Curry has dominated this era, but would get crushed in the 90's

[LockoutSeason]

Look at Dell Curry. Nice player, great shooter, led the NBA in 3 point shooting a few times, but not a star.

Now subtract 2 inches of height from Dell, give him a bit more handles and freedom with the ball. Then you have Steph.

Stephs maybe a 1 time all star in the old NBA. Take away his space and time with the ball, take away Draymlnds illegal screens and he's a vastly different and less effective player.

Then why didn’t Seth Curry become a superstar?

Steph would be the best player in the league in any year in the ‘90s, especially the shortened 3-point line era (LOL)

[Snakebites]

The style of play was more physical, but I don't think the actual players were stronger or more physical in the 90s than today.

[bledredwine]

Copied from the GOAT thread

Defensive resistance isn't even close

I literally just chose two random 40 point games from Lebron and Jordan, decided on picking Golden State for Lebron and a weaker EC playoff teams for Jordan to be even more fair. These are the first two videos I found.

You tell me who had the easier buckets and who faced tougher defense. Lebron's open almost all the damned time.
1:44, Lebron waits for the 3 sec, by the time the big can get to him he has to fly sideways just to contest. So ridiculous.
Look at 2:15-2:30 to get an idea for MJ... or the whole video even.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Crazy how different the game is. Free layups and free open 3s. Bro, imagine Jordan with all of that space, would be stupid. 1:44, the whole video really.

Then imagine Lebron having come into the league at 1984, the 3 point line's inception being 1980, he doesn't use 3's, trying to face this

Watch on YouTube

No chance Lebron would be anywhere near as effective, wouldn't even have players to pass to on the perimeter either. His efficiency would go down the toilet. Jordan was a per-century outlier whereas Lebron is a generational outlier. That's the difference.

After this 61 point embarrassment, Chuck Daly created the Jordan rules so that he "wouldn't embarrass them"
Imagine Lebron trying to get to the rim in each of these scenarios.

Watch on YouTube

By the way, Jordan did this without putting up one three.

You actually had to have your back to the basket back often because you couldn't just face up and easily score like you can today.

It's also funny how modern fans talk about the increase of talent, not realizing there's a give and take. Back then, you almost certainly had to be good at defense to be drafted and a poor defender was good by today's standards. Now, so many players suck and are drafted. But no one mentions this. Hmmmm.

[Doctor MJ]

There isn’t a coach in the world, even back then, that would prevent Curry from playing like he is now back then. People often make this mistake. The reason you didn’t see even the best 3 point shooters back then shoot this much, is because they weren’t good enough for all those attempts to be ‘good shots’. Curry can shoot off ANY type of action, with very little daylight, and its still considered a good shot. When even Reggie was taking some of those tougher shots you would instantly hear the announcers say that was a bad attempt, cause it was. And coaches back then wanted to limit those bad attempt, even in their best shooters.

There is an ocean of difference between how good Curry is at shooting (and lots of other shooters today) and the great shooters back then. And I say this as probably the biggest Reggie fan back then. There is zero coach that would’ve looked at Curry in practice and said, you know, we’re not gonna use this at all lol.

And furthermore, even if you just strip Curry’s 3 point shooting shooting away from him, hes still a star level guard or close to it, in the 90s. Mark Jackson was a one time all star and had a long career and Curry is better at pretty much everything in basketball than he is, except for posting up and playing post defense on another guard. Every other skills Curry has is severely underrated because he’s so good at shooting, its kinda stupid. He is one of thest past passers and finishers in the game in an era with way better passing and finishing than in the past and some don’t think he would ‘fit’ back then. Lolol

If you don't think coaches had a wrongheaded aversion to allowing players to take 3's, I'd say you're naive.

I think you need to keep in mind that when pace & space began in earnest with the Suns in '04-05, the entire rest of the league looked at it with cynicism and eventually that push back led to Suns ownership giving up on pace & space in favor of an ancient, obese Shaq.

Conventional wisdom was wrong. That's why it took so long to truly embrace the 3, and why when the embrace eventually came, it utterly transformed the game over a relatively short amount of time.

