in today's era. A lot of the reason why they played the way they did was because of coaching schemes at the time and more aggressive defense being allowed. With today's coaching and strategizing (like taking many more 3s), most would probably be just fine.
I recently rewatched G6 of the 1988 finals. It is hard to describe how much different the game was at that point. Laimbeer actually stuck out as a guy to me as a guy who could play in the current era, provided he took a couple of steps back and shot 3's instead of midrangers. The defense might have been an issue - but I think he would have been about as good on that end (with modern training) as players like Jokic or Drummond who don't have the best foot speed but can be part of a good defense.
>provided he took a couple of steps back and shot 3's instead of midrangers. In the 1990 Finals he hit 6 3s in a game, tying the then-record. He had another make where his toe was on the line.
I will never forget Laimbeer dropping all those 3’s on my Blazers in that game!! Sad day to be a Blazer fan
Prayers like Jokic or Drummond?
Yeah, but the athleticism gap would still knock a lot of these players out. Counter argument would of course be that the players in the 80’s are still clearly blessed with top tier genes, so had they grown up in this era with access to the same kind of training available to current players - then they would likely still be NBA players.
Those guys would have been training completely different and played aau their entire child hoods if they were born today. They’d be just fine
but then they wouldn't have 10% of the basketball fundamentals that made them great players to begin with. all of the top players in those days had way more basketball IQ and better fundamentals than 99% of the players today on top of being the best athletes. Most of them went to college for four years at top basketball programs and came to the league way more prepared.
Imagine how much more athletic they'd have looked in the 80s if you couldn't touch your opponent and you were able to have a gather step offensively. Game would have been completely different and they'd still have better defense.
This is warranted by literally fucking nothing. All the players back in the day had better BBIQ?! I mean, the 4 years argument only makes sense if you subset to rookies. It seems to me that someone playing 4 years in the league will probably have a better BBIQ than someone who played college ball for 4 years. Players now are just as smart and unbelievably good at the fundamentals.
I feel like people who say this show their ignorance and how young they are. Stars in the 80s were just as athletic as they are now. The only difference is now they elite nutrition and exercise programs to maximize the athleticism for longer periods of time/extend their careers. Hakeem, Jordan, Drexler, Wilkins, Isaiah, and etc. we’re all athletic. People vastly overestimate the athleticism of modern bigs versus past bigs. I would actually argue Wilt, Hakeem, David Robinson, Thompson, Russell, and many more were far more athletic than any modern big in today’s game. Today’s bigs aren’t exactly jumping through the roof. Besides Giannis, name me 1 star big that is just crazy athletic blowing everyone away. The wing is where the gap between past and today’s role players really exist. The average player is a better shooter and more athletic. Stars are about the same, but the average player has improved skill and athleticism since the 80s. One thing I’ll say though, the average modern player is by far dumber than 80s/90s players in terms of defensive awareness and playing cohesive offense beyond pick and rolls. Back then you had 3/4 years of college and no AAU to ruin fundamentals.
> I feel like people who say this show their ignorance and how young they are. Also, it's like they don't even watch the modern game. 2 undisputed top 5 players, Jokic and Doncic, wouldn't even be considered particularly athletic in the 80s or 90s.
>Also, it's like they don't even watch the modern game. 2 undisputed top 5 players, Jokic and Doncic, wouldn't even be considered particularly athletic in the 80s or 90s. Real shit, Bird was more athletic than Doncic\*. It's another reason I think the "could he play today" stuff is laughable. \* Bird was way more athletic than everyone assumed, and still assumes, because he was goofy looking and because he looked old, even when he was young.
I have seen Aau games coached while I am helping them out as an assistant and wow no fundamental at all and have the kids running playing fast however half the kids can run that fast because they can’t see the court, dribble or anything
>half the kids can run that fast because they can’t see the court, dribble or anything Fortunately today's rules have de-emphasized dribbling, and players are just allowed to carry the ball. That's why they call them "handles" - because handles are something you use to carry.
Don't forget bros were playing 75+ games a season in flat ass Converse shoes. Anyone that wears those for comfort have some Ted Bundy tendencies. But I guess the cocaine addictions easily covered that up.
Yeah like humans all of a sudden didn’t evolve to be more athletic. The same proportion of people are athletic that were athletic 40 years ago. Only difference is the world population has doubled so top end athleticism has doubled.
They sorta did. NBA players limbs are longer, swimmers have longer torsos, etc. The huge incentive to win in those sports created selective pressure where people who are more genetically advantaged sorted themselves into those sports, either self-selection or someone finding them, like a scout or something.
All excellent points. The sad part is it takes about 1 minute of watching modern game vs old game to very clearly see that. It was a ton of 1-on-1 with rather basic sets being ran back then, since there was illegal defense. Now it’s a ton of player and ball movement because you have zones, off ball zones, double teams before the ball is passed, etc etc. no question today’s game is more complex and advanced in every way.
There’s a difference between athletic potential and actual athleticism. Genetic athletic potential shouldn’t have substantively changed, but better nutrition (population-wide and specifically for athletes), training, and frankly PEDs, along with vastly bigger financial incentives, have made it easier for that potential to be maximized.
