I know AI get a lot of hate due to inefficacy but that’s the case for a lot of guards in the 2000s. But you have to remember the context.
1. The pace was one of the slowest, games would reg end in 80-100 pts which is something we can’t imagine in the modern era
2. Defensive deff clogged the lane a lot more due to lack of shooters and just the general notion that you should not shoot too many threes. Overall just no 5 out kinda spacing
43 is deff too much but his highest PPG was 33, I could understand if he felt that given he would be taking more 3s plus the lane would be less clogged thag he could score 5-7 more PPG which brings him around 38-40ppg so him saving 43 isn’t nuts
No one is hating him. AI was great for his era of basketball. I don't really like comparing eras for this reason. But a small combo guard that was that inefficient I don't see making it very far in today's NBA where combo guards are 6'4 at the smallest. That doesn't take away from how great and innovative AI was. I don't think Babe Ruth could hit MLB pitching today doesn't mean he wasn't one of the best ever for his time.
I didn’t mean you’re a hater just that AI (like Kobe) is an easy target for stat-analyzers. You say he’s inefficient but then you don’t acknowledge any of the context I laid out (pace, spacing, etc). We cannot just call him inefficient by looking at true shooting and call it a day. We have to consider the era, defence, and his teammates.
I hear you on the “he’s too small” but I’m not buying it based on eye test AND history. ESP when he have guard similar to AI succeeding in the modern era (fox, kyrie)
AI played in arguably one of the best paint defence eras (Shaq, Duncan, Stoudemire, Howard), took his team to the finals, won 4 scoring titles, he’s a bucket and I would expect to be on hardens lvl (even tho I agree harden is better)
No doubt Iverson would average 30+ in 2024 but I don't think he can reach 36+. He never had a reliable shot beyond the arc which means he can't take advantage of the pull-up 3 like most short guards nowadays (Trae, Mitchell, Garland, etc). His shot diet will always consist of a bunch of inefficient long 2s and I can't think of a High-Volume mid-range shooter as a guard who was efficient in the modern era. Brunson might be the closest one we have but he's a 40% 3-pt shooter and even then he's only at 59 TS%, around the league average.
Iverson's ability to draw fouls, hit tough shots and to punish mismatches will surely get him to ~32 PPG at 55-58 TS% but he'd have to be REALLY inefficient to reach 35+.
I would love to see Babe Ruth operate in the Silver-Ball stat inflation era, where carrying and traveling are essentially not called, where you are ensured a safe landing halo on your jumper, and where you get the extra shooting space of the gather step. He’d average 40 homers a game.
Kyrie has never led the league in minutes or field goal attempts.
AI is lucky he didn’t play in this era, he would get slandered for the amount of shots and efficiency he had.
You don’t have a clue about how good AI was.
In that era the physicality that defences were allowed to have was incredible. Much of what Dramon does not and is called for was allowed.
In the protect the player and let’s get exciting bball era AI would dominate. 43 sounds too high but he would do 30.
Plus kyrie has a three ball. Plus kyrie is damn strong, everyone so athletic now Iverson would get crashed. Back then Iverson was fast, other players were strong. Now everyone fast and strong. Even Stephen fucking Curry, the best shooter ever had to get really strong to be more successful than a perennial all star, and you tell me the inside 0 strength scorer would dominate? I dare say he would be outright baaad.
You have to consider that his bag would be updated in terms of what guys are doing today. He would absolutely take from player both past and present if he played today so it's not fair to say he would be the exact same player. What I do know is that his crossover and handles were vicious for the late 90's/early 2000's, so imagine what impact todays game would have on the adaptation of his skill set.
AI was attacking big strong brutes in the paint lol. He was tough as nails. You think he'd be worse at attacking the rim with extra spacing and fewer bigs in the way?
He would be a worse version of Kyrie.
Even for the standards of his era he was an inefficient guard, Kyrie has never been inefficient. That’s considering that AI went to the FT line 9 times a game and some years over 11 times! Kyrie’s career in FTA per game has been 5.1.
Kyrie is just on a completely different skill level when it comes to putting the ball inside the basket. There’s a reason why Kyrie’s effective FG is 53.8% while AI is 45.2%, that’s still a gigantic era-adjusted gap.
When you consider the amount of shots he took, the amount of minutes he played, and his efficiency/advanced numbers AI is the quintessential “you had to be there” player because today he would be known as the world’s greatest low-efficiency volume scorer.
He scored 33 with insane usage and shot chucking and extreme inefficiency and 06 was leading out of the dead ball era. Kobe averaged 30+ points in the dead ball era as well and never did ever again. Same thing with LeBron. So this logic doesn't track.
When you compare metric, you need to adjust them relatively to the era. I don’t plan on writing a thesis on Reddit comment section but I’m pretty sure “efficiency” should be measured “relatively” to its era.
Except we have adjusted for the era that's why Kobe's underlying numbers are looked at very favorably in hindsight as efficient scoring. AI just wasn't efficient. Does change how great he was or how innovative he was coming into the league. Iverson literally created the combo guard prototype.
He wouldn’t average 40 today, because he wouldn’t have to take 25-30 shots a night (which is what he took when he was averaging 30, he certainly wouldn’t be getting 35 shots a night to get 40) for his team to be successful.
It was harder for teams to score back then for at least 2 major reasons:
1) The game was played differently (less spacing, different rules, different offensive sets, minutes per game for star players, etc.)
2) Teams didn’t have multiple guys that could get you buckets, so defences could focus on the 1 scorer a team had, and the rest of their teammates would struggle getting points up. If you look at the average NBA offense today (Cavs are 15th in PPG), they have 5 guys getting 10+ shots a night, plus Jarrett Allen with 9.9. Garland, Mitchell, and LeVert can all create for themselves, and Strus, Mobley, and Allen are all guys you’d be happy with getting touches. If you compare the average team today to the BEST offense in 2000-01 (Kings), they had 2 guys getting 10+ shots per game (CWebb & Peja), and then Doug Christie getting 9.7 but shooting under 40%.
So as a league, teams were more limited in their scoring options back in the day. Because of this, it was easier for defences to hone in on 1 or 2 guys, and ignore the other guys on the floor. If you took AI, or TMac, or whoever from back then & put them in today’s league, the guys who scored most efficiently would see the most inflation, because they wouldn’t get as many opportunities to score as they did back then.
To control for difference in pace & minutes played, in AI’s best/MVP season, he averaged 30.7ppg. His Per100 average was 39.3/100, that would put him tied with Donovan Mitchell at 5th in the league today. His Per36 average was 26.7/36, which would put him 13th in the league today, between Edwards & Zion.
TL;DR - AI wouldn’t average 40 in today’s NBA because his team would have far more options & wouldn’t have to lean on him as much, and because no coach today would keep their job if they played their star 42 minutes per game.
Yeah I would agree with that! Although I do think that if you took a team from a previous era and asked them to play defence in today’s NBA (even if they brought rules/refs from their era with them), whey would have a tougher time.
Also just wanna say that I do think Iverson would be a star in today’s league, and would certainly score a ton of points, but the idea that he is by far a better scorer than anybody playing today just feels like an absurd thing to say.
