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

[Jamaaliver]

This so-called PHYSICALITY that allowed 5'3 130lbs Muggsy Bogues average a double-double and averaged double digit in points multiple times in the 90's?

That so-called PHYSICALITY that allowed a 5'9 160 lbs Michael Adams averaged 26 ppg, 10 apg, an all-star selection in the 90's?

Steph Curry would definitely struggle!

Muggsy Bogues was as tough as they come. He also played nothing like Steph Curry.


Michael Adams definitely had some stylistic similarities to Steph and had a couple of productive seasons. But Adams was also regarded as a stat-padding chucker on last place teams.

He was rewarded with a single All Star selection -- as a reserve -- in his entire career.

Because coaches at the time had no real faith/belief in that wide open style of play.

The reason there are so few examples of undersized, shooting specialist dominating the early 90s is because no coach, offense or team back then believed in a style of offense built primarily around 3-pt shooting.

[SNPA]

John starks averaged 7.6 3pa per game in 95..curry won his first mvp averaging 8.1 3pa..its not that far fetched.

This doesn’t address the issues either. It’s just looking for the highest chucking rates of the 90s.

Curry gets shots by constantly moving…in a good motion offense. The 90s was iso ball.

Didnt realize reggie miller was purely an iso player. And really, a top 15 player all time point guard cant iso? We've seen steph do it plenty of times.

So now Steph is going away from his best strength and going iso against defenses that are set and defenders who can put hands on him, with a monster down low ready to put an elbow into him if he drives (they could use bigger defenders on him too). This is exactly my point…the structural differences in era take him from MVP and make him all-nba. No shame there. Mark Price plus a level up is a HOF player type.

[dhsilv2]

This so-called PHYSICALITY that allowed 5'3 130lbs Muggsy Bogues average a double-double and averaged double digit in points multiple times in the 90's?

That so-called PHYSICALITY that allowed a 5'9 160 lbs Michael Adams averaged 26 ppg, 10 apg, an all-star selection in the 90's?

Steph Curry would definitely struggle!

Muggsy Bogues was as tough as they come. He also played nothing like Steph Curry.


Michael Adams definitely had some stylistic similarities to Steph and had a couple of productive seasons. But Adams was also regarded as a stat-padding chucker on last place teams.

He was rewarded with a single All Star selection -- as a reserve -- in his entire career.

Because coaches at the time had no real faith/belief in that wide open style of play.

The reason there are so few examples of undersized, shooting specialist dominating the early 90s is because no coach, offense or team back then believed in a style of offense built primarily around 3-pt shooting.

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

[Sedale Threatt]

This so-called PHYSICALITY that allowed 5'3 130lbs Muggsy Bogues average a double-double and averaged double digit in points multiple times in the 90's?

That so-called PHYSICALITY that allowed a 5'9 160 lbs Michael Adams averaged 26 ppg, 10 apg, an all-star selection in the 90's?

Steph Curry would definitely struggle!

Muggsy Bogues was as tough as they come. He also played nothing like Steph Curry.


Michael Adams definitely had some stylistic similarities to Steph and had a couple of productive seasons. But Adams was also regarded as a stat-padding chucker on last place teams.

He was rewarded with a single All Star selection -- as a reserve -- in his entire career.

Because coaches at the time had no real faith/belief in that wide open style of play.

The reason there are so few examples of undersized, shooting specialist dominating the early 90s is because no coach, offense or team back then believed in a style of offense built primarily around 3-pt shooting.

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

Plus, reducing him to "shooting specialist" continues to ignore his all-around skill set. Steve Kerr was a shooting specialist. Tim Legler was a shooting specialist. Curry can dribble and score at the rim as well as anybody from that era, and his playmaking skills are nothing to scoff at. It's crazy to have to keep pointing all that out.