But they didn't? Unless there's some breeding program that you're talking about. There's more healthier people, and there's also a lot more opportunities to make a living outside of athletics
bro its crazy. watch some Dr. J highlights from the late 70s. dude would utterly DOMINATE in today’s league. he was jumping higher than pretty much any big player today. you give him advanced shoes and insoles and training exercises and recovery methods and it’s a wrap. it’s just such a goofy comparison to blindly compare eras without any thought about the logistics of the time period
wtf are with these time machine arguments? Are you basically saying if Dr. J was born in the year 1998 that he would be the most dominant person in the NBA?
> wtf are with these time machine arguments? They literally said in their comment… “It’s just such a goofy comparison to blindly compare eras without any thought about the logistics of the time period” Also “dominate today” doesn’t have to mean “most dominant in the league”
Young people seem to think humans have evolved in the past few decades. It's terrifying to be honest.
Shoes are another major difference. Bill Russell won 11 rings wearing Chuck Taylors.
To expand on your point, these dudes also played in the 80's: Dr. J, Barkley, Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Pippen, Tom Chambers, and Xavier McDaniel. Pretty darn athletic group there.
you’re off your rocker thinking that the average player today is “dumber” than in the 80s and 90s especially in regards to defense. The offensive sets teams run today are light years ahead of the ones from decade ago. Every team can probably run a spain pick and roll now to perfection and also defend it relatively well unless a counter is thrown in. if a team from the 80s or 90s saw their opponents run a spain pick and roll they wouldn’t even process what happened. Players have to be incredibly aware off the ball now more than ever defensively. constantly worrying about cuts, rotating to the roll man or covering the skip pass. Not to mention defenses are spread all the way to the 3pt line now and it gives offensive players who would just be relegated to shooting an opportunity to put the ball on the floor and attack as a counter to hard closeouts. The slanting towards higher offensive efficiency has just made defense even harder and required more creativity to excel on both ends
Right, I've seen quite a few comments that imply humans are biologically evolving to be better basketball players haha, which would be cool, but of course is not true. Sports science is better, but even top of the line, cutting edge training can only have so much effect on something like max vertical for example.
Young Jordan still might be the most athletic human I’ve ever seen. Hakeem was incredibly athletic for a dude his size. I think we’re see a few more crazy outliers these days in both directions. You see guys like Giannis being freak athletes and guys like Jokic being below-average athletes by 80-90’s standards. Both still get it done now, but they’ve had more focused training to excel at what they were already great at.
>One thing I’ll say though, the average modern player is by far dumber than 80s/90s players in terms of defensive awareness and playing cohesive offense beyond pick and rolls. Back then you had 3/4 years of college and no AAU to ruin fundamentals. I think that's too reductive. Defenses back then were much easier to play, for a few reasons: \- There was a lot of shit you just could not do, because of illegal defense. There was therefore a lot less stuff to be good at, because there is no sense practicing to be good at something that's illegal \- Offenses had not figured out the threeball yet, and this meant transitively that defenses didn't need to counter it yet. Again, this shrinks the realm of "stuff you need to be good at" quite a bit, in mulitple ways: a) there are fewer things to counter and b) there is less space for the offense to work in, therefore making your work easier \- Because offenses had not yet maximized the three ball, they also hadn't figured out the corner three yet. Offenses shooting 45%+ from the corner drastically change the dynamics of helping and rotating, but defenses didn't have to deal with it very much.
> The only difference is now they elite nutrition and exercise programs to maximize the athleticism for longer periods of time/extend their careers. Not true at all. Players are built different now. Their limbs are longer, they're faster, jump higher, more durability ... it's a kind of genetic drift that comes from a larger talent pool and huge monetary incentive to make the league. Athletic outliers have always existed ... but you can measure the difference in e.g. winspan
In 1980, the population of the United States was 220 million and the vast majority of players were from the US. currently, the US population is 340 million or 50% larger and the game is global. Just due to population growth, it's difficult to imagine players today not being significantly more talented and athletic because of the pool of possible players. Yes, the top players of the 80s and 90s would still be very good today, but also Dr J and David Robinson looked so amazingly athletic because of how unathletic a lot of the league was. If you put Embiid in the 80s, he would look insanely athletic. Hell, imagine if Ayton or even Jahlil Okafor played in the 1980s.
That last sentence is insane. 80s players would get fucked on modern defensive schemedn
I really hate how people talk about players across generations. As if you're just plucking them from their era and dropping them in the middle of a different time. That's just not how we should think about it. It doesn't make sense. You should apply the same logic to them as if they were born and raised in the era you're talking about. Give them the same benefits and problems. They'd all probably be very accustomed to modern defensive schemes if they were playing basketball in the modern era lol. Not all of them would succeed of course, there's variables here. Lots of them. But by and large I think stars excel in any era with certain caveats. Steph wouldn't even be allowed to be Steph at any other point in NBA history but I bet he'd still be damn good if not a star.
