Who looks better at the game of basketball: Butch Komives vs Mathew Dellavadova

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I really don't get the point od this thread. Of course human race doesn't genetically evolve in such a short period od time, so I don't think there's a greater amount of talent available to one person. The changes imo come from the fact that the game is consistantly changing.

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

[Jameerthefear]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

The funny thing is this isn't really debatable. This is a straight up fact that grown ass man like Lazerrus, CavsFTW, etc. try to disprove day after day. I can show you a ****ing highschool mixtape on ballislife or some shit of players that won't ever amount to anything doing crazy ass moves.

[iznogood]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

Good point, I agree.

[ralph_i_el]

What is Dellavadova doing in the NBA on the court that Komives isn't. Watch the film, look at the moves, what does Delly do to make him superior?

He's doing it AGAINST better players. I looked like a damn champ the other day against a bunch of high schoolers, but in reality I suck.

[MiseryCityTexas]

I think Belladova can be a solid role player. He has shown flashes in the past that he at least belongs in the NBA with his shooting. I've seen waaay shitter players in the league than Belldova. (like Keith Booth, Rusty Larue, Kornell David, Matt Fish, and Calvin booth). Didn't nobody have a clue that Kornell David existed until Mcgrady dunked on him.

[RRR3]

Komives was one of my dad's favorite players

[coin24]

Delly is fkn garbage what the hell are the rest of you watching?

[Psileas]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

Literally no-one in his right mind would claim that "1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s". Just taking into account how rare, even today, it is for someone to grow to a height of 6'7, especially when we're (mostly) talking about a country with an average male height which hasn't been altered substantially for decades and is similar to the height of most developed countries, but not very close to the average height of countries like the Netherlands, let alone even taller (like 6'10+) and the fact that, despite excessive trolling, 6'6-6'7 is basically what the average NBA height has been from the early 60's onwards, it makes zero sense to argue anywhere near such an absurd number. Not to mention raw talent and the fact that 1,000 Baylors certainly don't exist today, neither do 1,000 Oscars, let alone 1,000 Wilts or Kareems.

[LAZERUSS]

Literally not one single sane person has said that the improvements in level of play are due to human evolution.

The increased talent level in the NBA is due to the fact that basketball is a much more popular and developed sport than it was in the 60s. 1000s of times more kids grow up aspiring to and pursuing a career in the NBA today as compared with the 60s.

This is the same reason why the current era is a weak one in boxing - the sport's popularity has diminished and this has led to weaker product.

Of course basketball is a bit different in that someone who is 7 feet tall is gonna end up playing basketball whether it be the 60s or today...for this reason i don't think that big men were much worse in the 60s than today...but are guards/wings substantially better? Absolutely.

The same nonsense posted again and again.

If you look at the footage of Zach Randolph and Kevin Love...and then compare it with the footage of Willis Reed and Jerry Lucas...I can guarantee you that any rational fan would not see a discernible difference. Yet they played 40-50 years apart.

And this ridiculous crap about players not dribbling with their left hand. I can show footage from 1962 in which little kids are dribbling like the Harlem Globetrotters (behind their backs, between their legs, etc, etc.) I grew up in that era and I can assure you everyone that was playing any competitive basketball was capable of dribbling with both hands.

Three point shooting? Guess what, by the early 70's many kids were learning to shoot from that distance. Why? Because the ABA was using it. Again, players like Lucas, Barry, and Maravich developed three-point range, and all three would have become Bird-like had the rule been in place in the 60's. And Bird is a good example, as well. His career 3pt % is not remarkable, at .376, nor were his attempts. But anyone that actually watched him in the 3pt shooting contests would tell you he would likely win them today.

I attended a Knicks game in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas was firing from between the circles, and well beyond the current 3pt line...and he made something like 20 in a row. Same with a game I saw years later with Chris Mullen. The guy made some incredible number of shots in a row from all sides of the 3pt line in a shoot-around.

