Jordan would average 40ppg or more in this era

[msgkings322]

Even Magic Johnson was in awe of Larry Bird. I really don't care if he was white or black because that is irrelevant.

I know, they were very impressed with each other. I just think Magic's game would work better in the modern era than Larry's.

 

[msgkings322]

I own a business and it would take more than a sports forum with anonymous people posting to trigger me.

What kind of business do you run? Genuinely curious.

 

[GNG]

I know, they were very impressed with each other. I just think Magic's game would work better in the modern era than Larry's.

Well that's your opinion.

 

[GNG]

What kind of business do you run? Genuinely curious.

I'm in the real estate business.

 

[msgkings322]

Well that's your opinion.

Absolutely.

 

[msgkings322]

I'm in the real estate business.

Cool!

 

[tlance]

State why considering he avg. 37 in '87 when the league was more physical to guards?

He averaged 37 on a mediocre 40 win team where he hoisted 27.8 field goal attempts a night.

By the way, defense today is MUCH better than it was in '87. The lowest scoring team in the NBA averaged 104.4 and their were 12 teams averaging over 110 per game. By comparison, there are 11 teams averaging fewer than 104.4 today and only 4 over 110. You act as if MJ averaged 37 in the dead ball 90s. He didn't.

Also, by comparison, today's leading scorer (Harden) averages 32.3 on just 21.2 attempts per game. The only other player in the entire league who averages over 20 attempts is Westbrook. That should put Jordan's 27.8 into perspective.

In other words, if Jordan did average anywhere near 40, his team would almost surely be awful. Your analysis is lacking, as always.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah players are better today in general: better conditioned, bigger, faster, etc. Look at video from that era, it's not quite as bad as Wilt vs a bunch of pygmies but outside of the obvious greats like Jordan or Magic, everyone looks like second unit types.

Not to get all sacreligious, but if Larry Bird was playing today, he'd be pretty good but not a Legend. The way guys defend the 3 point line, with his slow white ass...

The problem with posts like this and why these kinds of debates are silly, is that in assumes that the past players would not avail themselves of modern day training, nutrition and medical advances.

Bottom line, players from the past would be just as good today because they would take advantage of those advances. Also, today's players would look very much like the players from the past if they only had available to them what those players did.

 

[larryjohn]

The problem with posts like this and why these kinds of debates are silly, is that in assumes that the past players would not avail themselves of modern day training, nutrition and medical advances.
Bottom line, players from the past would be just as good today because they would take advantage of those advances. Also, today's players would look very much like the players from the past if they only had available to them what those players did.

But also some players would not nearly be as good in today's NBA as they were 20-30 years ago.

Granville Waiters would not be able to play in today's NBA. "Solid" centers such as Luc Longley or Bill Wennington or even Bill Cartwright would not be nearly as useful today as they were 25 years ago.

Even Andrew Bogut almost wasn't playable in the last 2 NBA finals vs. Cleveland. He was benched the last 3 games in the first year the Ws won -- and he only played 10 & 6 minutes in the games the next year before he got hurt in the series they lost to the Cavs. (which is why it is funny that Warrior fans point to his injury as an excuse why they lost -- Kerr wasn't going to play him much anyhow)

 

[trojanfan12]

But also some players would not nearly be as good in today's NBA as they were 20-30 years ago.

Granville Waiters would not be able to play in today's NBA. "Solid" centers such as Luc Longley or Bill Wennington or even Bill Cartwright would not be nearly as useful today as they were 25 years ago.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have no idea how he would perform if he had access to the same training, medical and nutritional advances that players have today.

Even Andrew Bogut almost wasn't playable in the last 2 NBA finals vs. Cleveland. He was benched the last 3 games in the first year the Ws won -- and he only played 10 & 6 minutes in the games the next year before he got hurt in the series they lost to the Cavs. (which is why it is funny that Warrior fans point to his injury as an excuse why they lost -- Kerr wasn't going to play him much anyhow)

So, you bring an outlier that has very little to with my point and think it proves something?

 

[Tapey]

I doubt it.

LeBron is Avg 27.6 points per game and I dont think Jordan is that much better than LeBron

 

[tlance]

But also some players would not nearly be as good in today's NBA as they were 20-30 years ago.

Granville Waiters would not be able to play in today's NBA. "Solid" centers such as Luc Longley or Bill Wennington or even Bill Cartwright would not be nearly as useful today as they were 25 years ago.

Even Andrew Bogut almost wasn't playable in the last 2 NBA finals vs. Cleveland. He was benched the last 3 games in the first year the Ws won -- and he only played 10 & 6 minutes in the games the next year before he got hurt in the series they lost to the Cavs. (which is why it is funny that Warrior fans point to his injury as an excuse why they lost -- Kerr wasn't going to play him much anyhow)

I do think Bogut's injury played a large role, while simultaneously believing that his minutes should have been very limited.

The problem was that Kerr gave those minutes to Festis freaking Ezeli, who helped the Cavs as much as any player not named LeBron or Kyrie.

 

[trojanfan12]

I doubt it.

LeBron is Avg 27.6 points per game and I dont think Jordan is that much better than LeBron

Different style players. MJ was a score first player. Lebron is more of a facilitator.

The main difference between the 2 is:

Lebron COULD avg. 40 a game, but doesn't because he plays a more all around style and looks to set up teammates before himself.

Jordan WOULD avg. 40 a game, because he looked to score before anything else.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Jordan would beat LeBron up and make him cry

 

[tlance]

Different style players. MJ was a score first player. Lebron is more of a facilitator.

The main difference between the 2 is:

Lebron COULD avg. 40 a game, but doesn't because he plays a more all around style and looks to set up teammates before himself.

Jordan WOULD avg. 40 a game, because he looked to score before anything else.

This is true,

But again, he wouldn't average 40 playing for a contending team like OP tries to suggest.

 

[Rex Racer]

Emojis aren't arguments.

Stupidity is not an argument either, but that isn't stopping you.

 

[CitySushi]

Lebron would average 80 a game in the 50's.

 

[CitySushi]

I do think Bogut's injury played a large role, while simultaneously believing that his minutes should have been very limited.

The problem was that Kerr gave those minutes to Festis freaking Ezeli, who helped the Cavs as much as any player not named LeBron or Kyrie.

First time you're completely wrong here. Harrison Barnes was like the 3rd best player for the Cavs in that series.

 

[Wamu]

but if Larry Bird was playing today, he'd be pretty good but not a Legend.

You're full of shit & sound just like Detoit's Isiah Thomas back in the day.

 

[tlance]

First time you're completely wrong here. Harrison Barnes was like the 3rd best player for the Cavs in that series.

Barnes was pretty good for the Cavs too. At least he wasn't a complete liability on defense though.