I agree about comparing players from different eras. For one thing, there'veYou’re missing the point. This is exactly why I’m saying you don’t plug players into other eras when making these rankings. In the 1950s, Dwight Howard would have averaged 100 ppg with his physical superiority. Bill Russell would have been neutralized in the 1990s/2000s, if you assume he’d have the exact physical traits and skills, 50 years into the future. So yes, that’s exactly why it’s laughable to start fiddling around with comparing 40 times, physical skills, and sometimes even game skills, when comparing players decades apart. You can only fairly rank them compared to their own peers, and within their own era, and give them a universal rating based on that.
been major rules changes especially in football and hoops.
As for the rest of your post,thats ridiculous.
Howard wouldve done LESS in the 60's than today, especially on offense. Hes a stiff. A stiff is a stiff in any era.
And Russell wouls dominate today.
Russ consistently outplayed Wilt- and Wilt was far superior physically than Howard.
Another example is Bird and MJ: both would destroy the nba far more than they did even when they played. You cant handcheck anymore nor do you get physically destroyed when you drive the lane. Giannis would not have the same success in the 80's he has now unless he drastically changed his game. I played competitive hoops for a long time. I know what Im talking about. A lot if highscoring players today would be lucky to average 15 ppg in the 80's.
And todays game is tailor- made for Bird- whos a better,tougher version than Luka. Larry and MJ might both average 50 today.
The skill level of most players today is below that of their peers in the 80's. Kobe was an 80's- style player- complete game,had the midrange game and thats why he destroyed the nba recently. Offensive #'s today are meaningless,since theres no defense played compared to the past.