Are today's players more athletic? On average, marginally so. But how do explain a 6-7 1/2" Kevin Love not only running away with a rpg title a few years ago, but in only 35 mpg? Think about that. 15 rpg in 35 mpg! And yet I am supposed to believe that a Russell, or Wilt would struggle today?

Hell, look at the current crop of CENTERS in the NBA today. Demarcus Cousins, at 6-9 1/2", and with a non-existant vertical, is currently putting up a 24-12 season...and in less than 34 mpg. A 6-11 270 lb. Bob Lanier had more size and skill, and that was HIS averages in the 70's. Absolutely NOTHING has changed.

The good centers in the league today are all around 6-10. Which is pretty much the average height of NBA centers since the early 60's. NOTHING has changed. And, please don't tell me that today's centers are more skilled. Wilt gets ripped for his poor FT shooting, but there is enough footage which CLEARLY shows he was exceptionally skilled in the post, with range up to 15 ft. And before some idiot says that he wouldn't average 50 ppg in today's NBA, how about 32 ppg? That is what he averaging early in the 69-70 season, and on a .579 FG%, to go along with 21 rpg...when he blew out his knee. That same season rookie Kareem averaged 29-15 and on a .518 FG%. Two years later KAJ was averaging 35-17. 15 years later he was routinely hanging 40 point games on the likes of Hakeem and Ewing.

A way-past his prime Moses Malone was STILL outrebounding a Hakeem who would win a rpg late in the 80's in their H2H's. How could that be? A 35-36 year old Gilmore had two straight seasons, covering 10 straight games, in which he averaged 24 ppg on a .677 FG% against Hakeem.

Bob McAdoo was a Kevin Durant playing CENTER. Same height, same skills, slightly less range (only because the 3pt shot didn't come about until the end of his career), and a much better rebounder.

Forwards? Again...Lucas. But how about Dr. J, who was playing college ball in the 60's? The Dr. was still winning MVPs in the 80's. Rick Barry was no more dominant in '75 than he had been in '67. And he won a FMVP that season. Gus Johnson was 6-6 230 lbs, and with a well-documented 44+ vertical. He actually rebounded BETTER, on bum knees, in the 70's, than he did in the 60's. How come?

Watch footage of Connie Hawkins. He was James Worthy before James Worthy. John Havlicek's career split the 60's and 70's, and he was MORE productive in his eight years in the 70's, than he was in his eight years in the 60's. There were many others, too. Cunningham, Baylor, Reed (yes he played PF too), Hayes (yes, he played PF too), Sidney Wicks (just ask Gilmore about him), Haywood...MANY greats.

Guard play. Of course the bashers always claim that West couldn't dribble with his left hand (which is odd, since "the Logo is dribbling with his left hand), but aside from that, just watch footage of Pistol Pete, who was dominating college ball in the 60's. BTW, Maravich was a full 6-5, and would be among the taller guards in TODAY's NBA. In any case, NO ONE at the time would have taken Maravich over West or Oscar. But there were many others. Just ask Bill Russell about Sam Jones. Then there was Dave Bing, Nate Archibald, Gail Goodrich, "Skywalker" Thompson, Monroe, ...MANY greats.

And again, most of them played relatively long careers, and most of them were just as dominant early in their careers, as they would be near the end of them. They just didn't suddenly fall off of a cliff when the "new wave" of talent arrived.

I have read those who have claimed that the 80's is when the "modern era" arrived. Pleas explain this then...the first FOUR MVPs went to players whose career started in the 70's (or 60's.) The first FIVE scoring champions, all played in the 70's. The first SIX rebounding leaders, ...all played in the 70's. And the first FIVE FG% champs...all played in the 70's.

I have long maintained that there has never been one single season, in which all of a sudden, the new wave of players just completely took over. BUT, I can show you season-after-season, in which "old-timers" were still dominating their new peers.

And no, it hasn't been a gradual development, either. Again, just use "bridges", and you will see the changes have been minimal, if at all. Sure, the GAME has changed...due to rules changes, such as the 3pt shot. But the actual PLAYERS...nope, no better. More of them, but even then the level no different. True, the greats are great...just as they were in the 60's. But, as for the rest...all on the same level.