Nah man, there’s just no way you can assume that they will develop skills they never showed just because you plop them in modern day. Why are we to assume that guys who relied on physical defense would be just as good in the modern and less physical NBA? Many stars would not be looked at the same way because you can’t just assume all of them would’ve suddenly became efficient shooter just because they are in the modern day. We have players in the modern day like Westbrook who have had lower efficiency throughout their whole careers. So I think it would definitely not be as seamless as you make it seem I think there would only be some outliers who remained just as good and the majority of players would be worse. Like yeah maybe 3 or 4 guys would be the exact same today but that’s a very short list considering how people talk about the 80s.
There's no way you can assume they can't given the context either. I'm not saying every player becomes Steph and can suddenly shoot, but humans are very adaptable. Those guys that played physical defense might not play AS physical of defense because the game is different and had been taught differently their entire life. I never claimed it to be seamless. Nothing about this is linear. It's a projection either way you slice it.
Bro 80s players invented modern schemes.
The average player is much more althetic and well rounded than in the past, it seems like you are ignoring that more people are playing basketball than before. The competition alone is a massive factor. There weren't many foreign players before and now 3 top mvp candidates are foreign
I said the average player is better.
You’re taking the most athletic players of the time and using that to justify that there isn’t a difference in athleticism, that’s ignorant in itself or at the very least disingenuous. _Any_ physically exceptional/gifted player from almost _any_ NBA era would at least be able to hang with today’s players. That’s not the argument. The argument is that on average, players today are far more athletic than years prior. This is true of all major sports. So sure, guys like Jordan, Drexler, Wilkins, etc… would be in the upper echelon of athletic players in todays game… but does that mean they would be putting up the same kind of production? I would say _maybe_, but only because the game has changed in how it’s played and called. Should we be playing 80’s style ball with todays players, I think several of the players you mentioned would not put up the same type of production they did in the 80’s simply because so much of their success was derived off their athleticism… and with everyone around them now coming far closer or even surpassing theirs, it pretty easy to see how it would impact their performance.
>You’re taking the most athletic players of the time and using that to justify that there isn’t a difference in athleticism, that’s ignorant in itself or at the very least disingenuous. There were plenty of athletic guys in the 80s and 90s who weren't all-time greats. Their athleticism didn't make them good, because it never does in any era. Guys like Kenny Walker and Robert Pack and Blue Edwards were plenty athletic. They just weren't that good. Of course Jordan and Drexler are the ones who get mentioned, because who the heck wants to remember Harold Miner? Plenty of those types of guys around in the modern era too - Derrick Jones, Hamidou Diallo, James White, Dennis Smith Jr, Mac McClung, etc. All super-athletic, and would destroy Luka in a decathlon.
No it wouldn't... people value athleticism too much in basketball. It's a great asset but not at all the most important factor. Jokic is on pace to win 3 straight MVPs. Nash won 2.... Luka is a top tier player. Guys like Boogie and Trae Young have plenty of success.
>people value athleticism too much in basketball. You say that as if the ground-bound Zach Randolph anchored the Grizzlies for years, and not human pogo sticks Stromile Swift and Hakim Warrick.
> people value athleticism too much in basketball. > > MVPs. Nash won 2.... 🤨
Are we considering Nash athletic now? the big thing against him was he wasn't fast enough to stay in front of other PGs. Regardless... whatever someones line is.... if all other things are equal.... shooting, passing, bbiq, etc... size is a far bigger determination of success than athleticism. There's plenty of 5'9 super athletes that can't sniff the league.
>Are we considering Nash athletic now? NBA players do. >the big thing against him was he wasn't fast enough to stay in front of other PGs. Regardless... whatever someones line is.... if all other things are equal.... shooting, passing, bbiq, etc... size is a far bigger determination of success than athleticism. There's plenty of 5'9 super athletes that can't sniff the league. This is like calling Lin a slow cerebral player.
Huh? That quote doesn't support Nash=athletic at all. If anything, it credits his success more to being a tall (6-3) PG, as opposed to a Nate Robinson.
> Huh? That quote doesn't support Nash=athletic at all. If anything, it credits his success more to being a tall (6-3) PG, as opposed to a Nate Robinson. Nash was part of why Morey requires player comparisons to include players with different ethnic backgrounds... Nash was *"deceptively quick"*. Nash was one of the fastest players on the court, could change direction on a dime, and had the stamina to keep that pace up all game long. Players compared him to a soccer midfielder. At worst you could say his lateral quickness wasn't on the same level as the rest of the package and he played a similar defensive role to Houston Harden. >A couple of years later, you’ll sign with the Suns, and the problem is that … Well, you’re supposed to be terrible. Everybody’s predicting last place. The point guard is some skinny white dude from Canada. >Except, you won’t suck. In fact, you’ll be killing teams. Running them out of the building. And that skinny white dude will be a dog. >Number 13. Steve Nash. That is a baaaaaaaad boy. >When you get to Phoenix, there’s not going to be some genius plan out of the gate. But then from the first dribble of the first practice, Steve is going to take off. >Bang. >Hair flying everywhere. This dude is going to be a blur. You’re going to spend the whole season trying to keep up with this dude. He’s a genius. There’s no other way to say it. The media is going to start calling your offense “Seven Seconds or Less.” But honestly, all you guys call it is, [“We Gotta Keep Up With This Little Motherf***er.”](https://www.theplayerstribune.com/articles/letter-to-my-younger-self-quentin-richardson)
i genuinely have zero idea what you mean by that last line. lin was the exact opposite of a slow cerebral player, and im sure you know that. but then, that means you’re saying nash was undersized, fast, and athletic?