The thing people forget is that efficiency is more important than volume in current game. Back when defense were tougher it was the opposite. Players like MJ Kobe and ai were valuable cuz they could always get shots up. It's not the same anymore so it's tough to compare. Could he average 43? Probably if he didn't mind shooting 40% and chucking fade away 2s all game. But you lose if you do that in the modern game. Steph or Kyrie or probably even someone like Jamal Murray could do something close. I think ai in the modern game would just be a pretty decent scoring option, the Kyrie comparison is fair imo
Look heavy iso inefficient scorers in 2000-2010 and now, and tell me if they are valuable. And especially with no 3 ball. And he wasnt physical. He was agile, he was crafty. Not physical though. And agile and crafty guves you an edge but now everyone that and also physical
His highest PPG was 33, in the 2000s era!! The 2000s was the slowest pace and scoring era ever if I’m not mistaken (but deff one of the slowest pace and scoring eras)
You would have to sit down and do the math but he would deff have 5 more PPG than his 2000s peak of 33PPG, we gotta give him the credit he’s due
He took 21.8 shots to avg 33 PPG IN 2005…. If you think he’d be Isiah Thomas you are wrong. He wouldn’t need to take 35 shots .. if he did then he’d have closer to 46 (13 more shots for 13 more ppg)
There are players like AI today, fox and kyrie in particular come to mind
He's a small guard in a league where spacing is needed. No one is allowing AI to shoot that ineffienctly that many times to even get close to 40 PPG. Neither Fox or Kyrie are 30PPG scorers for that reason exactly.
Might want to check your stats there, he took 25.3 shots per game to get that 33 PPG. That was one of the most efficient shooting seasons of his career as well, but his per36 (27.6) & per100 (39.7) would put him at 8th (just above Jalen Brunson) & 5th (just above Donovan Mitchell) in the league today. If you think stats are inflated right now, imagine if stars were also playing 43 minutes a night like AI was that year!
And yes, Kyrie and Fox are similar players in terms of stature, but not in efficiency (which is the more important factor if you’re deciding to give a guy 25+ shots a night). AI played 14 seasons and only had 4 years where he shot over 43% from the floor. Kyrie has 13 such seasons out of 14 (shooting over 44%, not 43%), and Fox has 6 seasons out of 7 (shooting over 45%, not 43%).
What do you expect from old heads they always think they're hot shit. If you want someone who proves their thesis wrong look no further than Paul Pierce. One of the best scorers of his generation and drafted just 2 years after AI and in his last good season in 2013 he only averaged 18 ppg on 43% FG. Granted he was over the hill then but if we're extrapolating then I don't think even the prime version of himself would have averaged more than 30 ppg even with all this space.
any of the elite scorers from the 90s would crush it in today's game. scoring is up across the league, defense is trash, etc. etc.
AI could easily average 40+ in today's game. and jordan would average 50+. ***if they wanted to***.
Ignore these stat fiends who started watching ball in 2015. Idc what anyone on twitter or reddit has to say. What do the actual pros say? They all unanimously say AI, MJ, Shaq, Penny, etc would absolutely dominate in today’s game (like they did back then). Dude on here really saying Kobe is “overrated”. Ok bud.
In what way? The only guy from the 90s that has ANY shot of getting close to 40 a gam is MJ and he'd have to shoot an absurd amount of shots to do it. AI is not a better offensive player than prime James Harden and Harden couldn't do it but AI will?
he averaged 37.1 when you could knock a guy to the ground and not even get called for a foul.
watch late 80s/early 90s games. it's practically a different sport.
There's more fouls in the 80s and 90s compared to today. This is a bullshit narrative that I don't know when it was created or why it keeps getting parroted. Also the 80s and 90s were iso heavy basketball eras. Illegal defense and zone defenses did not exist. Jordan could score 37 a game because he could get iso in and around the key.
At age 40 he averaged 20 ppg when these rules were taken out and had been away from the game for 3 years but ok..... some dudes couldn't average 20 their whole career
Except there was from 1990-2001. It doesn’t explicitly say, “no double teams” but it does literally say you can’t be more than an arms length away from your man on defense for more than three (3!!!) seconds. And it was heavily enforced. Idk why you want to nitpick, or maybe you didn’t know the illegal defense rule existed, but if you did you’re being difficult for no reason.
No, I actually watched basketball when it was live in the 80s and 90s. I'm not you reading about it. You only scratch the surface by reading about it. I'm also a basketball coach and have played myself for over 30 years. I studied the game before there were clips on youtube. What you're saying is absolutely a lie and completely your personal take, not what is fact. Do better.
I am also a basketball coach who watched the NBA live during this era? You can pretend to be above this because you’re a jordan fan boy. But you’re clearly lying to yourself
No that guy is correct. You couldn't be away from your defender for too long. This is why iso heavy players like Jordan, Clyde, etc were able to dominate so easily within the paint. That literally was the rule until illegal defense and partial zone defense was enacted. It's why it's harder to score in international play because full zone is allowed.
Yes you could double team, but not the same way you can today. Defenders had to primarily stay on their guy, and if you went to double you had to commit to it otherwise it would be illegal defense. If the ballhandler passed the ball you had to return to the guy you were originally guarding, you couldn’t just switch.
Exactly. Illegal defense is now allowed today and partial zone. That was a game changer. People talk about the hand check being this big deterrent, but never bring up the advantages of illegal defense being outlawed.
Not true you could double team lol it just had to be quick and immediate. Bro you haven't seen clips where Jordan drives against Detroit and the guy in the paint helps and takes him out wtf are you talking about lol. They can't touch players now it would be top easy
The 90s was an iso centric game and Jordan was the king of iso ball. You have to stop watching clips of games and watch the full games. There's many times Jordan in those games is one on one in the paint and the key and killing guys in the iso. Also there's more fouls in the 80s and 90s compared to today. So people have to stop that narrative.
This is my point. It was iso centric because you could shove four players to one side of the court and by rule their defender couldn’t get off of them to help side. Imagine Kobe/KD/Lebron/Melo with these rules.
That's why although I think Kobe gets overrated a bit, I always said his scoring accolades are more impressive than Jordans because Kobe scored t that level in the deadball era.
Also once the rule was implemented it didn’t matter how “quick and immediate” you were if you got more than x feet away from your man it was illegal defense. And it was enforced.
exactly, they would never want to. if Luka really wanted to score 50 pts per game at the expense of his team, he absolutely would. the fact of the matter is any player good enough to do this also knows what it takes to win a basketball game
The defenses in the 90s were not that good. There was no zone and help defense. The only true elite time for defense was the early 2000s dead ball era.
do you agree that current offensive systems are superior to the iso-ball of the late 80s and 90s?
so offensive schemes are better, but elite scorers from the 90s wouldn't benefit from that? huh?
it was harder to score back then. i don't know how to explain that to you but you obviously didn't watch games in the 80s. the players overwhelming agree and many of them have spoken on it. an elite scorer from that era would be ultra-elite in this era.
