OT- Have athletes gotten worse in the NBA/MLB?

[DMoney]

As much as teams value shooting, they historically value shot creation even more. If his theory about shooting being the prime skill needed then we the projected lotto wouldn’t look like it does. The elite guys can all shoot. You just need to be a respectable perimeter threat as a role guy.

Shooting is a cut-off. Extremely athletic guys who do many things well are kept on the bench because of shooting limitations. That was not the case in the past.

Shot-creation is, of course, the most important skill. But guys like Steve Nash, Steph Curry and Trae Young weren't getting the greenlight back in the 90s like they do now. Shot-creation required more physicality and explosiveness back then. You were either posting up or blowing by hand-checking defenders with a powerful first step.

 

[DMoney]

That's 2018. So who were your Top 2 players headed into the last 5 drafts?

2019 - Instead of Zion/Ja Morant - were you more of a RJ Barrett/De'Andre Hunter type guy?
2017 - Instead of Ball/Tatum - were you more of a Lauri Markannen type guy?
2016 - Instead of Simmons/Ingram - were you more of a Jamal Murray/Sabonis type guy?

Since athleticism is on outdated approach - who were your guys in those drafts?

I've always been down on Barrett because he's a bad free throw shooter. Love everything else about him, but that's a red flag in this era. He has a ceiling on his shot. It’s flat.

On the other hand, I was bullish on Tatum and Markannen because they were 80%+ guys with the size and game to get shots off. They should continue to get more dangerous and extend their range.

 

[AllAboutTheU]

Shooting is a cut-off. Extremely athletic guys who do many things well are kept on the bench because of shooting limitations. That was not the case in the past.

Shot-creation is, of course, the most important skill. But guys like Steve Nash, Steph Curry and Trae Young weren't getting the greenlight back in the 90s like they do now. Shot-creation required more physicality and explosiveness back then. You were either posting up or blowing by hand-checking defenders with a powerful first step.

I disagree with both of those notions. What guys who do everything well besides shoot are being kept on the bench?

Steve Nash wasn’t chucking shots, if anything, not being selfish enough was his knock. Steph Curry would’ve had no problems in the 90s. His ability to shoot transcends the game. You didn’t even have to worry about guys thinking about shooting from where he shot from back then and he has an elite handle. Could also see him running around off screens like Reggie Miller as well. I think you’re really glorifying that era a bit.

 

[bshaw28]

I've always been down on Barrett because he's a bad free throw shooter. Love everything else about him, but that's a red flag in this era. He has a ceiling on his shot. It’s flat.

On the other hand, I was bullish on Tatum and Markannen because they were 80%+ guys with the size and game to get shots off. They should continue to get more dangerous and extend their range.

My point would be athleticism isn't going anywhere. 2018 was a bit of an anomaly with the best 2 players.

2019 had Ja Morant who's a big team athlete and Zion is unlike anything the NBA has ever seen before

If you look at the best players from the last 5 drafts - ones that have made an All Star team + 2020, I'd rank them:

Below Avg. - Doncic, Young, Sabonis
Above Avg. - KAT, Mitchell, Siakam, Ingram, Taytum
Excellent - Simmons, Adebayo, Morant
Not-Human - Zion

The large majority of young talent in the NBA still skews towards athleticism by a large margin.

 

[DMoney]

I disagree with both of those notions. What guys who do everything well besides shoot are being kept on the bench?

One example would be Michael Carter-Williams. He is long, athletic, he can rebound, defend, see the floor and handle. But his shot is too bad. Justise Winslow was just traded for peanuts because, on top of durability issues, he can't shoot. Guys like that play, but they are devalued because they become liabilities at the end of games and in the playoffs.

Steve Nash wasn’t chucking shots, if anything, not being selfish enough was his knock.

Nash's usage rate was 26.6 at his peak. For comparison, John Stockton never got above 20 in his entire career. His highest usage season ('91) would've been 10th on Nash's list. And if we look at FGA per 100 possessions, Nash has 12 seasons which surpass Stockton's career high. A guy like Nash has more freedom to make plays without having to worry about a physical defender exposing his weaknesses.