How do I KNOW that? As Psileas commented above...where are the thousand Kareems and Wilts? Hell, where are the Shaq's? The MJ's? The Hakeem's? The Robinson's? Wouldn't this "world-wide explosion" have brought forth a ton of 7-1+ Shaq's?

30 some years ago Pat Riley envisioned an NBA in which teams would be fielding five Magic Johnson's. There hasn't been even ONE since. Not even close.

Watch footage of Maravich...and then compare it with Ricky Rubio. No rational fan is going to claim that Rubio is even remotely as skilled. What does that tell you about the current level of "guard play?" And think about this...a 6-2 180 lb Steve Nash was winning apg titles, at age 37, and in only 33 mpg. How the hell does that happen in an era of a "world-wide population explosion?" In that same season, a 6-7 Love won a rebounding title (again, in 35 mpg), and the 6-11 stumble-bum Andrew Bogut won a bpg title. How is that possible with all these world-class athletes on the planet today?

Sorry to tell all of these 15-20 year olds here...the game is no better today, than it was 50 years ago. And there is virtually ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Jameerthefear]

The same nonsense posted again and again.

If you look at the footage of Zach Randolph and Kevin Love...and then compare it with the footage of Willis Reed and Jerry Lucas...I can guarantee you that any rational fan would not see a discernible difference. Yet they played 40-50 years apart.

And this ridiculous crap about players not dribbling with their left hand. I can show footage from 1962 in which little kids are dribbling like the Harlem Globetrotters (behind their backs, between their legs, etc, etc.) I grew up in that era and I can assure you everyone that was playing any competitive basketball was capable of dribbling with both hands.

Three point shooting? Guess what, by the early 70's many kids were learning to shoot from that distance. Why? Because the ABA was using it. Again, players like Lucas, Barry, and Maravich developed three-point range, and all three would have become Bird-like had the rule been in place in the 60's. And Bird is a good example, as well. His career 3pt % is not remarkable, at .376, nor were his attempts. But anyone that actually watched him in the 3pt shooting contests would tell you he would likely win them today.

I attended a Knicks game in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas was firing from between the circles, and well beyond the current 3pt line...and he made something like 20 in a row. Same with a game I saw years later with Chris Mullen. The guy made some incredible number of shots in a row from all sides of the 3pt line in a shoot-around.

Are today's players more athletic? On average, marginally so. But how do explain a 6-7 1/2" Kevin Love not only running away with a rpg title a few years ago, but in only 35 mpg? Think about that. 15 rpg in 35 mpg! And yet I am supposed to believe that a Russell, or Wilt would struggle today?

Hell, look at the current crop of CENTERS in the NBA today. Demarcus Cousins, at 6-9 1/2", and with a non-existant vertical, is currently putting up a 24-12 season...and in less than 34 mpg. A 6-11 270 lb. Bob Lanier had more size and skill, and that was HIS averages in the 70's. Absolutely NOTHING has changed.

The good centers in the league today are all around 6-10. Which is pretty much the average height of NBA centers since the early 60's. NOTHING has changed. And, please don't tell me that today's centers are more skilled. Wilt gets ripped for his poor FT shooting, but there is enough footage which CLEARLY shows he was exceptionally skilled in the post, with range up to 15 ft. And before some idiot says that he wouldn't average 50 ppg in today's NBA, how about 32 ppg? That is what he averaging early in the 69-70 season, and on a .579 FG%, to go along with 21 rpg...when he blew out his knee. That same season rookie Kareem averaged 29-15 and on a .518 FG%. Two years later KAJ was averaging 35-17. 15 years later he was routinely hanging 40 point games on the likes of Hakeem and Ewing.

A way-past his prime Moses Malone was STILL outrebounding a Hakeem who would win a rpg late in the 80's in their H2H's. How could that be? A 35-36 year old Gilmore had two straight seasons, covering 10 straight games, in which he averaged 24 ppg on a .677 FG% against Hakeem.