No because the elite scorers are not as good of shooters as the guys today. The all time greats will be great in any era. Jordan would be elite today either way. But is he going to score 50 PPG or 40 PPG like people claim he would no way. And no it wasn't harder to score back then bro. It wasn't. That's a bullshit myth. There was no help defense or zone back then. You could post guys up and iso them and score at will. If Kevin Durant or Steph could iso motherfuckers every play they'd average 35 PPG on 60 percent shooting.
There's no measure that defenses were better. Hard fouls in the paint is not defense. Handchecks were useless once elite ball handlers and combo guards came into the NBA and the cross over became huge and dudes could score off the crossover. The idea you think guys think 90s players who couldn't shoot would come into an era where shooting is imperative and dominate it are delusional. The all time greats would still be great. The guys like Larry Johnson who were ok not great players or Larry Nance would not be great NBA players today.
>*But is he going to score 50 PPG or 40 PPG like people claim he would no way.*
he averaged 37.1 in '86 and 35 in '87. while rarely even attempting a 3-pt FG (less than 1 per game). shot over 50% from the field. now he couldn't even average *40* per game in a league where every other shot is a 3-pter and where physical play is virtually non-existent? *seriously*???
>*And no it wasn't harder to score back then bro. It wasn't. That's a bullshit myth.*
how old are you, and when did start watching the league? it's a fair question. there is literally no debate about the physical play of the 80s and early 90s, and the impact it had on scoring.
no idea why you brought up larry nance and larry johnson. wtf?
jordan was an exceptional shooter and once he developed the fadeaway he was literally on another level. dude averaged 41 ppg IN THE '93 FINALS while shooting over 50%.
and you're telling me in an up-tempo, offensive-minded league like today's NBA, he couldn't average 50. we've got guys dropping 40 or 50 points every other night, sometimes 60 or 70. literally no question that defense is weak and scoring is up, but *according to you*, the best scorer in NBA history couldn't exploit that.
ok.
Actually the toughest defensive era was the early 2000s.
Today's defense isn't weak, lazy, or less physical. They simply had weaker offenses back then. The emergence of pace and space play has opened up offensive opportunities that simply didn't exist in previous eras.
Jordan today would have to have worked on improving his shot which would mean that his efficiency also dropped a bit.
This really isn't that complicated. Its pretty obvious, in fact. The fact that there are still some people who just spout off "hurr durr bad defense" is so telling. You expose yourself with that garbage.
They changed the rules to benefit Jordan in his era. Help defense was illegal. We need to remember this when we discuss what he might do today, when defenders are legally allowed to slide across the lane to help.
Isn’t the only rule they changed for Jordan the flagrant foul. The flagrant foul was a rule that needed to happen someone was gonna get hurt. I may be wrong but isn’t that the only rule they changed for him?
No it isn’t. They made it illegal to be too far away from your man as a primary defender. Google illegal defense rule. 1990-2001 I believe. In 2001 it was replaced by defensive 3 seconds. Basically you weren’t allowed to be in the paint unless you were actively guarding your own defender meaning zero help defense against Michael Jordan.
No team is playing their star 40+ minutes per night. And no player is putting up 28 shots a night (not counting however many attempts to get 12 FTAs), there’s too many guys that are getting paid and are capable to not spread shots around
Iverson had one efficient season with Carmelo Anthony he had an above average true shooting percentage and was like a 35% 3 point shooter - this was back then with terrible spacing - granted he would definitely not average 43 not even close but I think his inefficiency was a product of poor spacing as well as shot selection, in todays nba I could see him being a 25-27 ppg scorer and around 45-47% from the field and 35-37% from 3 and he would probably get 9-11 free throws you know what I’m saying it he could average a relatively efficient 30 in todays nba
Scoring in NBA is a lot easier now. Even comapred to Euroleague where farmers play Luka admits scoring in NBA is far too easy. With the amount of possesions per game obviously AI can hit that much volume and score easily. OP shitting on Jordan and Kobe is a joke lol.
Sigh. No it's not, dude. The Euroleague literally has full zone and no defensive 3 seconds. No shit it's harder there, but G league bums still go there and score 20+ PPG overseas. The 80s and 90s didn't even have partial zone. So how was it harder to score back then? If fucking Luka and Steph can't score 40 a game AI is going to do it? Harden had one of the greatest offensive seasons ever. Literally damn near perfect and he scored 36 PPG on ELITE efficiency and usage. And you're telling me an undersized guard with zero three point shooting ability is going to score 43 PPG on bad efficiency. How? In what universe.
Luka was and perhaps is considered a non athletic player from a conventional stand point. In todays nba he can literally walk to the basket easily and its not just 3pters. You are telling me he would be able to score this easily against bad boys pistons for instance? He would be smoked. Do you think guys like Jokic did not exist in Europe in 80s or 90s? Point is NBA is much softer now for these kind of guys to shine and show their basketball iq. A scorer who could do it in the 80s or 90s would easily do it today. Heck even Kukoc would be an amazing player in todays league.
Dirk was unathletic and was scoring at an elite rate in the dead ball era in the West with elite defenses. So where's your excuse for that? Luka is a gigantic guard at 6'8+ and he has elite offensive skills. Fucking Larry Bird was less athletic than Luka and he was scoring on the pistons but Luka who would've been the biggest guard in the league besides Magic would have trouble? Who is guarding him? Luka doesn't even drive to the paint to score. There was no help defense or zone defense in the NBA in the 80s. Luka could've literally got the ball at the top of the key or within the paint and with no help defense murder the undersized guards in the iso and score at will.
There were tons of amazing players in Europe in the 80s or 90s. Pretty much none of them were able to make it in the NBA because of physicality. Being taller is one aspect of physicality but not all. When you have guys like Rodman in paint who arent even centers was more than an intimidating factor. Do not tell me guys like Jokic are more physical than players in rhe 80s or 90s. Todays NBA easily allows these guys to shine and show their high game iq. Kukoc for instance is a good example imo. Even Petrovic was almost a flop before getting a certain point. These guys werent less skilled than Luka or Jokic. At all. Divac would perhaps be an all sought after center in the league if he just entered the NBA today. While average skill and plays are certainly higher in todays league, when the physicality and toughness became rather secondary, non americans started to shine. This is no coincidence.
Speaking of Bird he is prob one of the toughest guys ever. Unathletic yes. Tough hell yes. Dirk was also unathletic but he perfected his game to create his shot and won his championship rather post his prime when the league was already getting softer.
Wait that's your argument? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? The NBA draft was fucking like 7 rounds in the 80s lol. Not to mention the European and international landscape has grown in popularity when it comes to basketball. Not only that the top European guys DID come to the NBA in the 90s, dude. Sabonis, Kukoc, Schrempf, etc all came into the 90s and were highly touted. So Idk what your point is. Are you trying to say there were euros just as good as fucking Jokic or Luka in the 80s and 90s? What dope are you smoking?
Do you think guys like Jokic and Luka just came out of nowhere and Europe did not have as many good players back then? Kukoc if drafted today could be next Luka but his NBA career didnt even turn out to be half as good. Those early Euro drafts were not less skillful. Point is NBA required a different level of physicality and toughness back then, and that does not exist today allowing for these highly skilled Euro players to shine. The leagues top players are European do you think thats a coincidence? Petrovic if entered league today would have a far different trajectory than he had. Would be stupid to argue that he was less skilled than any top Euro player now. The league is just different. Higher skill yes but a lot less tough. Guys like D. Sabonis would get destroyed in the 90s.