[Jamaaliver]

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

I'm sorry, but if the best examples of a Curry-esqe player producing at a high level in the 90s are forgotten players on losing teams -- I think that kind of proves the point:

90s NBA teams, coaches and offenses simply didn't focus on players of this ilk.
Combine that with the brutal play of defenses in the era, and it was a much less hospitable environment for undersized shooters.

They were mostly relegated to role players off the bench during this time.

[dhsilv2]

Muggsy Bogues was as tough as they come. He also played nothing like Steph Curry.


Michael Adams definitely had some stylistic similarities to Steph and had a couple of productive seasons. But Adams was also regarded as a stat-padding chucker on last place teams.

He was rewarded with a single All Star selection -- as a reserve -- in his entire career.

Because coaches at the time had no real faith/belief in that wide open style of play.

The reason there are so few examples of undersized, shooting specialist dominating the early 90s is because no coach, offense or team back then believed in a style of offense built primarily around 3-pt shooting.

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

Plus, reducing him to "shooting specialist" continues to ignore his all-around skill set. Steve Kerr was a shooting specialist. Tim Legler was a shooting specialist. Curry can dribble and score at the rim as well as anybody from that era, and his playmaking skills are nothing to scoff at. It's crazy to have to keep pointing all that out.

Oh and did we mention he's lead the league in steals? Put him in that era where you can't matchup hunt and all of a sudden he's actually a pretty good on ball defender against most point guards. I might want to get him some help on day KJ or Hardaway but in general he'd be a plus there too!

Also to just add. When he played a "traditional" point guard role with a very 90's thinking coach in Jackson. 2013 and 2014 he was top 5 in the league in VORP both years. He should have been all nba both season and likely first team one or both years. And that was with him playing as a traditional point. None of this off ball stuff. Not unusual for a point guard to keep getting better after 25 either so it isn't like that was going to be his peak if Jackson kept using him like that.

[DOT]

Muggsy Bogues was as tough as they come. He also played nothing like Steph Curry.


Michael Adams definitely had some stylistic similarities to Steph and had a couple of productive seasons. But Adams was also regarded as a stat-padding chucker on last place teams.

He was rewarded with a single All Star selection -- as a reserve -- in his entire career.

Because coaches at the time had no real faith/belief in that wide open style of play.

The reason there are so few examples of undersized, shooting specialist dominating the early 90s is because no coach, offense or team back then believed in a style of offense built primarily around 3-pt shooting.

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

Plus, reducing him to "shooting specialist" continues to ignore his all-around skill set. Steve Kerr was a shooting specialist. Tim Legler was a shooting specialist. Curry can dribble and score at the rim as well as anybody from that era, and his playmaking skills are nothing to scoff at. It's crazy to have to keep pointing all that out.

Some people can't even remember 2019, yet they think they remember the 1990s with perfect clarity

I don't disagree with the point that few if any coach would have allowed Steph to play like Steph, but I do disagree that if they did let him he wouldn't dominate. If you sent Steph Curry in his prime back in time to 1990 and found a coach willing to let him play, he'd be one of the most dominant players in the game at the time, and the 3pt revolution would come early.

[dhsilv2]

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

I'm sorry, but if the best examples of a Curry-esqe player producing at a high level in the 90s are forgotten players on losing teams -- I think that kind of proves the point:

90s NBA teams, coaches and offenses simply didn't focus on players of this ilk.
Combine that with the brutal play of defenses in the era, and it was a much less hospitable environment for undersized shooters.

They were mostly relegated to role players off the bench during this time.

The defense wasn't brutal. You can keep posting this nonsense, but guards are guarding more physically on outside shots today than they were in that era. And again Curry was not undersized.

I'm pointing out there were COACHES who let BAD players shoot freely. Curry is closer to Drexler in terms of size than Adams. Infact if you want to look for a "poor man's" curry in terms of play style, we actually would reasonably go look at guys like Richmond and Drexler. While Curry certainly isn't the vertical player or dunker that Drexler is. He scores at the rim as effectively and Drexler was a guy who got up to 5+ 3's a game in the 90's. While being an iso scorer who wasn't as good as Curry.