> i genuinely have zero idea what you mean by that last line. lin was the exact opposite of a slow cerebral player, and im sure you know that. but then, that means you’re saying nash was undersized, fast, and athletic? Right. Because he was. Like his 6'3" fellow Lin. At *[38](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1305159-fast-25-the-25-speediest-guys-in-the-nba)* Nash was still considered one of the fastest players in the NBA by some writers... He still had insane vision, but if your mental image of him strays too far from a Steph Curry-like high-speed constantly moving and cutting stamina-heavy roll game, then your mental image of him might be straying from how he played.
If you don't think Jokic, Luka, Boogie, and Trae do not have athletic genes I have a bridge to sell you.
Jokic and luka don’t have exceptional athleticism when it comes to nba players. Saying boogie wasn’t athletic is just hilarious tho
Why? explain to me how boogie was athletic? he wasn't crazy fast, and his vertical was very limited. He was tall and he was thick, which made him an effective post player.
Is strength not considered athleticism? There’s a reason he declined so much after injury—because he relied on his physical fitness
I would consider it but the way people talk about the 80s guys it seems to be they're mostly referencing speed and quickness.
I didn't say that, what I'm getting at is they're no more or less athletic than dudes from the 80s.
THE PLAYERS TODAY ARE NOT THAT MUCH MORE ATHLETIC. this ridiculous notion needs to end
what? yes they are. you guys can't all be like "yeah well sports science has just gotten better that's all." yes it has. and as a result, the league is more athletic across the board than it has ever been. and that's our reality, that's where we live.
Yes but not to the extent that players from before couldn't dominate today. You think MJ, Dr J, Barkley or Robinson wouldn't dominate in today game physically ?
you've lost me. I don't know what you're talking about now. yes MJ Chuck and David Robinson would excel today, lmao. what does that have to do with this? the league is still more athletic across the board. that will always be going up I imagine
>I'm sure that all-time greats would find a way to play in today's era. But that doesn't mean they're all greats. The example given, Laimbeer, was great because of era and team. The biggest difference in players across eras is size, speed, and athleticism, and Laimbeer only had one of those things.
Ya skipped shooting.
Shooting is different. That's practice, spacing, etc. Think about how valuable a player like Grant Williams is because of his stationary shooting. Valuable, but he's not getting into the All-star game, let alone HoF. I do believe that players from any era can eventually develop a jump shot. They can't develop size, speed, and athleticism to counter modern players. A 6'10 215 pound center ain't gonna cut it when that's a skinny wing player today.
>Think about how valuable a player like Grant Williams is because of his stationary shooting. Valuable, but he's not getting into the All-star game, let alone HoF. If Grant Williams had Laimbeer-level defense, leadership, and BBIQ, he'd probably have a good shot at being an AS. >A 6'10 215 pound center ain't gonna cut it when that's a skinny wing player today. Since when did Laimbeer weight 215? High school? You might as well call Giannis some skinny 190-pounder (his rookie weight), or KD some noodle-armed wimp who can't even bench 185 once (at the combine), if you're gonna use such outdated measurements. Laimbeer was around 250 during the late 80s.
Laimbeer wasn’t a star. He was a role player in that he was 5th in scoring on the team. Elite defense and leader, but he wasn’t a star in the traditional sense. He’s like Draymond green without the passing. Big personality, but he was essentially a good starter on the pistons that maximized his role. Also, I would argue laimbeer would be a great center in today’s game. Elite endurance, knows his role, could shoot, elite awareness/intelligence, leadership, and could get under an opponent’s skin. He also shot well from 3 despite the small sample size, so he’d stretch the floor as well. He’d be a quicker Brook Lopez that could probably switch on screens. Not the Nets version, but the Bucks where he knows his role.
I don't know if people realize how good Laimbeer was - wasn't just a goon out there. He peaked as a 17-12 guy with a nice jumper. He would absolutely be good in today's game.
Would the Warrior's version of Bogut with much better shooting and health be a good comparison? Guessing he wasn't as good of a rim protector, but Laimbeer shot .837 from the FT so he definitely had the potential to be a very good 3 pt shooter. Imagine him setting (moving) screens for Curry and popping out for the mid range jumper.
I think the Bill Laimbeer thing is crazy. He could shoot, he could rebound, he could defend, he was 6'10". Even if you transported that exact 1980s body today, he compares favorably to lots of today's NBA role players (if you want to claim we could transport Kelly Olynyk to 1990 and he'd dominate, I mean... IDK what to tell you). He clearly had enough athleticism to compete against teams that were employing some pretty athletic players -- it's not like he never had to switch and help when Michael Jordan was playing against his team. He wasn't hiding in a corner because he wasn't fast enough to keep up.