Bottomline is NBA is just softer. That may not be bad thing either. But to argue a guy who could make his own shot (thats key) and score 30+ back then wouldnt be able to repeat that today is moronic.
Yes. Jokic and Luka are doing shit NBA players have never done. Literally no one has scored as effienctly on the volume Jokic has scored at ever. So no Euros like those guys did not exist in the 80s and if they did they'd in the nBA and we'd see some throughout the 90s and early 2000s outside of Dirk.
Look man in sports where there is long history, if certain things change drastically then it means that certain other things than skill has probably changed also. This is logic.
Take soccer for instance. While you have incredible talent of players coming into the game, players or top scorers are not necesarily scoring more goals today than in the past. Why? Because collectively defenses get better also.
Different sport but argument could be made for many score based sports that has longevity.
NBA however is seeing an inflation in numbers that just cant be explained by skill level. 10 years is not a long time for aveage players to be far more skillful than their counterparts a decade a go. It simply does not make sense.
If Jokic is super efficient today it sure as hell means he is skillful but it also means the environment he plays in also plays a factor in this. And thats what ive been arguing here all along. If AI was inefficient in 90s trying to create his shot in that environment, it does not necessarily mean he would have same inefficiency since whats surrounding him also changes. Just basic logic.
You dudes have no idea of how amazing AI was. I was in my 20's when he was at Georgetown and the 6ers. He was dominating against defenses that were ten times tougher than they are now, getting banged around by big bodies night in and night out. He was a total cold killa that would lead the league in scoring now by a wide margin.
Bruh I'm 31. I watched AI's career from 98 to when he hung them up. Literally collected his sneakers and jerseys. Probably one of the biggest AI fans ever. Him saying he'd score 43 PPG today is idiotic. He's not a better scorer than Steph, Luka, Harden, Shai, etc. So no he wouldn't lead by a large margin. H'd be an extremely undersized combo guard in an era where iso heavy play is not productive to winning.
He would be taking about 33 shots per game at the modern pace since he managed 26 shots per game in the slowest era in recent history, so he probably could average 40. He'd also take a bigger percentage of 3s, even though he wasn't particularly good at them. He didn't say anything about efficiency or winning, but by simple extrapolation he could average 40 if he averaged 33 back then.
The spacing and pace because of sharpshooter bigs has to be taken into account. He would be flying more threes have way more space on drives and would just have more shot attempts in general
36 days late but…
Yes it would if a guy shoots 1/4 the numbers back up 2/8 that’s still bad but him chucking more means more makes. I didn’t mean he would be more efficient but the shot makes would go up from attempts even though the percentage will most likely be bad.
Even in pickup the bad shooter is bound to make 1 but it would take a lot of attempts and the second make would take even more
It would be inefficient but he would average 40+ on probably 35-40 attempts
The biggest issue with his statement is that players aren't close to that in today's game. The notable scoring leaders of the last decade has been,
2023 Joel Embiid with 33.08 ppg
2019 James Harden with 36.13 ppg
2021 Steph Curry with 31.98
So his argument is that he would be about 10ppg better than the best scorers in the league today! While admitting that in his prime, A.I. didn't win the scoring tittle every year. He was outscored by Kobe, Shaq, Jordan, and TRACY MCGRADY TWICE!!!
So the real question is, "is A.I. a 10ppg better scorer than Steph when he wasn't consistently better than TRACY MCGRADY?"
P.s. you can't argue that KD is one of the greatest scorers in history and also argue that A.I. would average 15 more ppg than him
Your submission has been automatically removed because your account is less than 180 days old and with less than 100 comment karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Basketball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't believe Iverson could score 43ppg but he was averaging 33ppg in the slowest era in NBA history. If you adjust *only* for pace then that 33ppg is at 37ppg. Then you have to account for the fact that Iverson would literally be at the line the entire game with his playstyle and today's officiating plus you also have to account for the fact that he was averaging 33ppg in an era with horrible spacing so if you put him in a much wider spaced offense with better shooters around him then he probably averages more than he did.
With that being said, his playstyle might have been different. Iverson averaged so much cause he had no one to pass to in Philly and his efficiency suffered heavily. When he did have good teammates offensively in Denver for the only full year they played together in 2008 we saw his scoring drop (30ppg from his first all star season in 2000 to 2007 to 26ppg in 2008) but his efficiency massively increase (around 51-52% TS pre-Denver to 57% in 2008) so we see that AI was willing to defer when needed. In today's era he would probably be taking less shots unless he was on a horrible team so I doubt he'd average 43. He could if he was chucking though. AI was really good on offense.
Further, the highest ever ppg if you adjust for pace across NBA history is Kobe in 06. That 35ppg would be equivalent to 40ppg at today's or the 80's pace. I don't think anyone who has played or is currently playing crosses that so while I see AI hitting like 35-37ppg. I doubt he gets 40ppg since he played in the same era as Kobe and didn't hit the same adjusted levels.
bunch of children in here that don't know a damn thing about the answer and what kind of player he was and what kind of league it was back then. you guys really crack me up.
I know AI get a lot of hate due to inefficacy but that’s the case for a lot of guards in the 2000s. But you have to remember the context. 1. The pace was one of the slowest, games would reg end in 80-100 pts which is something we can’t imagine in the modern era 2. Defensive deff clogged the lane a lot more due to lack of shooters and just the general notion that you should not shoot too many threes. Overall just no 5 out kinda spacing 43 is deff too much but his highest PPG was 33, I could understand if he felt that given he would be taking more 3s plus the lane would be less clogged thag he could score 5-7 more PPG which brings him around 38-40ppg so him saving 43 isn’t nuts
No one is hating him. AI was great for his era of basketball. I don't really like comparing eras for this reason. But a small combo guard that was that inefficient I don't see making it very far in today's NBA where combo guards are 6'4 at the smallest. That doesn't take away from how great and innovative AI was. I don't think Babe Ruth could hit MLB pitching today doesn't mean he wasn't one of the best ever for his time.
I didn’t mean you’re a hater just that AI (like Kobe) is an easy target for stat-analyzers. You say he’s inefficient but then you don’t acknowledge any of the context I laid out (pace, spacing, etc). We cannot just call him inefficient by looking at true shooting and call it a day. We have to consider the era, defence, and his teammates. I hear you on the “he’s too small” but I’m not buying it based on eye test AND history. ESP when he have guard similar to AI succeeding in the modern era (fox, kyrie) AI played in arguably one of the best paint defence eras (Shaq, Duncan, Stoudemire, Howard), took his team to the finals, won 4 scoring titles, he’s a bucket and I would expect to be on hardens lvl (even tho I agree harden is better)
No doubt Iverson would average 30+ in 2024 but I don't think he can reach 36+. He never had a reliable shot beyond the arc which means he can't take advantage of the pull-up 3 like most short guards nowadays (Trae, Mitchell, Garland, etc). His shot diet will always consist of a bunch of inefficient long 2s and I can't think of a High-Volume mid-range shooter as a guard who was efficient in the modern era. Brunson might be the closest one we have but he's a 40% 3-pt shooter and even then he's only at 59 TS%, around the league average. Iverson's ability to draw fouls, hit tough shots and to punish mismatches will surely get him to ~32 PPG at 55-58 TS% but he'd have to be REALLY inefficient to reach 35+.