[dhsilv2]

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

Plus, reducing him to "shooting specialist" continues to ignore his all-around skill set. Steve Kerr was a shooting specialist. Tim Legler was a shooting specialist. Curry can dribble and score at the rim as well as anybody from that era, and his playmaking skills are nothing to scoff at. It's crazy to have to keep pointing all that out.

Some people can't even remember 2019, yet they think they remember the 1990s with perfect clarity

I don't disagree with the point that few if any coach would have allowed Steph to play like Steph, but I do disagree that if they did let him he wouldn't dominate. If you sent Steph Curry in his prime back in time to 1990 and found a coach willing to let him play, he'd be one of the most dominant players in the game at the time, and the 3pt revolution would come early.

I mean lets say Steph becomes a bit of a mid range iso shooter like Glen Rice? Only with handles and moves like AI to get open mid range shots. That's starting to look like an MVP isn't it?

[Sedale Threatt]

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

Plus, reducing him to "shooting specialist" continues to ignore his all-around skill set. Steve Kerr was a shooting specialist. Tim Legler was a shooting specialist. Curry can dribble and score at the rim as well as anybody from that era, and his playmaking skills are nothing to scoff at. It's crazy to have to keep pointing all that out.

Some people can't even remember 2019, yet they think they remember the 1990s with perfect clarity

I don't disagree with the point that few if any coach would have allowed Steph to play like Steph, but I do disagree that if they did let him he wouldn't dominate. If you sent Steph Curry in his prime back in time to 1990 and found a coach willing to let him play, he'd be one of the most dominant players in the game at the time, and the 3pt revolution would come early.

And I have such an impossible time thinking even a control freak like Pat Riley's gonna say, yeah you're shooting 40-plus percent on huge volume, but you need to stop doing that just because.

It's not like he's ever been a huge streak shooter like Kobe and Doncic. That's one of the biggest strengths of his game. He takes a sht ton of threes, but he does it at a high percentage and he's relatively consistent. You'd have to be the dumbest coach of all time to have that land in your lap and be like, nah, dump it inside to Charles Oakley instead.

I pointed out yesterday, Bill Russell's college coach actually tried to get him to stop jumping for blocked shots because it was deemed as reckless and unfundamental at that time. Then they started winning games and that sht was out the window real quick.

Hell, Coop used to go on modest 3-point binges back in the day -- he had six in one Finals game -- and Riley never benched him or reeled him in. Now imagine doing that on a regular basis and he'd try to stop him? Lol, right.

[LakerLegend]

I ask yet again…do you think Westbrook started averaging triple doubles out of nowhere for no reason.

[dhsilv2]

I ask yet again…do you think Westbrook started averaging triple doubles out of nowhere for no reason.

Teams realized that it's better to box out and let their guards get the boards. And he was on a bad team. What's this have to do with Steph?

[Sedale Threatt]

That's just a pace thing, augmented by the fact he was actively (selfishly?) hunting stats a la Wilt. How many boards did he get playing inside position at the foul line and his teammates just abdicated?

Like Oscar Robertson once said, if he knew triple-doubles would be such a big deal he would have gotten way more. Magic had seasons where he could have done it if he didn't have to share the ball with Norm Nixon and was going out of his way to put up numbers instead of just playing the game naturally. (9.6 rebounds, 9.5 assists in 81-82, for example.)

[Ainosterhaspie]

Has everyone forgotten that the Pistons, Knicks, Bulls and Heat weren't the only teams in the 90s and they they were all Eastern Conference teams? Those are the teams people are really thinking about talking about how intense and physical the 90s were. Put Steph in the West and he doesn't have to worry about that until he makes the finals.