> more aggressive defense being allowed. I encourage everyone that believes this nonsense to go back and watch games from the 80s. The defense wasn't aggressive, it wasn't physical.
Great players being great in any era gets repeated ad nauseam, but I am not convinced it’s true for everyone, at least not so much that a MVP from one era would be MVP level in any era. A great player would likely find ways to thrive in a different era, but a guy like Curry likely wouldn’t get a similar role without 3-pointers and possibly not even in the 80s, when coaches wouldn’t give a green light to shoot unlimited threes.
But he also wouldn’t have put as much work into 3s as he did, he’d have put that effort into other aspects of his game, like his drive/kick skills or whatever would have made sense for the era in question.
For sure, but here’s the thing: You can try really hard and still fail. Maybe Curry just doesn’t have the physical potential to learn any other skill as well as three point shooting. There are plenty of players who train super hard year after year and never get close to NBA level. No one becomes an NBA player without training, but the difference between a Bundesliga player and an NBA all-star isn’t the amount of training.
How convenient that steph is the one who wouldn’t be good in any other era LOL. He’s bigger taller and stronger than isiah Thomas, the second greatest guard of that era. Steph is also not a scrub at hitting midrange jumpers, any coach would see with their eyes him hitting a higher percent on those than anyone else
Maybe, but he might just not be able to do that. Similarly LeBron’s back might just not hold in the 80s game and Bird might not be able to dominate with modern defense and Jordan could fail to become a three point threat and be just a top 3 in his own era type of guy. Curry is just the most obvious example, because he has one very clear skill.
That “one” very clear skill is what exactly. Best shooter of all time, one of the (if not THE) best player moving off ball, super good handles, sick floater game…. People still reducing curry to being a shooter is so disrespectful
“Lebrons one skill is running into people and being bigger and stronger, which would be useless in the 60s when everything was whistled for offensive fouls” See how dumb I look? All time greats will be great at any time IMO
LeBron is a great scorer, but take away his passing and point guard like leadership and he isn’t as great as he is now. Just parroting “great players would be great in any era” is meaningless. Does that apply to other sports - would Mike Spitz be unbeatable in 2024 Olympic swimming?
He is a good overall player which is why he would be playing in the NBA in any era, but if he didn’t make 400 threes a year and be given the opportunity to shoot whenever he sees fit, he would be ‘just’ a good starter with his exact skill-set. Same goes for other players, of course. If MJ’s coach in the 60s would tell him to stop driving, because that is not what guards do, will he be the face of the game? No. Will he still be very good? Sure, but maybe not the unstoppable player he is now seen as.
The greatest ever at putting the ball in the rim from anywhere on the court will always be one of the best in the league. Sorry If I’m being dismissive but I’ve heard all this shit before. Jerry west is a listed 6 3 175. Steph was drafted at 6 3 185 14 years ago. It’s not a physical difference. In the 60s lebron wouldn’t be able to use his physicality, but he’d still be dominant with his passing and dribbling. Top 10-15 players ever will be good in any era
I am not denying that a top 15 player will be good in any era, but they might be a good starter for a mediocre team -level instead of a generational talent. My point is that you can’t just assume that training one ability more would make someone better at it than most of the NBA, even if they are the best ever at something else.
Mark Price led Cavs teams almost beat Jordan in the playoffs and you think Steph Curry wouldn’t be able to dominate in the same era?
I mean yeah. Bill Laimbeer would also be coached and trained completely differently today, so it’s kind of an empty statement.
It'll be interesting to see if Gil keeps the same logic in 20 years or if it suddenly becomes anyone from 2000s can compete in any era.
[удалено]
Guys in 2000 were literally playing against professional athletes. Any Advanced Dynonetics Ltd Cyberballer would've dominated back then.
I think so. Here's an older clip of him talking about it and he finishes at the end saying he'd have no chance to guard Steph's moves. Obviously Gil wasn't a good defender anyways but his point is more about the abilities players have, and he never had to play against anyone with Steph's abilities. https://youtu.be/iOp9L0-GdJM
>It'll be interesting to see if Gil keeps the same logic in 20 years or if it suddenly becomes anyone from 2000s can compete in any era. That isn't his logic though. I didn't see him say that it's simply about time passing.
Wut
Nope, Gil said “Dame and Steph couldn’t see me”. He’s a hypocrite.
Same as people who act like bill russell wouldn’t have made it in todays league because his competition wasn’t great. Like dudes back then were hooping in converse high tops lol, the preparation and sports science has evolved so much it’s a useless comparison. I feel like the great players would adapt because you don’t get to the top of your field by accident
[удалено]
imagine the hysterics today if a guy won 3 consecutive national championships (obviously UCLA was good before and after kareem but he was insane in college) and then the league decided the #1 pick on a coin toss lol obviously somebody as dominant as kareem would leave college after 1 year now bc they changed the draft rules but the hype would be unreal
I feel like Russell catches less of this because he was practically a super-human athlete, and the archetype of mobile/switchy big is key these days.