Steph Curry would’ve had no problems in the 90s. His ability to shoot transcends the game. You didn’t even have to worry about guys thinking about shooting from where he shot from back then and he has an elite handle. Could also see him running around off screens like Reggie Miller as well. I think you’re really glorifying that era a bit.

Curry would have still been good, but not as good. His weaknesses (physicality, lack of twitch) are going to be exposed when defenders are given more leeway on the perimeter. Reggie Miller was four inches taller and still only got up 22.6 shots per 100 at his absolute peak. Curry has gone as high as 28.6 per 100.

 

[bshaw28]

Shooting is a cut-off. Extremely athletic guys who do many things well are kept on the bench because of shooting limitations. That was not the case in the past.

Shot-creation is, of course, the most important skill. But guys like Steve Nash, Steph Curry and Trae Young weren't getting the greenlight back in the 90s like they do now. Shot-creation required more physicality and explosiveness back then. You were either posting up or blowing by hand-checking defenders with a powerful first step.

PG's in the 90's weren't anymore athletic than Nash, Young, Curry, etc. They just played a different role in that they were facilitators more than scorers.

There were some above the rim PG's like KJ & Penny who you've mentioned. Today you've got Westbrook, Simmons, Morant, etc.

The large majority of PG's weren't above the rim athletes - Stockton, Isiah, Mark Jackson, Rod Strickland, Gary Payton, Tim Hardaway, Derek Harper, Muggsy Bouges, Mark Price, Terry Porter, Kenny Anderson, etc. No difference from Nash/Curry/Young

 

[User-4525]

I've always been down on Barrett because he's a bad free throw shooter. Love everything else about him, but that's a red flag in this era. He has a ceiling on his shot. It’s flat.

On the other hand, I was bullish on Tatum and Markannen because they were 80%+ guys with the size and game to get shots off. They should continue to get more dangerous and extend their range.

Markannen regressed this year but in theory he is good big floor spacer next to Carter. Those two had good chemistry down the stretch last year. Bulls can't stay healthy or win games though. I like their new president of basketball operations hire though.

Tatum was making the leap from star to superstar before the shutdown

 

[DMoney]

PG's in the 90's weren't anymore athletic than Nash, Young, Curry, etc. They just played a different role in that they were facilitators more than scorers.

There were some above the rim PG's like KJ & Penny who you've mentioned. Today you've got Westbrook, Simmons, Morant, etc.

The large majority of PG's weren't above the rim athletes - Stockton, Isiah, Mark Jackson, Rod Strickland, Gary Payton, Tim Hardaway, Derek Harper, Muggsy Bouges, Mark Price, Terry Porter, Kenny Anderson, etc. No difference from Nash/Curry/Young

Right, but there was a reason why offenses weren't designed for PGs to score. It was much more difficult for players that size to get clean looks unless they were freak show athletes like Iverson.

 

[bshaw28]

One example would be Michael Carter-Williams. He is long, athletic, he can rebound, defend, see the floor and handle. But his shot is too bad. Justise Winslow was just traded for peanuts because, on top of durability issues, he can't shoot. Guys like that play, but they are devalued because they become liabilities at the end of games and in the playoffs.



Nash's usage rate was 26.6 at his peak. For comparison, John Stockton never got above 20 in his entire career. His highest usage season ('91) would've been 10th on Nash's list. And if we look at FGA per 100 possessions, Nash has 12 seasons which surpass Stockton's career high. A guy like Nash has more freedom to make plays without having to worry about a physical defender exposing his weaknesses.



Curry would have still been good, but not as good. His weaknesses (physicality, lack of twitch) are going to be exposed when defenders are given more leeway on the perimeter. Reggie Miller was four inches taller and still only got up 22.6 shots per 100 at his absolute peak. Curry has gone as high as 28.6 per 100.

So who were the Guards that couldn't shoot in the 90's that were thriving more than today?

Here's a list of averages by season:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html

Players have been getting younger and bigger (weight wise) than the 90's.