Bob McAdoo was a Kevin Durant playing CENTER. Same height, same skills, slightly less range (only because the 3pt shot didn't come about until the end of his career), and a much better rebounder.

Forwards? Again...Lucas. But how about Dr. J, who was playing college ball in the 60's? The Dr. was still winning MVPs in the 80's. Rick Barry was no more dominant in '75 than he had been in '67. And he won a FMVP that season. Gus Johnson was 6-6 230 lbs, and with a well-documented 44+ vertical. He actually rebounded BETTER, on bum knees, in the 70's, than he did in the 60's. How come?

Watch footage of Connie Hawkins. He was James Worthy before James Worthy. John Havlicek's career split the 60's and 70's, and he was MORE productive in his eight years in the 70's, than he was in his eight years in the 60's. There were many others, too. Cunningham, Baylor, Reed (yes he played PF too), Hayes (yes, he played PF too), Sidney Wicks (just ask Gilmore about him), Haywood...MANY greats.

Guard play. Of course the bashers always claim that West couldn't dribble with his left hand (which is odd, since "the Logo is dribbling with his left hand), but aside from that, just watch footage of Pistol Pete, who was dominating college ball in the 60's. BTW, Maravich was a full 6-5, and would be among the taller guards in TODAY's NBA. In any case, NO ONE at the time would have taken Maravich over West or Oscar. But there were many others. Just ask Bill Russell about Sam Jones. Then there was Dave Bing, Nate Archibald, Gail Goodrich, "Skywalker" Thompson, Monroe, ...MANY greats.

And again, most of them played relatively long careers, and most of them were just as dominant early in their careers, as they would be near the end of them. They just didn't suddenly fall off of a cliff when the "new wave" of talent arrived.

I have read those who have claimed that the 80's is when the "modern era" arrived. Pleas explain this then...the first FOUR MVPs went to players whose career started in the 70's (or 60's.) The first FIVE scoring champions, all played in the 70's. The first SIX rebounding leaders, ...all played in the 70's. And the first FIVE FG% champs...all played in the 70's.

I have long maintained that there has never been one single season, in which all of a sudden, the new wave of players just completely took over. BUT, I can show you season-after-season, in which "old-timers" were still dominating their new peers.

And no, it hasn't been a gradual development, either. Again, just use "bridges", and you will see the changes have been minimal, if at all. Sure, the GAME has changed...due to rules changes, such as the 3pt shot. But the actual PLAYERS...nope, no better. More of them, but even then the level no different. True, the greats are great...just as they were in the 60's. But, as for the rest...all on the same level.

How do I KNOW that? As Psileas commented above...where are the thousand Kareems and Wilts? Hell, where are the Shaq's? The MJ's? The Hakeem's? The Robinson's? Wouldn't this "world-wide explosion" have brought forth a ton of 7-1+ Shaq's?

30 some years ago Pat Riley envisioned an NBA in which teams would be fielding five Magic Johnson's. There hasn't been even ONE since. Not even close.

Watch footage of Maravich...and then compare it with Ricky Rubio. No rational fan is going to claim that Rubio is even remotely as skilled. What does that tell you about the current level of "guard play?" And think about this...a 6-2 180 lb Steve Nash was winning apg titles, at age 37, and in only 33 mpg. How the hell does that happen in an era of a "world-wide population explosion?" In that same season, a 6-7 Love won a rebounding title (again, in 35 mpg), and the 6-11 stumble-bum Andrew Bogut won a bpg title. How is that possible with all these world-class athletes on the planet today?

Sorry to tell all of these 15-20 year olds here...the game is no better today, than it was 50 years ago. And there is virtually ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise.

yep. you're still a ****ing idiot

[Dr.J4ever]

Good thread, Cavs.

Let me offer my two cents.

When Erving came into the scene during the early 70s, and when he got to Philly in 76, the comment and general observation by many including Pat Riley, is where did this guy come from? Is this guy an alien or from outer space?