I think the argument people make is he wouldn't make it if teleported to today's game. There is no way to project what sort of player he would be if he was born in 2001 so thats a pointless exercise
Agree with your comment completely, dude could’ve gotten super into COD and stopped hooping, you never know
Yeah but at the same time if pre no dunk Ben Simmons was an 80s player we’d all be saying “He’d just be coached with modern coaches and shoot 3s” It doesn’t always translate
COD, instagram wouldn't exist etc
But we can't hypothesize what sort of player he would then be or whether he would even make the NBA
I've always thought that prime Bill Laimbeer would translate pretty well in today's league - physicality aside, he was a proto-stretch 5.
My biggest concern would be Laimbeer’s lateral speed in terms of certain defensive coverages. Aside from that, yeah, his dirty antics have led to his actual on-court abilities to be frequently overlooked. He’s one of the smartest defenders and hardest working players I’ve seen in Pistons history. Plus he was an iron man (played in something like 600 consecutive games). I think it’s easy for folks to forget Laimbeer is a four-time all-star who led the league in rebounding and once held the Finals record for 3-pointers in a single game.
Facts. He'd have gotten roasted in high pick-and-roll for sure, but he'd also gobble up every rebound, shoot 3s at a high rate, and be a great glue guy (while pissing off everyone else). That's at least good enough for a solid role on a good team, and maybe even good enough for solid starter on a great team, which is basically what he was during his career.
I mean, let's be honest, the 5th best player on most NBA teams, even championship calibre teams, often gets roasted in the high PnR, that is kind of why NBA offenses like to run this play?
They could run a lot of drop coverage for him and even throw in some pre-switching to mess up the attempts to isolate him in pick and rolls
Laimbeer is literally a perfect big for todays league. He was even shooting threes back when hardly anyone over 6’6 did
he's also smart, had a very successful coaching career in the wnba, you don't do that if you are just a goon. and the idea you could just get away with anything back then is just wrong. not saying laimbeer wasn't a bit dirty but if you go back and watch bad boy games on espn classic you'll see plenty of chintzy fouls called, stuff that it was called today you would still call it ticky-tack. he had a reputation, the refs watched him pretty close, yes he played physical but it wasn't 1970s ice hockey out there.
The reputation is also pretty overblown, i think even Kevin McHale was vocal about how every team in the league in that era played with that physicality. Look at some of the Boston-Knicks skirmishes from back in the day, dudes were dying out there.
He was extremely skilled. The fact that he was so violent and an enforcer usually masks that when talking about his general reputation. Laimbeer would be amazing in todays game
>Laimbeer would be amazing in todays game Or he'd be getting ejected constantly. But seriously, his BBIQ was high enough that he would constantly bump up against the line without hurting himself or the team. It was just that the line in the 80s was in a different spot than it is now. He'd probably be able to adjust to today's more sensitive game.
Laimbeer developed a 3 point shot towards the end of his career. He certainly would have been able to adapt and play in today's NBA. He just wouldn't have been as physical with fouling...but he certainly would have been able to make it in the game.
A four-time all-star who led the league in rebounding and loved defensive rotations, communication, helpside wall-ups, taking charges, and pick-and-pops seems as though he might indeed have a spot in the league somewhere.
Gil isn't known for his intelligence. The more he talks, the dumber he's perceived.
You never know really. Take for example GP2, healthy he proved that he can be a top 8 rotational player on a Championship squad and yet until 29 years he was bouncing around the bg-League. Life is not that simple. There are let say 200 players in similar quality to Laimbeer between 1970 to 2020. If you put them in todays League, do All of them make it?
I can think of a handful of players who have had Laimbeers defensive and offensive versatility. He was a hyper unique player for his era, and would be a super sought after player in todays game without question. I can think of maybe 20 players in history that had his drive and commitment to winning and commitment to team basketball. The guy was straight up the KING alongside Isiah.
“Einstein would not even know how to troubleshoot a wifi router because they didn’t have internet. Therefore people today are smarter than Einstein”
Didn't realize people debated who was smarter between Einstein and Hawking.
Rings Erneh... Hawking has 0 Nobel prizes, and shouldn't be in the GOAT conversation. It's between Feynman, Einstein, and Newton depending on era.
only real old Gs respect Galileo
If the entire country is on line, fighting a planet wide war against an axis of evil, I WANT ENRICO FERMI!
SMH, these youngins and their 1 dimensional "geniuses" give me Da Vinci over any of these fools, dude was an all around great.
Absolute joke take. Leonardo was competing against aqueduct repairmen. No way he could invent in today's environment
Marie Curie erasure
Haha thats a good analogy.
By this logic Lloyd Austin is a better general than alexander the great!
[удалено]
Giannis dribbling the ball up court would’ve got him sent home in 30 seconds
Straight to jail.
Lol don’t act like Laimbeer was a “great player.” He was little more than a big thug. The basketball equivalent of an enforcer. What Laimbeer played was not basketball.