I know it was like that. I played enough basketball in those days to know that every coach I had and knew or knew of, thought like this. But even that has its limits.

Again, there isn’t a single coach in his right mind, that would’ve prevented Curry to do what he does. I mean any GM in the league would have had a guy like that on his team and a coach preventing him to play like this would’ve been immediately fired, doesn’t matter if they were Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach.

This is like giving machine guns and rocket launchers to a war general in the 18th century and them being like, you know what, we’re not gonna use those, its just not how we train lol.

There’s a reason coaches were against their players taking those shots. Its because they weren’t good enough. Any coach would’ve seen curry or dame on their team and would changed their game plan immediately.

Another example of this is the typical 7 footer on teams back then. They weren’t ever allowed to dribble for the most part. Because most were terrible dribblers in the open court. Do you think for one second a coach who would magically receive Giannis or KD or LeBron or Jokic, etc on their team wouldve been like, nah you’re not gonna play that way. No, they would’ve said ‘new plan guys!!’ Those coaches back then weren’t THAT dumb lol.

So you agree that coaches back then would have benched you for taking such 3's, but that they'd not have the same issue with Steph Curry, or if they did, they'd get fired because owners/GMs would have seen the issue and fired them for it.

I think you're overestimating the ability of these coaches - who literally held back the game for decades because they weren't comfortable with 3's - if you think they would have instantly recognized things were different if they had Curry.

Fundamentally, they just thought they knew better and without access to really good data, there was nothing to show them how wrong they were.

[dhsilv2]

Look at Dell Curry. Nice player, great shooter, led the NBA in 3 point shooting a few times, but not a star.

Now subtract 2 inches of height from Dell, give him a bit more handles and freedom with the ball. Then you have Steph.

Stephs maybe a 1 time all star in the old NBA. Take away his space and time with the ball, take away Draymlnds illegal screens and he's a vastly different and less effective player.

Lol!!!!

Dell Curry was similar to guys like Duncan Robinson, Kyle Korver, Ryan Anderson etc. taller deadly shooters, but that's it. Can you explain to me why those guys never emerged as perennial all-star players?

Jesus Christ.

There is a reason why Curry is an MVP that dominates night to night and guys like Korver and Anderson were deadly shooters but only solid role players and 6th men type players.

Curry is a basketball savant, he's an outlier, he has arguably the best hand eye coordination in league history, his handles are elite, his finishing is elite, his floater game is elite, his off ball movement is elite, his ability to create space is elite, his ability to use screens and picks to his advantage is elite, his facilitating is elite, his ability to shoot anywhere on the floor at deep range from any angle off ball, on ball, off screens, off one leg, off both legs, off balanced etc. is ELITE!

Curry is a **** generational unicorn and you are acting like he would just be a glorified 3 point specialist role player in the 1990s? WTF??????

Great post...but korver did make an allstar game sorry had to. Carry on lol

[TheGeneral99]

Look at Dell Curry. Nice player, great shooter, led the NBA in 3 point shooting a few times, but not a star.

Now subtract 2 inches of height from Dell, give him a bit more handles and freedom with the ball. Then you have Steph.

Stephs maybe a 1 time all star in the old NBA. Take away his space and time with the ball, take away Draymlnds illegal screens and he's a vastly different and less effective player.

Lol!!!!

Dell Curry was similar to guys like Duncan Robinson, Kyle Korver, Ryan Anderson etc. taller deadly shooters, but that's it. Can you explain to me why those guys never emerged as perennial all-star players?

Jesus Christ.

There is a reason why Curry is an MVP that dominates night to night and guys like Korver and Anderson were deadly shooters but only solid role players and 6th men type players.

Curry is a basketball savant, he's an outlier, he has arguably the best hand eye coordination in league history, his handles are elite, his finishing is elite, his floater game is elite, his off ball movement is elite, his ability to create space is elite, his ability to use screens and picks to his advantage is elite, his facilitating is elite, his ability to shoot anywhere on the floor at deep range from any angle off ball, on ball, off screens, off one leg, off both legs, off balanced etc. is ELITE!