Players get up more shots today because pace has increased. The NBA grindend down to around 80 shots per game in the mid-90's, it's now back up to around 88-89 shots per game.

 

[DMoney]

Players get up more shots today because pace has increased. The NBA grindend down to around 80 shots per game in the mid-90's, it's now back up to around 88-89 shots per game.

The numbers I posted were per 100 possessions.

 

[bshaw28]

Right, but there was a reason why offenses weren't designed for PGs to score. It was much more difficult for players that size to get clean looks unless they were freak show athletes like Iverson.

Iverson was a phenomenal athlete - but even he wasn't an above the rim player most of his career. After his first 2 years he quickly stopped trying to dunk on people and shot runners instead.

Nash still never shot the ball much even when hand checking rules relaxed because he was in the old school PG's are distributors mold.

But take style of play completely out of it and just look at the basic question. Are PG's more athletic now, or then? Are SG's more atheltic now, or then?

Take any position - C, PF, SF, SG, PG - Give me your Top 10 athletes at those positions from the 90's, and I'll give you my Top 10 athletes at that same position from the 2010's - and I'd guess that Center is the only position where the 90's comes out ahead.

 

[DMoney]

Take any position - C, PF, SF, SG, PG - Give me your Top 10 athletes at those positions from the 90's, and I'll give you my Top 10 athletes at that same position from the 2010's - and I'd guess that Center is the only position where the 90's comes out ahead.

PGs I give the edge to today because you have more athletic combo guards. The other positions I give the edge to the 90s.

 

[AllAboutTheU]

One example would be Michael Carter-Williams. He is long, athletic, he can rebound, defend, see the floor and handle. But his shot is too bad. Justise Winslow was just traded for peanuts because, on top of durability issues, he can't shoot. Guys like that play, but they are devalued because they become liabilities at the end of games and in the playoffs.

Disagree with this, mostly. MCW isn’t a great athlete. He’s a tight hipped, straight line drive athlete. He’s carving a little niche out for himself right now but his best numbers were during The Process years when they literally were tanking at levels never seen before. He was probably also due to get a nice little check before all of this COVID stuff since he’s been playing well in Orlando. He’s essentially went from a big PG to a wing defender because he couldn’t really playmake at a high level for himself or others, in addition to the shooting. Justise’s durability issues are bigger than the shooting, IMO. He’s played more than 70 games once and had hardly played this year. His playmaking ability had people looking at him in a different light for a bit. Shooting is important, but availability is more important.

Nash's usage rate was 26.6 at his peak. For comparison, John Stockton never got above 20 in his entire career. His highest usage season ('91) would've been 10th on Nash's list. And if we look at FGA per 100 possessions, Nash has 12 seasons which surpass Stockton's career high. A guy like Nash has more freedom to make plays without having to worry about a physical defender exposing his weaknesses.

The pace of the Jazz versus the pace of the Suns has to be taken into account as well. Usage includes plays assisted on too, so you can’t solely use that number to assess whether Nash was a guy who was chucking. Nash was a really efficient scorer who didn’t shoot enough.

Curry would have still been good, but not as good. His weaknesses (physicality, lack of twitch) are going to be exposed when defenders are given more leeway on the perimeter. Reggie Miller was four inches taller and still only got up 22.6 shots per 100 at his absolute peak. Curry has gone as high as 28.6 per 100.

Again, take into account pace, but of course freedom of movement is encouraged more under rule changes. I just wholeheartedly disagree that Steph would’ve had any problems in the 90s. He’s crafty, high IQ and has an extremely quick release. He’d be good in any era. Amazing finisher around the rim as well.

 

[bshaw28]

The numbers I posted were per 100 possessions.

Right - but you're just comparing Nash to Stockton - it's just one guy. Now do the same comparison with Nash & Mark Price or Terry Porter - they all shoot about he same amount. Compare him to Payton, Strickland, Hardaway - Nash shoots way less. Compare him to Mark Jackson or Bouges - Nash shoots way more.

If your going to make a statement about the entire league - you can't just handpick one player from an era vs. another. You have to look at the league as a whole.