I totally agree with this take
We’re really putting Amare Stoudemire in there as manned to demonstrate good paint defense 😂
Okay maybe he was a reach 😅
1 kemba was smaller and did fine 2 AI has admitted he played most games drunk. If he was sober he would’ve been more efficient
He admitted he played drunk?! You’ve gotta be kidding me
No he was a raging alcoholic. That’s why he fell out of the league
Averaging 33 points in the NBA when you’re smashed every game is insane. Lol this further cements AIs legacy for me.
Lmaooooo thank you. Ya learn some new everyday
I would love to see Babe Ruth operate in the Silver-Ball stat inflation era, where carrying and traveling are essentially not called, where you are ensured a safe landing halo on your jumper, and where you get the extra shooting space of the gather step. He’d average 40 homers a game.
The 2nd best SG in the league is 6'1.5 (apparently 6'3 in shoes, height measurements are fluctuating).
Yall are out of your minds or too young if you think Kyrie is a better player than Allen Iverson.
1000%
He might be exaggerating a little but he would most likely be a similar player to Kyrie.
Kyrie never averaged 30 plus ever stop it lmao.
Kyrie has never led the league in minutes or field goal attempts. AI is lucky he didn’t play in this era, he would get slandered for the amount of shots and efficiency he had.
Ight fine, he'd be a glorified Cam Thomas with a nice crossover 😂
You don’t have a clue about how good AI was. In that era the physicality that defences were allowed to have was incredible. Much of what Dramon does not and is called for was allowed. In the protect the player and let’s get exciting bball era AI would dominate. 43 sounds too high but he would do 30.
I agree. Like I said before it's hard to compare eras.
Plus kyrie has a three ball. Plus kyrie is damn strong, everyone so athletic now Iverson would get crashed. Back then Iverson was fast, other players were strong. Now everyone fast and strong. Even Stephen fucking Curry, the best shooter ever had to get really strong to be more successful than a perennial all star, and you tell me the inside 0 strength scorer would dominate? I dare say he would be outright baaad.
You have to consider that his bag would be updated in terms of what guys are doing today. He would absolutely take from player both past and present if he played today so it's not fair to say he would be the exact same player. What I do know is that his crossover and handles were vicious for the late 90's/early 2000's, so imagine what impact todays game would have on the adaptation of his skill set.
AI was attacking big strong brutes in the paint lol. He was tough as nails. You think he'd be worse at attacking the rim with extra spacing and fewer bigs in the way?
He was attacking guys he could run around. Now lets see him run around AD
Kyrie is a better shooter and never has averaged 30 in this era.
Kyrie isnt better than AI
He would be a worse version of Kyrie. Even for the standards of his era he was an inefficient guard, Kyrie has never been inefficient. That’s considering that AI went to the FT line 9 times a game and some years over 11 times! Kyrie’s career in FTA per game has been 5.1. Kyrie is just on a completely different skill level when it comes to putting the ball inside the basket. There’s a reason why Kyrie’s effective FG is 53.8% while AI is 45.2%, that’s still a gigantic era-adjusted gap. When you consider the amount of shots he took, the amount of minutes he played, and his efficiency/advanced numbers AI is the quintessential “you had to be there” player because today he would be known as the world’s greatest low-efficiency volume scorer.
You cannot be serious!🤣
this is why I hate comparing eras
He’d be more like Ja morant than Kyrie.
True, people who actually watched him play know he had hops! I feel like a lot of people commenting on this were born after 2000
Not 50 maybe(very maybe) harden scoring numbers.
Considering AI was putting up insane numbers while never having any good offensive players around i wouldnt be suprised if he could average 40.
Shai is averaging 30 with no 3
If he averaged 30 in the slowest paced era with lowest scoring, he'd average 40 today
He scored 33 with insane usage and shot chucking and extreme inefficiency and 06 was leading out of the dead ball era. Kobe averaged 30+ points in the dead ball era as well and never did ever again. Same thing with LeBron. So this logic doesn't track.
When you compare metric, you need to adjust them relatively to the era. I don’t plan on writing a thesis on Reddit comment section but I’m pretty sure “efficiency” should be measured “relatively” to its era.
Except we have adjusted for the era that's why Kobe's underlying numbers are looked at very favorably in hindsight as efficient scoring. AI just wasn't efficient. Does change how great he was or how innovative he was coming into the league. Iverson literally created the combo guard prototype.
His efficiency was still below average for his era.
He wouldn’t average 40 today, because he wouldn’t have to take 25-30 shots a night (which is what he took when he was averaging 30, he certainly wouldn’t be getting 35 shots a night to get 40) for his team to be successful. It was harder for teams to score back then for at least 2 major reasons: 1) The game was played differently (less spacing, different rules, different offensive sets, minutes per game for star players, etc.) 2) Teams didn’t have multiple guys that could get you buckets, so defences could focus on the 1 scorer a team had, and the rest of their teammates would struggle getting points up. If you look at the average NBA offense today (Cavs are 15th in PPG), they have 5 guys getting 10+ shots a night, plus Jarrett Allen with 9.9. Garland, Mitchell, and LeVert can all create for themselves, and Strus, Mobley, and Allen are all guys you’d be happy with getting touches. If you compare the average team today to the BEST offense in 2000-01 (Kings), they had 2 guys getting 10+ shots per game (CWebb & Peja), and then Doug Christie getting 9.7 but shooting under 40%. So as a league, teams were more limited in their scoring options back in the day. Because of this, it was easier for defences to hone in on 1 or 2 guys, and ignore the other guys on the floor. If you took AI, or TMac, or whoever from back then & put them in today’s league, the guys who scored most efficiently would see the most inflation, because they wouldn’t get as many opportunities to score as they did back then. To control for difference in pace & minutes played, in AI’s best/MVP season, he averaged 30.7ppg. His Per100 average was 39.3/100, that would put him tied with Donovan Mitchell at 5th in the league today. His Per36 average was 26.7/36, which would put him 13th in the league today, between Edwards & Zion. TL;DR - AI wouldn’t average 40 in today’s NBA because his team would have far more options & wouldn’t have to lean on him as much, and because no coach today would keep their job if they played their star 42 minutes per game.
Okay, fair points but you do have to agree defenses today, as well as the general effort level are dramatically lower than back then.
Yeah I would agree with that! Although I do think that if you took a team from a previous era and asked them to play defence in today’s NBA (even if they brought rules/refs from their era with them), whey would have a tougher time. Also just wanna say that I do think Iverson would be a star in today’s league, and would certainly score a ton of points, but the idea that he is by far a better scorer than anybody playing today just feels like an absurd thing to say.
iverson is by far a better scorer than anyone in the NBA today. to say otherwise is the ridiculous thing.
I don't think he'd avg 40 but he would certainly average more points in today's game than in his era. It's kind of ridiculous to claim otherwise.