Curry is a **** generational unicorn and you are acting like he would just be a glorified 3 point specialist role player in the 1990s? WTF??????

Great post...but korver did make an allstar game sorry had to. Carry on lol

Haha, and he averaged an impressive 12ppg

[Jamaaliver]

Michael Adams!!! Marc Price, Dana Barros!! You guys are taking me back!!

Yeah, Michael Adams and Mark Price seem like the high end outcomes for Steph in the 90s -- in the right system with a coach who really knew what he had and how to get the best out of him.

Michael Adams - 5'10", 3rd Round Draft Pick, 1x All Star, Career avg of 15 ppg/6 apg on 33% 3-pt shooting
Mark Price - 6'0", 2nd Round Draft Pick, 4 x All Star, Career avg of 13.5 ppg/3apg on 47% 3-pt shooting

I don't remember Mike Adams, I've heard he was more like a Trae Young style of player (and was also routinely snubbed for All Star appearances.)

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Read on Twitter

So the same number of All-Star Games as 5-11, 165-pound Dana Barros (maybe) despite being a vastly better ballhandler (not a bit, vastly) and playmaker than his dad...

5'10 162 Michael Adams was a star in the 1990s but Steph Curry couldn't be lmfao. And Adams was taking 8.5 3s a game at his most.

The same era in which this muscled brute made three All-Star teams (92-94) and finished Top 10 in MVP voting three times (also 92-94).



Got it.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah, Michael Adams and Mark Price seem like the high end outcomes for Steph in the 90s -- in the right system with a coach who really knew what he had and how to get the best out of him.

Did you mean green font?

[ShootersShoot]

If you don't think coaches had a wrongheaded aversion to allowing players to take 3's, I'd say you're naive.

I think you need to keep in mind that when pace & space began in earnest with the Suns in '04-05, the entire rest of the league looked at it with cynicism and eventually that push back led to Suns ownership giving up on pace & space in favor of an ancient, obese Shaq.

Conventional wisdom was wrong. That's why it took so long to truly embrace the 3, and why when the embrace eventually came, it utterly transformed the game over a relatively short amount of time.

I know it was like that. I played enough basketball in those days to know that every coach I had and knew or knew of, thought like this. But even that has its limits.

Again, there isn’t a single coach in his right mind, that would’ve prevented Curry to do what he does. I mean any GM in the league would have had a guy like that on his team and a coach preventing him to play like this would’ve been immediately fired, doesn’t matter if they were Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach.

This is like giving machine guns and rocket launchers to a war general in the 18th century and them being like, you know what, we’re not gonna use those, its just not how we train lol.

There’s a reason coaches were against their players taking those shots. Its because they weren’t good enough. Any coach would’ve seen curry or dame on their team and would changed their game plan immediately.

Another example of this is the typical 7 footer on teams back then. They weren’t ever allowed to dribble for the most part. Because most were terrible dribblers in the open court. Do you think for one second a coach who would magically receive Giannis or KD or LeBron or Jokic, etc on their team wouldve been like, nah you’re not gonna play that way. No, they would’ve said ‘new plan guys!!’ Those coaches back then weren’t THAT dumb lol.

So you agree that coaches back then would have benched you for taking such 3's, but that they'd not have the same issue with Steph Curry, or if they did, they'd get fired because owners/GMs would have seen the issue and fired them for it.

I think you're overestimating the ability of these coaches - who literally held back the game for decades because they weren't comfortable with 3's - if you think they would have instantly recognized things were different if they had Curry.

Fundamentally, they just thought they knew better and without access to really good data, there was nothing to show them how wrong they were.

Its not like steph came into the league spamming threes like today...his first two seasons, he averaged under five 3pt attempts per game, or less than a prime reggie miller.

If you dont think people catch on to unprecedented talent when it comes to anything, then you dont understand how human nature works. You think 90s coaches watching steph tear guys up in practice and drain 90 of 100 threes in practice and think ehh..lets bench this guy, especially looking at the lack of mid to low end starting talent overall in that era? Nope..they probably say lets see if he can do it in actual games, which he then would proceed to.