You can easily make a case for either side if you're making 1 vs 1 player comparisons.

That's why I'm saying as a whole - players have gotten younger, bigger, and pace has increased.

 

[bshaw28]

PGs I give the edge to today because you have more athletic combo guards. The other positions I give the edge to the 90s.

So take any other position - SG, SF, PF, C - and give me your Top 10 athletes from the 90's at those positions.

I really have no idea what this would look like - but you can't just keep comparing individual players. You have to look at a larger group to get a clearer picture.

 

[gogeta4]

Disagree with this, mostly. MCW isn’t a great athlete. He’s a tight hipped, straight line drive athlete. He’s carving a little niche out for himself right now but his best numbers were during The Process years when they literally were tanking at levels never seen before. He was probably also due to get a nice little check before all of this COVID stuff since he’s been playing well in Orlando. He’s essentially went from a big PG to a wing defender because he couldn’t really playmake at a high level for himself or others, in addition to the shooting. Justise’s durability issues are bigger than the shooting, IMO. He’s played more than 70 games once and had hardly played this year. His playmaking ability had people looking at him in a different light for a bit. Shooting is important, but availability is more important.
The pace of the Jazz versus the pace of the Suns has to be taken into account as well. Usage includes plays assisted on too, so you can’t solely use that number to assess whether Nash was a guy who was chucking. Nash was a really efficient scorer who didn’t shoot enough.
Again, take into account pace, but of course freedom of movement is encouraged more under rule changes. I just wholeheartedly disagree that Steph would’ve had any problems in the 90s. He’s crafty, high IQ and has an extremely quick release. He’d be good in any era. Amazing finisher around the rim as well.

Steph has the ball on a string...you likely cant name 3 dudes in the 90s with better handles...He's getting the same amount of shots off and isnt struggling at all. All the talk of him being small, etc...he is the same size as Gary Payton and likely stronger than Jordan was coming into the NBA.

 

[AllAboutTheU]

Steph has the ball on a string...you likely cant name 3 dudes in the 90s with better handles...He's getting the same amount of shots off and isnt struggling at all. All the talk of him being small, etc...he is the same size as Gary Payton and likely stronger than Jordan was coming into the NBA.

Yea, I’m not sure where this notion that he’s small came from. He’s 6’3 190 lol. He’s not built like a Westbrook physically but he’s not a small guy. I think the injuries, 3 point shooting and the underdog narrative around him kind of has people jaded. His handles are crazy. It may not have the flash of a guy like Kyrie but he can do whatever he needs to get open.

 

[User-4525]

Curry is dominating the 90s just like he is now. Him and Kyrie may not be as quick as Kemba Walker, but their reaction times, hand eye coordination and shiftiness with the ball in their hands make their lack of A+ quickness irrelevant. Curry is better conditioned than everyone in the 90s as well.

 

[DMoney]

Curry is dominating the 90s just like he is now.

So handchecking has zero impact on Curry?

The rule was designed to make it easier for guards. Somebody like Curry who is not overly physical will benefit more than most.

He would still be great. Just not as great.

 

[User-4525]

So handchecking has zero impact on Curry?

The rule was designed to make it easier for guards. Somebody like Curry who is not overly physical will benefit more than most.

He would still be great. Just not as great.

He would've been roughed up the first couple of years. After 200 games and 7,000 minutes, he would be more than fine. You aren't handchecking for 94 feet. Only so many guys like Gary Payton who can go 110% on defense against an A+ offensive player and not be a potato on offense.

Nick Van Exel handchecks Curry and makes him get rid of the ball. Ok. Now Curry starts running in circles around the perimeter (and he is doing this most possessions). Gary Payton tired Mike out, but Mike didn't move off the ball like Curry. No one in the history of the NBA moves off the ball like Curry. Then you gotta deal with Curry's double moves and off the dribble 3s. He would rain in transition 3s. It'd be a problem for the league.

Dell Curry averaged 16 ppg (26 minutes per game!) in his prime and he isn't in the same ballpark as his son. To keep it real Seth probably better than his daddy too