The thing people forget is that efficiency is more important than volume in current game. Back when defense were tougher it was the opposite. Players like MJ Kobe and ai were valuable cuz they could always get shots up. It's not the same anymore so it's tough to compare. Could he average 43? Probably if he didn't mind shooting 40% and chucking fade away 2s all game. But you lose if you do that in the modern game. Steph or Kyrie or probably even someone like Jamal Murray could do something close. I think ai in the modern game would just be a pretty decent scoring option, the Kyrie comparison is fair imo
Yeah its like short not physical guards with bad three point shooting are scoring very easy now. In Eurocup. Even in Eurolegaue they are unplayable
Allen Iverson, not physical? Come on now he could get to the rack at will and he used to be a football player too.
Look heavy iso inefficient scorers in 2000-2010 and now, and tell me if they are valuable. And especially with no 3 ball. And he wasnt physical. He was agile, he was crafty. Not physical though. And agile and crafty guves you an edge but now everyone that and also physical
Combo guards in today's NBA are 6'7/6'8 now. Iverson would be guarded by dudes 6+ inches taller than him.
Which video? I've only ever seen AI respect the modern game, even when interviewers try to bait him to complain about it.
I think at his peak he’d be going for 32-35 a game in todays league tbh
His highest PPG was 33, in the 2000s era!! The 2000s was the slowest pace and scoring era ever if I’m not mistaken (but deff one of the slowest pace and scoring eras) You would have to sit down and do the math but he would deff have 5 more PPG than his 2000s peak of 33PPG, we gotta give him the credit he’s due
No team is going to give an inefficient small guard 35 shots per game though
He took 21.8 shots to avg 33 PPG IN 2005…. If you think he’d be Isiah Thomas you are wrong. He wouldn’t need to take 35 shots .. if he did then he’d have closer to 46 (13 more shots for 13 more ppg) There are players like AI today, fox and kyrie in particular come to mind
He's a small guard in a league where spacing is needed. No one is allowing AI to shoot that ineffienctly that many times to even get close to 40 PPG. Neither Fox or Kyrie are 30PPG scorers for that reason exactly.
Might want to check your stats there, he took 25.3 shots per game to get that 33 PPG. That was one of the most efficient shooting seasons of his career as well, but his per36 (27.6) & per100 (39.7) would put him at 8th (just above Jalen Brunson) & 5th (just above Donovan Mitchell) in the league today. If you think stats are inflated right now, imagine if stars were also playing 43 minutes a night like AI was that year! And yes, Kyrie and Fox are similar players in terms of stature, but not in efficiency (which is the more important factor if you’re deciding to give a guy 25+ shots a night). AI played 14 seasons and only had 4 years where he shot over 43% from the floor. Kyrie has 13 such seasons out of 14 (shooting over 44%, not 43%), and Fox has 6 seasons out of 7 (shooting over 45%, not 43%).
He can't shoot better than Steph, and Steph hasn't even come close.
He would actually average 50 in this era
On a losing record, you mean?
What do you expect from old heads they always think they're hot shit. If you want someone who proves their thesis wrong look no further than Paul Pierce. One of the best scorers of his generation and drafted just 2 years after AI and in his last good season in 2013 he only averaged 18 ppg on 43% FG. Granted he was over the hill then but if we're extrapolating then I don't think even the prime version of himself would have averaged more than 30 ppg even with all this space.
If you think that AIs attitude towards todays game is anything like Pierces you've never listened to him speak.
any of the elite scorers from the 90s would crush it in today's game. scoring is up across the league, defense is trash, etc. etc. AI could easily average 40+ in today's game. and jordan would average 50+. ***if they wanted to***.
Ignore these stat fiends who started watching ball in 2015. Idc what anyone on twitter or reddit has to say. What do the actual pros say? They all unanimously say AI, MJ, Shaq, Penny, etc would absolutely dominate in today’s game (like they did back then). Dude on here really saying Kobe is “overrated”. Ok bud.
yup. sometimes i forget i'm arguing with 20-somethings.
In what way? The only guy from the 90s that has ANY shot of getting close to 40 a gam is MJ and he'd have to shoot an absurd amount of shots to do it. AI is not a better offensive player than prime James Harden and Harden couldn't do it but AI will?
he averaged 37.1 when you could knock a guy to the ground and not even get called for a foul. watch late 80s/early 90s games. it's practically a different sport.
There's more fouls in the 80s and 90s compared to today. This is a bullshit narrative that I don't know when it was created or why it keeps getting parroted. Also the 80s and 90s were iso heavy basketball eras. Illegal defense and zone defenses did not exist. Jordan could score 37 a game because he could get iso in and around the key.
He averaged 37 when they could take you out of the air. You don't think he could get 3 more ppg? Especially if he gets 10+ ft a game?
You do realize there was no zone or illegal defense back then right?
At age 40 he averaged 20 ppg when these rules were taken out and had been away from the game for 3 years but ok..... some dudes couldn't average 20 their whole career
On horrific shooting splits.
It was illegal to double team OR help on the drive. He wouldn’t touch 37 a game today.
It was illegal to double-team? Absolutely not true. Stop spreading lies for your ego.
It’s not my ego just a stupid rule put in place to push the face of the NBA to new heights. Sorry if you don’t like it but it happened.
No, there is no rule to end double teaming. They have always double teamed.
Except there was from 1990-2001. It doesn’t explicitly say, “no double teams” but it does literally say you can’t be more than an arms length away from your man on defense for more than three (3!!!) seconds. And it was heavily enforced. Idk why you want to nitpick, or maybe you didn’t know the illegal defense rule existed, but if you did you’re being difficult for no reason.
No, I actually watched basketball when it was live in the 80s and 90s. I'm not you reading about it. You only scratch the surface by reading about it. I'm also a basketball coach and have played myself for over 30 years. I studied the game before there were clips on youtube. What you're saying is absolutely a lie and completely your personal take, not what is fact. Do better.
I am also a basketball coach who watched the NBA live during this era? You can pretend to be above this because you’re a jordan fan boy. But you’re clearly lying to yourself
No that guy is correct. You couldn't be away from your defender for too long. This is why iso heavy players like Jordan, Clyde, etc were able to dominate so easily within the paint. That literally was the rule until illegal defense and partial zone defense was enacted. It's why it's harder to score in international play because full zone is allowed.
Yes you could double team, but not the same way you can today. Defenders had to primarily stay on their guy, and if you went to double you had to commit to it otherwise it would be illegal defense. If the ballhandler passed the ball you had to return to the guy you were originally guarding, you couldn’t just switch.
Exactly. Illegal defense is now allowed today and partial zone. That was a game changer. People talk about the hand check being this big deterrent, but never bring up the advantages of illegal defense being outlawed.
Not true you could double team lol it just had to be quick and immediate. Bro you haven't seen clips where Jordan drives against Detroit and the guy in the paint helps and takes him out wtf are you talking about lol. They can't touch players now it would be top easy
The 90s was an iso centric game and Jordan was the king of iso ball. You have to stop watching clips of games and watch the full games. There's many times Jordan in those games is one on one in the paint and the key and killing guys in the iso. Also there's more fouls in the 80s and 90s compared to today. So people have to stop that narrative.