[Jamaaliver]

Yeah, Michael Adams and Mark Price seem like the high end outcomes for Steph in the 90s -- in the right system with a coach who really knew what he had and how to get the best out of him.

Did you mean green font?

No. but I did forget readers get freaked out when a mod uses red font...my fault guys. (Not a flex...I promise.)

[Sedale Threatt]

Yeah, Michael Adams and Mark Price seem like the high end outcomes for Steph in the 90s -- in the right system with a coach who really knew what he had and how to get the best out of him.

So players who were shorter, lighter, weaker and inferior shooters are somehow the high-end outcome for Stephen Curry -- but only under a very specific set of circumstances.

Got it.

I guess that's a step up from reducing him to role player status, but not much.

And again -- those weren't the only undersized guards who thrived despite the alleged ruggedness of the 90s. I listed a handful of them several pages back, including the likes of John Stockton (6-1, 170) and Isiah Thomas (6-1, 180), and those are just ones who made All-Star Games.

As a Lakers fan, I g*u*a*r*a*n*t*e*e that if a drive-averse chucker like Nick Van Exel could be an above-average starter, Steph would run laps around him.

[Helsbyte]

He’d be fine. To be perfectly honest he might even be better, the league was so 3 point averse that he’d have a huge advantage on everyone else as a shooter.

You think he’s gonna forget how to hit threes?

I mean both Steph's dad and current Head Coach both played in the 90s era as shooters with comparable range/ability. They were relegated to role player status. As were most other guards with similar skill sets and size/defensive limitations.

Reggie Miller, Jeff Hornacek and Mahmoud Abdul Rauf are probably the closest comps you'd find that were successful, high level starters in that mold.

TL;DR: Stephen Curry would most likely be relegated to role player status like his father was. But under the right coach, there's a smaller chance he might have thrived in a larger role to at least All Star status.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUNcmVnZ2llIG1pbGxlcg%3D%3D

'
It's insane that you're on a moderator on this forum.

It's insane they let you still respond to posts!.....lol

[Bergmaniac]

Where does the whole idea that Curry hasn't had dealt with very physical defences come from anyway? That's what he's been dealing with basically his whole playoff career. The Cavs in 2015 and 2016 in particular, the Rockets in 2018, the Thunder in 2016, the Raptors in 2019, Udoka's Celtics - all were very physical with him, especially off-ball, and the refs mostly allowed it.

[Mazter]

Well, let's just start by saying that Curry has not dominated this era. 2 MVP's on the team with the best record, 1 out of 6 Finals MVP, only 3x All NBA first team and oh yeah, he missed the play offs 7 out of 16 times.

Rewind back to the 90's, man to man defense, post driven offense, very little ball circulation, less off ball movement, midrange shooting. Anything that makes Curry the star he is today wouldn't be there in the 90's.

Would he get crushed, no, but anything more than a top 10 player at his peak would be stretching it.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah, Michael Adams and Mark Price seem like the high end outcomes for Steph in the 90s -- in the right system with a coach who really knew what he had and how to get the best out of him.

Did you mean green font?

No. but I did forget readers get freaked out when a mod uses red font...my fault guys. (Not a flex...I promise.)

Nah it's blue that freaks people out (which you have used).

But comparing Adams who shot less than 30% from 3 when he averaged 26 a game is absolutely beyond laughable. As you're a mod, I want to think you're not just straight up trolling. But this is so stupid I can't. Curry is 4 inches taller, 20-40 pounds bigger (depending on draft to where he is now)...

Like I'll be the first to tell anyone that we had more big men in the league in the 90's. That there were some tough guys inside. But the guards? The guards were way smaller. And all this means Curry would finish inside better than these guys and would have an easier time shooting over guys. Also...he's better than these guys.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah, Michael Adams and Mark Price seem like the high end outcomes for Steph in the 90s -- in the right system with a coach who really knew what he had and how to get the best out of him.