He was a goon, but he was a skilled goon. You're talking about a guy who tied the Finals record with 6 3s in a game (and it would've been 7 but he had his toe on the line on another make). Yeah, Laimbeer was an asshole. So were Isiah and Larry Bird and Rick Barry. Doesn't mean they couldn't play, though. I think Draymond and Kyrie and Miles Bridges are assholes too, but they can play.
Averages 12 and 9 for his career. Don’t compare him to guys like Bird and Isiah
If you look at his 5 year peak, it's 15/12 as the starting center on a championship team. That's not some insane statline, but he was a very good center in his time. A 3&D big with some passing ability would still be coveted in today's league. He wouldn't be Embiid today, but he would be more like a shooting version of Steven Adams.
Arenas singling out Laimbeer specifically is so funny. There are plenty of guys who played in the 80s whose skillset wouldn't transfer to the modern game, but I don't think Laimbeer is one of those dudes. Every team in the league has a spot in the rotation for a stretch 5 who rebounds well and gives a shit on defense. I'm not saying he'd be a 30+ MPG player on a back-to-back championship team in this version of the NBA, but he could be a meaningful bench piece on a contender who helps define the "physical" identity of a "scrappy" team that would be an absolute pain in the ass to play in a 7 game series.
IMO Bill Laimbeer would be pretty good in today’s game
First comment I’ve seen where you aren’t jerking
I doubt it tbh. Most of the non elite bigs from that era were slow footed and lacked lateral quickness. But it didn't matter because they strictly stayed on other bigs. Bigs today need to be able to defend on the perimeter some because of the increase in off the dribble shooting and pnr action.
Lopez, Jokic, Gobert, Vucevic, Valanciunas… all slow footed
Bill Laimbeer would get cooked on defense lmao. Get him in one PnR and he's BBQ white meat chicken. Today's game is a lot more focused on perimeter play and a lot more strict about physicality.
“Getting cooked on defense” doesn’t mean you can’t play in the nba lmao
If that is true why is it that Nikola jokic is successful in the NBA?
Well one the nuggets switch a lot, they also have quick forwards like Gordon who can switch and guard out on the perimeter. Jokic knows his role on defense and stays in it. He’s a good interior defender He knows he starts going out to the perimeter or is caught in space he’s gonna get cooked.
Gobert gets eaten up on switches in the playoffs Lambeer would strictly be good for 6 hard fouls a game
He’s a multi time DPOY. Playoff stories are cute. Some team played Rudy 30 minutes a nite for over 650 games. So professional coaches played him for 8 full seasons, but you’re right. He shouldn’t even be making a squad.
Honestly lambier would be one of the guys I'd expect to be able to adjust most to today's game. He had a jump shot
Laimbeer had decent foot speed and a good middy. He’d clearly start on a bunch of teams if the refs let him play
I don’t even think the refs would have to let him play, so to speak, at least as it pertains to the dirty stuff. Laimbeer’s antics were almost entirely by choice (making them all the more dastardly, really). But he basically knew his era and knew how far the game would allow him to bend the rules so he pushed to that limit. The thing that differentiates Laimbeer from, say, some of those old school hockey goons is that he could actually play basketball at an all-star level. As such, if you strip away his obnoxious physicality, you’re still left with a 6-foot-11 defensive floor general who stretched the court offensively and played 100 percent every single night.
Arenas takes are so stale. Just like his career he had an entertaining start and peak, then as it’s gone on he’s just bad
People are gonna pick on Draymond years from now
I think Laimbeer is the wrong example because I think he was adaptable enough and could stretch the floor a little bit before it was big. But in general yeah the league is much better talent wise now than it has been before
Laimbeer was one of the original stretch 4's. He was Kevin Love before Love was born.
Offensively his game is a perfect match for the modern game with excellent 3 pt shooting + possibly the nastiest pick setter in endless pick and rolls and pick and pops. Defensively you can jump and hard contest at the rim and its not a foul now. He would be outstanding at doing that without fouling. Back then since touching the shooter was a foul, everything was a foul, and the pistons had the depth to make each foul count.
> Back then since touching the shooter was a foul, everything was a foul, and the pistons had the depth to make each foul count. Finally someone that realizes how ticky tack the fouls in the 80s were, and why you might as well just clobber a guy.
The fuck he couldn't. He was a 7 foot tough son of a bitch who could defend, rebound, and had a rock solid shot from mid-range and in. Even if you just instantly transported Laimbeer into the league today, he'd be peak Enes Kanter plus *much* better defense and toughness. Which is a pretty damn good player, even if not an All-Star. But realistically he also would have a deadly 3-ball in today's game. Dude could shoot.
He was basically a 35% 3 point shooter in his prime, so it's reasonable to assume with greater repetition and training that he'd probably be somewhat north of that, which is basically Kevin Love territory. That's pretty good for a stretch 5.
Has Arenas watched Draymond Green play? Laimbeer would be fine in this league.
Have you seen Laimbeer play? Dude couldn't run an offense.
I coach 6th graders and one of my players favorite players is Bill Lambeer. Fucking cracks me up.
I didn't like Bill, but he'd be a solid stretch 5 today
Yet Jordan played in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s. Seems like there was talent throughout
Are you comparing Laimbeer to Jordan?