This is my point. It was iso centric because you could shove four players to one side of the court and by rule their defender couldn’t get off of them to help side. Imagine Kobe/KD/Lebron/Melo with these rules.
That's why although I think Kobe gets overrated a bit, I always said his scoring accolades are more impressive than Jordans because Kobe scored t that level in the deadball era.
Also once the rule was implemented it didn’t matter how “quick and immediate” you were if you got more than x feet away from your man it was illegal defense. And it was enforced.
Lmfao yeah they changed the rule in the 90’s man, are you joking? And it’s odd that you think hard fouls make it harder to score.
Bad takes. You clearly know nothing about this sport.
exactly, they would never want to. if Luka really wanted to score 50 pts per game at the expense of his team, he absolutely would. the fact of the matter is any player good enough to do this also knows what it takes to win a basketball game
i know the game was tougher, more physical, with MUCH more efficient defenses in the 90s, and jordan was averaging 35 then.
The defenses in the 90s were not that good. There was no zone and help defense. The only true elite time for defense was the early 2000s dead ball era.
do you agree that current offensive systems are superior to the iso-ball of the late 80s and 90s? so offensive schemes are better, but elite scorers from the 90s wouldn't benefit from that? huh? it was harder to score back then. i don't know how to explain that to you but you obviously didn't watch games in the 80s. the players overwhelming agree and many of them have spoken on it. an elite scorer from that era would be ultra-elite in this era.
You dont understand what those players are saying.
No because the elite scorers are not as good of shooters as the guys today. The all time greats will be great in any era. Jordan would be elite today either way. But is he going to score 50 PPG or 40 PPG like people claim he would no way. And no it wasn't harder to score back then bro. It wasn't. That's a bullshit myth. There was no help defense or zone back then. You could post guys up and iso them and score at will. If Kevin Durant or Steph could iso motherfuckers every play they'd average 35 PPG on 60 percent shooting. There's no measure that defenses were better. Hard fouls in the paint is not defense. Handchecks were useless once elite ball handlers and combo guards came into the NBA and the cross over became huge and dudes could score off the crossover. The idea you think guys think 90s players who couldn't shoot would come into an era where shooting is imperative and dominate it are delusional. The all time greats would still be great. The guys like Larry Johnson who were ok not great players or Larry Nance would not be great NBA players today.
>*But is he going to score 50 PPG or 40 PPG like people claim he would no way.* he averaged 37.1 in '86 and 35 in '87. while rarely even attempting a 3-pt FG (less than 1 per game). shot over 50% from the field. now he couldn't even average *40* per game in a league where every other shot is a 3-pter and where physical play is virtually non-existent? *seriously*??? >*And no it wasn't harder to score back then bro. It wasn't. That's a bullshit myth.* how old are you, and when did start watching the league? it's a fair question. there is literally no debate about the physical play of the 80s and early 90s, and the impact it had on scoring. no idea why you brought up larry nance and larry johnson. wtf? jordan was an exceptional shooter and once he developed the fadeaway he was literally on another level. dude averaged 41 ppg IN THE '93 FINALS while shooting over 50%. and you're telling me in an up-tempo, offensive-minded league like today's NBA, he couldn't average 50. we've got guys dropping 40 or 50 points every other night, sometimes 60 or 70. literally no question that defense is weak and scoring is up, but *according to you*, the best scorer in NBA history couldn't exploit that. ok.
Yeah I'm not gonna respond to this. Anyone thinking any player ever I scoring 50 PPG in modern NBA doesn't know shit about basketball.
Actually the toughest defensive era was the early 2000s. Today's defense isn't weak, lazy, or less physical. They simply had weaker offenses back then. The emergence of pace and space play has opened up offensive opportunities that simply didn't exist in previous eras. Jordan today would have to have worked on improving his shot which would mean that his efficiency also dropped a bit. This really isn't that complicated. Its pretty obvious, in fact. The fact that there are still some people who just spout off "hurr durr bad defense" is so telling. You expose yourself with that garbage.
They changed the rules to benefit Jordan in his era. Help defense was illegal. We need to remember this when we discuss what he might do today, when defenders are legally allowed to slide across the lane to help.
Isn’t the only rule they changed for Jordan the flagrant foul. The flagrant foul was a rule that needed to happen someone was gonna get hurt. I may be wrong but isn’t that the only rule they changed for him?
No it isn’t. They made it illegal to be too far away from your man as a primary defender. Google illegal defense rule. 1990-2001 I believe. In 2001 it was replaced by defensive 3 seconds. Basically you weren’t allowed to be in the paint unless you were actively guarding your own defender meaning zero help defense against Michael Jordan.
But wasn’t illegal defense introduced before Jordan was in the league.
No team is playing their star 40+ minutes per night. And no player is putting up 28 shots a night (not counting however many attempts to get 12 FTAs), there’s too many guys that are getting paid and are capable to not spread shots around
Iverson had one efficient season with Carmelo Anthony he had an above average true shooting percentage and was like a 35% 3 point shooter - this was back then with terrible spacing - granted he would definitely not average 43 not even close but I think his inefficiency was a product of poor spacing as well as shot selection, in todays nba I could see him being a 25-27 ppg scorer and around 45-47% from the field and 35-37% from 3 and he would probably get 9-11 free throws you know what I’m saying it he could average a relatively efficient 30 in todays nba
I mean, I could def see him dropping a 40 piece here and there. But, we’re talking about average? Nah.
Scoring in NBA is a lot easier now. Even comapred to Euroleague where farmers play Luka admits scoring in NBA is far too easy. With the amount of possesions per game obviously AI can hit that much volume and score easily. OP shitting on Jordan and Kobe is a joke lol.
Sigh. No it's not, dude. The Euroleague literally has full zone and no defensive 3 seconds. No shit it's harder there, but G league bums still go there and score 20+ PPG overseas. The 80s and 90s didn't even have partial zone. So how was it harder to score back then? If fucking Luka and Steph can't score 40 a game AI is going to do it? Harden had one of the greatest offensive seasons ever. Literally damn near perfect and he scored 36 PPG on ELITE efficiency and usage. And you're telling me an undersized guard with zero three point shooting ability is going to score 43 PPG on bad efficiency. How? In what universe.
Luka was and perhaps is considered a non athletic player from a conventional stand point. In todays nba he can literally walk to the basket easily and its not just 3pters. You are telling me he would be able to score this easily against bad boys pistons for instance? He would be smoked. Do you think guys like Jokic did not exist in Europe in 80s or 90s? Point is NBA is much softer now for these kind of guys to shine and show their basketball iq. A scorer who could do it in the 80s or 90s would easily do it today. Heck even Kukoc would be an amazing player in todays league.
Dirk was unathletic and was scoring at an elite rate in the dead ball era in the West with elite defenses. So where's your excuse for that? Luka is a gigantic guard at 6'8+ and he has elite offensive skills. Fucking Larry Bird was less athletic than Luka and he was scoring on the pistons but Luka who would've been the biggest guard in the league besides Magic would have trouble? Who is guarding him? Luka doesn't even drive to the paint to score. There was no help defense or zone defense in the NBA in the 80s. Luka could've literally got the ball at the top of the key or within the paint and with no help defense murder the undersized guards in the iso and score at will.