When Doc started playing pro hoops, there was never any player quite like him ever. Doc consistently played above the rim, or more accurately way above the rim.

My question is if Doc started playing today in the NBA, would he look so unusual from other high fliers who already came before in the last 2 decades from Thompson to Dominique to Jordan to Carter to Tmac to Kobe to lebron and many other 2 guards and even PGs like Westbrook? The depth of athletic freaks since the 80s has brought the game to new heights. You simply didn't see those type of players in the 60s.

The answer is obvious. Doc would not look so unique as he did back then. It's acknowledged that Doc went in to the ABA/NBA and changed the game. If Doc went into the NBA today, there wouldn't be anything for him to change. Ironically, much of how the NBA is today is in huge part because of him.

So the point is the game has evolved, and players are on average better at least athletically from players in the 60s.

Now, I am of the opinion that athletic freaks like Wilt and Russel would do great in any era. Great players can adjust, and there is no doubt in my mind that Wilt and Russel would be MVP caliber players in today's league, just like the Doctor would challenge Lebron for best SF in today's NBA.

[CavaliersFTW]

Good thread, Cavs.

Let me offer my two cents.

When Erving came into the scene during the early 70s, and when he got to Philly in 76, the comment and general observation by many including Pat Riley, is where did this guy come from? Is this guy an alien or from outer space?

When Doc started playing pro hoops, there was never any player quite like him ever. Doc consistently played above the rim, or more accurately way above the rim.

My question is if Doc started playing today in the NBA, would he look so unusual from other high fliers who already came before in the last 2 decades from Thompson to Dominique to Jordan to Carter to Tmac to Kobe to lebron and many other 2 guards and even PGs like Westbrook? The depth of athletic freaks since the 80s has brought the game to new heights. You simply didn't see those type of players in the 60s.

The answer is obvious. Doc would not look so unique as he did back then. It's acknowledged that Doc went in to the ABA/NBA and changed the game. If Doc went into the NBA today, there wouldn't be anything for him to change. Ironically, much of how the NBA is today is in huge part because of him.

So the point is the game has evolved, and players are on average better at least athletically from players in the 60s.

Now, I am of the opinion that athletic freaks like Wilt and Russel would do great in any era. Great players can adjust, and there is no doubt in my mind that Wilt and Russel would be MVP caliber players in today's league, just like the Doctor would challenge Lebron for best SF in today's NBA.

What does that have to do with Mathew Dellavadova and Komives?

And I think only Lebron James is more athletic than Dr J at the small forward spot all-time, and he still doesn't do the things Doc did he surpasesses him only because he's so much bigger and stronger. Doc is an outlier, his hands were bigger than Kareem's, he's not a representation of "average". Which is what this thread is about. BTW he wasn't the first high flyer either, Gus Johnson and Connie Hawkins were playing above the rim in a similar giant-hand waiving the ball around style before him.

[LAZERUSS]

Good thread, Cavs.

Let me offer my two cents.

When Erving came into the scene during the early 70s, and when he got to Philly in 76, the comment and general observation by many including Pat Riley, is where did this guy come from? Is this guy an alien or from outer space?

When Doc started playing pro hoops, there was never any player quite like him ever. Doc consistently played above the rim, or more accurately way above the rim.

My question is if Doc started playing today in the NBA, would he look so unusual from other high fliers who already came before in the last 2 decades from Thompson to Dominique to Jordan to Carter to Tmac to Kobe to lebron and many other 2 guards and even PGs like Westbrook? The depth of athletic freaks since the 80s has brought the game to new heights. You simply didn't see those type of players in the 60s.

The answer is obvious. Doc would not look so unique as he did back then. It's acknowledged that Doc went in to the ABA/NBA and changed the game. If Doc went into the NBA today, there wouldn't be anything for him to change. Ironically, much of how the NBA is today is in huge part because of him.

So the point is the game has evolved, and players are on average better at least athletically from players in the 60s.