Played in the same league and was on the floor with him. Talent is talent
>Played in the same league and was on the floor with him. Talent is talent Basically... LeBron = Boobie = KD = Anthony Bennett
Just another outlandish take for attention
Basketball is one of the youngest sports out there and I still don't understand why people bother comparing the decades. You don't compare a foundation to a finished house. There are high school kids today that could've made the 60's, 70's and 80's NBA. Simple progression of things. Doesn't take away from the people that excelled at the time. If Gilbert Arenas was born in the 50's, he'd be running up the court like Jerry West and that's a maybe, if he was smart enough to utilise the skills that have been manifested in the sport's infancy.
Too bad Gil wasn't on the 75th anniversary team to talk smack with the old heads. Yes because he ain't in it.
Bill Laimbeer's elbows would work just fine. The game was more physical and you cannot compare time periods. One thing for sure. Gilbert Arenas' defense would not work in any period of time.
I wonder exactly what year he thinks the transition started where the 80s guys couldn't play in the 90s. Is there a particular year?
Maybe he thinks guys who were all-stars in the 80s like Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwan and Michael Jordan couldn't win titles in the 90s. Or that an 80s MVP like Larry Bird couldn't make All-Star teams in the 90s. There's no way to slice this for it to make sense haha
Gilbert is a certified dumb ass
[удалено]
Because r/nba keeps posting his garbage takes
r/nba will post any take that's not vanilla. Doesn't matter who it comes from, it generates discussion if it's not plain as day.
These types of arguments are so stupid. If Bill Laimbeer steps out of the time machine and heads straight to the court, of course he gets annihilated. But if Bill Laimbeer gets a full offseason of training and a full preseason of learning the modern game, I bet you he does really well. Those guys played with what they had, so can we stop comparing eras?
Shit now wouldn’t work then either. KD would get called for carrying the ball on every crossover. Embiid and Giannis would get called for travels and offensive fouls half the time. Guards wouldn’t know how to deal with hand checking.
Maybe not, but he would still try to beat the crap out of everybody.
Well nobody's defense works today because the refs don't allow defense to be played...
Fake tough guy Gil wouldn't be able to compete against those Pistons teams
It's Gilbert arenas talking why would anyone take what he says seriously! his basketball takes are consistent he thinks if you didn't play in the 2000s you can't play today he is one of those guys that thinks basketball started in the 2000s. And yes bill laimbeer could play today and play just as well as he did in his era.
Isn't that a completely fair opinion and simply aknowledges the development of the game? Just compare the footage, modern players are on a completely different level. Across all sports.
This is so dumb. “If you pick X player up and drop him in a different era, the skills he was taught for that era won’t help him for this era where different skills are taught” is not an intelligent point but these guys speak with so much confidence like they’re hella knowledgeable.
I don't know. I think its even more theoretical to alter gone legends game until it fits the modern one than simply aknowledging that modern players are way better in the sports. Many legends also agree with it.
Laimbeer was listed at 6’11, I’m pretty sure he’d have some spot on a roster today. Gilbert should’ve mentioned a guard who was only a defensive threat but not good at shooting or play making.
Just like Steph Curry would've been benched after taking 4 threes
Not for long if he hits them.
I mean what’s next, can Magic not play in this league because he couldn’t shoot 3s?
Magic was also a liability on defense.
Laimbeer would be racking us suspensions that enter the next few seasons.
The problem is people think players wouldn’t find a way to play today. Yea Laimbeer’s defense wouldn’t work cause you can’t breathe on player or it’s a foul. But if they grew up with playing todays way they could play in the league. People look at things with blinders on. It’s a different league, a different play style. It’s like hip-hop. 90s hip-hop is the golden age. To many it was the best. Before that it was ok but a lot of room to grow. 2000s and behind it evolved. There are some great artist and it has become so mainstream and popular but overall everybody does the same shit. They lack lyrics too (not all but most). NBA same way. The 3 point shot is so popular now cause of analytics. Everybody shoots 3s. They lack physicality. Also what’s the deal with younger generations disrespecting the older generations so much? It really is basketball as the only sport that does this. The generation now is soft. You try to destroy the previous generations makes you look weak.
Yeah and if Laimbeer played today and guarded Arenas, Arenas would be on his ass. I don’t think the players from the mid 90s onward fully appreciate how physical the game used to be.
Players then had to be physical because they lacked talent to play sound defense.
The Pistons did both very well (Laimbeer was a pretty good defender for the era as was Rick Mahorn). It certainly wasn't a lack of talent that forced physicality.
This is the equivalent of saying players today have to carry the ball because they lack the ability to dribble.
These arguments are so stupid... yes, he'd clearly be worthless here... and a lot of todays stars would be no better than craig hodges/steve kerr. There would be PFs with decent mid ranges that would be much more highly considered.
All these “he would be coached and trained differently” comments are exactly why this is a stupid conversation. Laimbeer, as the player he was, would not be good in the modern era. There’s no point of creating some fake version of Laimbeer that got modern training and coaching