So players who were shorter, lighter, weaker and inferior shooters are somehow the high-end outcome for Stephen Curry -- but only under a very specific set of circumstances.

Got it.

I guess that's a step up from reducing him to role player status, but not much.

And again -- those weren't the only undersized guards who thrived despite the alleged ruggedness of the 90s. I listed a handful of them several pages back, including the likes of John Stockton (6-1, 170) and Isiah Thomas (6-1, 180), and those are just ones who made All-Star Games.

As a Lakers fan, I g*u*a*r*a*n*t*e*e that if a drive-averse chucker like Nick Van Exel could be an above-average starter, Steph would run laps around him.

Gary Payton wasn't really bigger than Curry. A bit taller but Curry's a bigger stronger guy now than he was at his peak too. Now I do think Payton was tougher but still. Or Tim Hardaway who was a all nba guy...again smaller than Curry. The insanity here is just never ending.

[Jamaaliver]

Where does the whole idea that Curry hasn't had dealt
with very physical defences come from anyway?

It's not a slight against Steph Curry.

I've long believed that Trae, Steph, Lillard, Nash would have struggled against 90s defenses.

Especially in the Eastern Conference back then, things were pretty rough.

Read on Twitter

[Sedale Threatt]

Yeah, Michael Adams and Mark Price seem like the high end outcomes for Steph in the 90s -- in the right system with a coach who really knew what he had and how to get the best out of him.

So players who were shorter, lighter, weaker and inferior shooters are somehow the high-end outcome for Stephen Curry -- but only under a very specific set of circumstances.

Got it.

I guess that's a step up from reducing him to role player status, but not much.

And again -- those weren't the only undersized guards who thrived despite the alleged ruggedness of the 90s. I listed a handful of them several pages back, including the likes of John Stockton (6-1, 170) and Isiah Thomas (6-1, 180), and those are just ones who made All-Star Games.

As a Lakers fan, I g*u*a*r*a*n*t*e*e that if a drive-averse chucker like Nick Van Exel could be an above-average starter, Steph would run laps around him.

Gary Payton wasn't really bigger than Curry. A bit taller but Curry's a bigger stronger guy now than he was at his peak too. Now I do think Payton was tougher but still. Or Tim Hardaway who was a all nba guy...again smaller than Curry. The insanity here is just never ending.

Hardaway was definitely on the list. Burly dude but zero chance he was much taller than 6 foot. Mourning used to tower over him.

Price really is the ultimate counter-example -- very good player, but he was tiny, and weak, and not as good a shooter as Steph. And he was still getting MVP votes in the exact era these guys are rhapsodizing over.

Said it a few pages back, I started watching the NBA in 1987 and I have enjoyed every era since. (If the Lakers hadn't been winning championships, the early 00s would have been dreadful but they were so it was great.)

But the level of pure mythologizing is really wild to see.

[Jamaaliver]

But comparing Adams who shot less than 30% from 3 when he averaged 26 a game is absolutely beyond laughable. As you're a mod, I want to think you're not just straight up trolling. But this is so stupid I can't.

1. It wasn't me who mentioned Michael Adams. I literally didn't see him play.

2. They were simply using him as an example of undersized guards putting up big numbers in the 90s.

Relax, man. This is supposed to be a fun conversation.

I haven't attacked or insulted anyone here...so maybe don't make personal attacks? (not a threat, just a respectful request from a middle aged man who really enjoys talking hoops with you all.)

[Sedale Threatt]

Gary Payton wasn't really bigger than Curry. A bit taller but Curry's a bigger stronger guy now than he was at his peak too. Now I do think Payton was tougher but still. Or Tim Hardaway who was a all nba guy...again smaller than Curry. The insanity here is just never ending.

Also, the comparisons with his dad are laughable too. Other than the fact they were/are both great shooters, they're almost polar opposite players. Steph is a dribble/motion-based point guard who thrives in isolation, Dell was a poor man's Reggie Miller who got most of his buckets off screens and spot-ups.