Now, I am of the opinion that athletic freaks like Wilt and Russel would do great in any era. Great players can adjust, and there is no doubt in my mind that Wilt and Russel would be MVP caliber players in today's league, just like the Doctor would challenge Lebron for best SF in today's NBA.

My problem with your post is that you are comparing athleticism, with skill. Look, there have been many NBA players that were amazing athletes. Where is James White today? How come Zach Lavine isn't worth a damn? Why doesn't Gerald Green dominate? Ryan Hollins and Javale McGee, two seven-footrs with great athleticism and couldn't even dominate in college, much less the pros.

And how about the reverse? Does anyone believe that Bird was an athletic freak? How about John Stockton and Steve Nash? Look at Dennis Rodman, or Kevin Love, or before their time, Swen Nater. How did the 6-1 Gail Goodrich routinely score in the paint? And how about the 6-5 Adrian Dantley, who was one of the greatest POST players in NBA history?

I mentioned Shaq earlier. What separated him from the 7-4, 350 lb Priest Lauderdale? And how come the 7-3 Swede Halbrook didn't dominate in the 60's, or that the 7-4 Steve Turner couldn't make an NBA roster in the early 70's. Or that the 7-7 Manute Bol was a complete waste. Or that the 7-6 Shawn Bradley was among the worst starting centers of his era? Or that the 7-1+ Roy Hibbert routinely is shut down in today's NBA, despite being one of the largest players in the league.

Basketball is a game of SKILL, much moreso than of athleticism (albeit, all NBA players are among the best athletes in the world.) And, as the Rodman's and Ben Wallaces' have proven...of determination and grit.

Would Dr. J be among the best players in the league today? Absolutely...just as Bird, or West, or Rodman would be.

[sundizz]

I really don't think OP (and Laz) get the concept of the difference the talent around you makes in a game of basketball.

Joel Embiid can stand in a corner and knock down trey after trey in practice. However, in a real game (NCAA) he never ever did that. Just because people can do certain things does not mean they can handle doing it when the speed, ferocity of the game, defenses scrambling, etc are all at a different level.

In those old clips (yes I watched) the player looks good. No one is (or should) argue that. He is a skilled, good basketball player.

However, if that same player time transported to the modern era the speed of the defenses, and the level of player is just so much improved that it is very unlikely he would "look" the same, or have close to the same impact.

It's really not a knock on that player. Had he been born in the 80's and had the same training, and competition, he may have made it. Who knows. Or, would he have been just another good player, but not NBA quality. We can't really predict it on an individual basis, but can say as a whole the NBA talent level is significantly higher now for non superstars than it was in prior eras.

Serious question: Do you really think that basketball has not improved in 40 years?

[CavaliersFTW]

I really don't think OP (and Laz) get the concept of the difference the talent around you makes in a game of basketball.

Joel Embiid can stand in a corner and knock down trey after trey in practice. However, in a real game (NCAA) he never ever did that. Just because people can do certain things does not mean they can handle doing it when the speed, ferocity of the game, defenses scrambling, etc are all at a different level.

In those old clips (yes I watched) the player looks good. No one is (or should) argue that. He is a skilled, good basketball player.

However, if that same player time transported to the modern era the speed of the defenses, and the level of player is just so much improved that it is very unlikely he would "look" the same, or have close to the same impact.

It's really not a knock on that player. Had he been born in the 80's and had the same training, and competition, he may have made it. Who knows. Or, would he have been just another good player, but not NBA quality. We can't really predict it on an individual basis, but can say as a whole the NBA talent level is significantly higher now for non superstars than it was in prior eras.

That's a nice theory but he's shooting floaters in the lane 13 feet over the outstretched arms say, Kareem at that time a 230lb center with a max reach probably in the 12 and a half foot range and at that lithe body weight and young age would be among the quickest centers say, playing the game today. What do you mean the guys he's playing are no good, want me to post the game film of all the guys he's playing against? I intend to mix that footage anyways.

This is not a game where anyone was taking plays off. This is not them shooting in an empty gym your analogy makes no sense.