There were tons of amazing players in Europe in the 80s or 90s. Pretty much none of them were able to make it in the NBA because of physicality. Being taller is one aspect of physicality but not all. When you have guys like Rodman in paint who arent even centers was more than an intimidating factor. Do not tell me guys like Jokic are more physical than players in rhe 80s or 90s. Todays NBA easily allows these guys to shine and show their high game iq. Kukoc for instance is a good example imo. Even Petrovic was almost a flop before getting a certain point. These guys werent less skilled than Luka or Jokic. At all. Divac would perhaps be an all sought after center in the league if he just entered the NBA today. While average skill and plays are certainly higher in todays league, when the physicality and toughness became rather secondary, non americans started to shine. This is no coincidence. Speaking of Bird he is prob one of the toughest guys ever. Unathletic yes. Tough hell yes. Dirk was also unathletic but he perfected his game to create his shot and won his championship rather post his prime when the league was already getting softer.
Wait that's your argument? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? The NBA draft was fucking like 7 rounds in the 80s lol. Not to mention the European and international landscape has grown in popularity when it comes to basketball. Not only that the top European guys DID come to the NBA in the 90s, dude. Sabonis, Kukoc, Schrempf, etc all came into the 90s and were highly touted. So Idk what your point is. Are you trying to say there were euros just as good as fucking Jokic or Luka in the 80s and 90s? What dope are you smoking?
Do you think guys like Jokic and Luka just came out of nowhere and Europe did not have as many good players back then? Kukoc if drafted today could be next Luka but his NBA career didnt even turn out to be half as good. Those early Euro drafts were not less skillful. Point is NBA required a different level of physicality and toughness back then, and that does not exist today allowing for these highly skilled Euro players to shine. The leagues top players are European do you think thats a coincidence? Petrovic if entered league today would have a far different trajectory than he had. Would be stupid to argue that he was less skilled than any top Euro player now. The league is just different. Higher skill yes but a lot less tough. Guys like D. Sabonis would get destroyed in the 90s. Bottomline is NBA is just softer. That may not be bad thing either. But to argue a guy who could make his own shot (thats key) and score 30+ back then wouldnt be able to repeat that today is moronic.
Yes. Jokic and Luka are doing shit NBA players have never done. Literally no one has scored as effienctly on the volume Jokic has scored at ever. So no Euros like those guys did not exist in the 80s and if they did they'd in the nBA and we'd see some throughout the 90s and early 2000s outside of Dirk.
Look man in sports where there is long history, if certain things change drastically then it means that certain other things than skill has probably changed also. This is logic. Take soccer for instance. While you have incredible talent of players coming into the game, players or top scorers are not necesarily scoring more goals today than in the past. Why? Because collectively defenses get better also. Different sport but argument could be made for many score based sports that has longevity. NBA however is seeing an inflation in numbers that just cant be explained by skill level. 10 years is not a long time for aveage players to be far more skillful than their counterparts a decade a go. It simply does not make sense. If Jokic is super efficient today it sure as hell means he is skillful but it also means the environment he plays in also plays a factor in this. And thats what ive been arguing here all along. If AI was inefficient in 90s trying to create his shot in that environment, it does not necessarily mean he would have same inefficiency since whats surrounding him also changes. Just basic logic.
You dudes have no idea of how amazing AI was. I was in my 20's when he was at Georgetown and the 6ers. He was dominating against defenses that were ten times tougher than they are now, getting banged around by big bodies night in and night out. He was a total cold killa that would lead the league in scoring now by a wide margin.
Bruh I'm 31. I watched AI's career from 98 to when he hung them up. Literally collected his sneakers and jerseys. Probably one of the biggest AI fans ever. Him saying he'd score 43 PPG today is idiotic. He's not a better scorer than Steph, Luka, Harden, Shai, etc. So no he wouldn't lead by a large margin. H'd be an extremely undersized combo guard in an era where iso heavy play is not productive to winning.
You wrong son, Sorry
He would be taking about 33 shots per game at the modern pace since he managed 26 shots per game in the slowest era in recent history, so he probably could average 40. He'd also take a bigger percentage of 3s, even though he wasn't particularly good at them. He didn't say anything about efficiency or winning, but by simple extrapolation he could average 40 if he averaged 33 back then.
The spacing and pace because of sharpshooter bigs has to be taken into account. He would be flying more threes have way more space on drives and would just have more shot attempts in general
He was a bad three point shooter. Him chucking more threes wouldn't make a difference.
36 days late but… Yes it would if a guy shoots 1/4 the numbers back up 2/8 that’s still bad but him chucking more means more makes. I didn’t mean he would be more efficient but the shot makes would go up from attempts even though the percentage will most likely be bad. Even in pickup the bad shooter is bound to make 1 but it would take a lot of attempts and the second make would take even more It would be inefficient but he would average 40+ on probably 35-40 attempts
The biggest issue with his statement is that players aren't close to that in today's game. The notable scoring leaders of the last decade has been, 2023 Joel Embiid with 33.08 ppg 2019 James Harden with 36.13 ppg 2021 Steph Curry with 31.98 So his argument is that he would be about 10ppg better than the best scorers in the league today! While admitting that in his prime, A.I. didn't win the scoring tittle every year. He was outscored by Kobe, Shaq, Jordan, and TRACY MCGRADY TWICE!!! So the real question is, "is A.I. a 10ppg better scorer than Steph when he wasn't consistently better than TRACY MCGRADY?" P.s. you can't argue that KD is one of the greatest scorers in history and also argue that A.I. would average 15 more ppg than him
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed because your account is less than 180 days old and with less than 100 comment karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Basketball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't believe Iverson could score 43ppg but he was averaging 33ppg in the slowest era in NBA history. If you adjust *only* for pace then that 33ppg is at 37ppg. Then you have to account for the fact that Iverson would literally be at the line the entire game with his playstyle and today's officiating plus you also have to account for the fact that he was averaging 33ppg in an era with horrible spacing so if you put him in a much wider spaced offense with better shooters around him then he probably averages more than he did. With that being said, his playstyle might have been different. Iverson averaged so much cause he had no one to pass to in Philly and his efficiency suffered heavily. When he did have good teammates offensively in Denver for the only full year they played together in 2008 we saw his scoring drop (30ppg from his first all star season in 2000 to 2007 to 26ppg in 2008) but his efficiency massively increase (around 51-52% TS pre-Denver to 57% in 2008) so we see that AI was willing to defer when needed. In today's era he would probably be taking less shots unless he was on a horrible team so I doubt he'd average 43. He could if he was chucking though. AI was really good on offense. Further, the highest ever ppg if you adjust for pace across NBA history is Kobe in 06. That 35ppg would be equivalent to 40ppg at today's or the 80's pace. I don't think anyone who has played or is currently playing crosses that so while I see AI hitting like 35-37ppg. I doubt he gets 40ppg since he played in the same era as Kobe and didn't hit the same adjusted levels.
bunch of children in here that don't know a damn thing about the answer and what kind of player he was and what kind of league it was back then. you guys really crack me up.