Amateur: Who great old school nba player would be exposed...

[Juggity]

Robinson's team's weren't bad...he just had the miss fortune to play in the 90's when MJ and Hakeem where playing. I watched David get destroyed by Hakeem at the HemisfairArena in the semi-finals and it was brutal.

His teams were pretty bad tbh. When the best supporting player you've ever had is 1993-95 Dennis Rodman, who didn't even want to be in San Antonio, let alone follow the team game plan, you know things are bad.

[spurraider21]

Lol Bird would have even better stats vs today's dumb Monkeyballers

Plus, he would light it up from downtown with the zone D.
Bird only took 1 three point shot per game during his career

you didn't realize Trill just rattled off the names of a bunch of white players

[superjames1992]

Larry bird
Pistol pete
Jerry west
Tom chambers
Bill walton


Off the top of my head

Just naming off a bunch of white players, tbh?

[lefty]

you didn't realize Trill just rattled off the names of a bunch of white players

dammit

[HI-FI]

dammit

yeah Troll Chimpin was just doing his thing.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Add Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes to the list.

[ambchang]

Care to explain that one?

I think, or at least I read the OP as "which NBA player would be viewed in a different light if advanced stats were available back in their day?", but not as "which old timer would have done differently in today's game".

So, with that in context .....

Nique was a high flying dunker who wasn't overly efficient. He was a great player to watch, as his "human highlight film" moniker would have suggested. He was very dominant of the ball (see his very high usage rate) but not a great passer. He creates for himself, and rarely anybody else.

He takes up a huge area of the court on offense, so it's tough to have people around him to make a smooth flowing offense. He would sometimes drive, sometimes post, and sometimes shoot a jumper, but he requires a lot of isos, which weren't over efficient.

He also doesn't play much defense.

Let me be clear though, Nique is one of my favourite players to watch, very dynamic and creating scoring the ball. Combines both power and finesse in his offensive game. He's the third best in game dunker of all time (behind Carter and Kemp). Love to watch him, doesn't want him leading the Spurs though (well, 96 was past his prime, so that doesn't count).

[JohnnyMax]

Larry Bird at his peak is easily better than Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan. Only Michael Jordan is in his league.

[UZER]

I think, or at least I read the OP as "which NBA player would be viewed in a different light if advanced stats were available back in their day?", but not as "which old timer would have done differently in today's game".

So, with that in context .....

Nique was a high flying dunker who wasn't overly efficient. He was a great player to watch, as his "human highlight film" moniker would have suggested. He was very dominant of the ball (see his very high usage rate) but not a great passer. He creates for himself, and rarely anybody else.

He takes up a huge area of the court on offense, so it's tough to have people around him to make a smooth flowing offense. He would sometimes drive, sometimes post, and sometimes shoot a jumper, but he requires a lot of isos, which weren't over efficient.

He also doesn't play much defense.

Let me be clear though, Nique is one of my favourite players to watch, very dynamic and creating scoring the ball. Combines both power and finesse in his offensive game. He's the third best in game dunker of all time (behind Carter and Kemp). Love to watch him, doesn't want him leading the Spurs though (well, 96 was past his prime, so that doesn't count).

Yes, exactly. Wasn't saying which player could play in todays game, but which back in the day player, which we considered great / or really good for that matter, would be exposed in his era by advanced stats available today.

Great take on nique. I'll never forget his rim check windmill dunk in the all star game that kinda started signaling the downside of his career.

[ambchang]

Larry Bird at his peak is easily better than Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Duncan. Only Michael Jordan is in his league.

Bird was dominant, but I wouldn't necessarily say that he was obviously more so than Lebron and Jordan, or even Duncan at their peaks, but he was certainly up there.

One thing that would change though is how people would view Bird's defense, he played very smart team defense back in the day, and I think he would be viewed differently with advanced stats back then.

In terms of how well his game would translate to today's game, he would be dominant as well. His passing game, his mid and long range shooting, and his bball IQ will let break down defenses, even in today's game. His defense though, I am not sure how well that would translate.

[lefty]

Lebron and Bird have more impact on a team than Jordan

Look at Bird's impact on the Celtics during his rookie season (and he didnt have McHale and Chief yet) or Lebron carrying the Cavs deep into the playoffs


The Bulls won 55 games in 1994 and were 1 controversial call away from moving to the ECF.
Could they win a le without MJ?
No.
But MJ was the difference maker, helping them win those series by making clutch shots and aso getting those Jordan calls.
(He still s on Kobe, though)