This discussion is acting as if the most physical moments from the outlier teams in the more physical conference represents the whole decade and league. It doesn't. Large stretches of the season wouldn't involve the physicality everyone is talking about and there a good chance you could have multiple finals runs where you face relatively low physicality until the finals.

[WarriorGM]

Has everyone forgotten that the Pistons, Knicks, Bulls and Heat weren't the only teams in the 90s and they they were all Eastern Conference teams? Those are the teams people are really thinking about talking about how intense and physical the 90s were. Put Steph in the West and he doesn't have to worry about that until he makes the finals.

This discussion is acting as if the most physical moments from the outlier teams in the more physical conference represents the whole decade and league. It doesn't. Large stretches of the season wouldn't involve the physicality everyone is talking about and there a good chance you could have multiple finals runs where you face relatively low physicality until the finals.

Why bother making a distinction? Price, Miller, Thomas, and Bogues all played in the Eastern Conference.

[Lenneth]

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

I'm sorry, but if the best examples of a Curry-esqe player producing at a high level in the 90s are forgotten players on losing teams -- I think that kind of proves the point:

90s NBA teams, coaches and offenses simply didn't focus on players of this ilk.
Combine that with the brutal play of defenses in the era, and it was a much less hospitable environment for undersized shooters.

They were mostly relegated to role players off the bench during this time.

June 25, 2025.

We got an interesting scouting report. His name was Shaq...ina O'Neal? 7'1", 300lb. Pretty athletic for his size, and he would be a good rebounder and a shot blocker. Heard he can do something called post.. up? I might need to dust up old VHS to familiarize myself with a relic of a bygone era if necessary. The downside of him is that he can't shoot 3 or any kind of outside jumper, can't seem to switch and defend the 3 point line at all, which is pretty critical for today's defense, and can't shoot a free-throw at all. Our team does have a couple of late first rounders, so we will take a chance on him...

July 10, 2025.

Very interesting summer league debut for that O'Neal guy. He went 11-15, completely dominated the inside, destroyed a backboard, fouled out two guys, and sent one guy to the infirmary. Unfortunately, he didn't have any outside jumper as advertised and couldn't/unwilling to venture to the 3 point line at all. I guess he will start the season in the G league while learning jump shots and switch defense. 20s NBA teams, coaches and offense simply don't focus on players of this illk. Combined that with brutal play of 3 point offense/defnese in the era, and it is a much less hospitable environment for bulky centers. His career will mostly relegated to a role player off the bench...

Do you really expect something like that to happen if Shaq is drafted today? Of course not. Even though his style doesn't fit today's 3 point era, and Shaq-esqe players haven't existed for over a decade, teams would quickly adjust the game to take advantage of Shaq's dominance. 90's coaches also simply wouldn't ignore Curry, when he dumped four 3 point shots in 3 minutes and regulary make the lead 20 points. It might take a bit of time depending on coaches, but they would adjust sooner or later.

And 90's defense will prevent Curry from doing so? Here are 10+ minutes of game footage from Price and Abdul-Rauf against Jordan/Bulls

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=MJ23HisAirnessForever

Watch on YouTube

;t=166s&ab_channel=MJ23HisAirnessForever

Where is the brutal hand-checking, grabbing, bumping defense of 90's, that will make Curry a role player off the bench? While price and Abdul-Raulf scored 30/32 points, Bulls really didn't punish them with a mythical defense of 90's, because it really is a myth. They went wherever they wanted to go without much resistance, and if Curry has that much space to shoot 3, he would bomb 3 points like there is no tomorrow like now.

[michaelm]

Even in his own era he needed a coach to see how he could be better utilised, as has been said he was a fairly good conventional PG when used as such by the not very smart Mark Jackson, but I doubt would have shone in this era as much as he has had Jackson continued to coach him, although it is hard to know how much he was impeded by the ankle problems early in his career. He would need sports science and doctors good enough to get him through the ankle problems in any era, which iirc was mainly footwear and physio/strengthening exercises after exploratory surgery found his ankle ligaments to be intact (I don't know how much ankle arthroscopy they did in the 90s), and a coach able to recognise and utilise his potential would have been necessary in any era.

Short of old style players being allowed to deliberately injure him I don't see his own size or strength or more physical defence stopping him though. The old style centers whom he was a contributor to making obsolete would have to worry about defending him on the perimeter more than he would have to worry about their physicality imo. and people are ignoring Curry's other attributes as has been said, his handle, finishing at the rim, passing although even GSW fans don't like the number of turnovers etc. I am not sure exactly where he stands just now, but he is a career over 90% FT shooter and n has been statistically the very best FT shooter ever for long stretches of his career and that would stand out in the 90s as well. As I have said previously his stamina which has been elite even in this era would be more outstanding back in the 90s, and he might have outlasted the "physical" guys anyway, although the pace was slower then.

[daboywonder2007]

If Reggie Miller, Abdul Rauf, Jeff Hornacek and all these other three point shooters thrived, why wouldn't Curry? As long as you can move without the ball, Curry should eat and eat well. Plus with the center position thriving in the 90s, Curry would see so much single coverage

[michaelm]

If Reggie Miller, Abdul Rauf, Jeff Hornacek and all these other three point shooters thrived, why wouldn't Curry? As long as you can move without the ball, Curry should eat and eat well. Plus with the center position thriving in the 90s, Curry would see so much single coverage

I actually started following the NBA more closely when Andrew Bogut was the number one pick which just wouldn't happen now. A player like Roy Hibbert went from being regarded as highly valuable to being a bench player in a couple of years. Good luck with the big bruising 90s centers trying to defend Curry on the perimeter.

[LakerLegend]

And yet a team actually did just that with Adams while she was shooting under 30% from 3.

But again, in that era Curry isn't a small guard. He's kinda an odd tweener I suppose. He's bigger than most points in that era, but thankfully for him he handles far better than all of them and passes in the top 15%.

I'm sorry, but if the best examples of a Curry-esqe player producing at a high level in the 90s are forgotten players on losing teams -- I think that kind of proves the point:

90s NBA teams, coaches and offenses simply didn't focus on players of this ilk.
Combine that with the brutal play of defenses in the era, and it was a much less hospitable environment for undersized shooters.

They were mostly relegated to role players off the bench during this time.

June 25, 2025.

We got an interesting scouting report. His name was Shaq...ina O'Neal? 7'1", 300lb. Pretty athletic for his size, and he would be a good rebounder and a shot blocker. Heard he can do something called post.. up? I might need to dust up old VHS to familiarize myself with a relic of a bygone era if necessary. The downside of him is that he can't shoot 3 or any kind of outside jumper, can't seem to switch and defend the 3 point line at all, which is pretty critical for today's defense, and can't shoot a free-throw at all. Our team does have a couple of late first rounders, so we will take a chance on him...

July 10, 2025.

Very interesting summer league debut for that O'Neal guy. He went 11-15, completely dominated the inside, destroyed a backboard, fouled out two guys, and sent one guy to the infirmary. Unfortunately, he didn't have any outside jumper as advertised and couldn't/unwilling to venture to the 3 point line at all. I guess he will start the season in the G league while learning jump shots and switch defense. 20s NBA teams, coaches and offense simply don't focus on players of this illk. Combined that with brutal play of 3 point offense/defnese in the era, and it is a much less hospitable environment for bulky centers. His career will mostly relegated to a role player off the bench...

Do you really expect something like that to happen if Shaq is drafted today? Of course not. Even though his style doesn't fit today's 3 point era, and Shaq-esqe players haven't existed for over a decade, teams would quickly adjust the game to take advantage of Shaq's dominance. 90's coaches also simply wouldn't ignore Curry, when he dumped four 3 point shots in 3 minutes and regulary make the lead 20 points. It might take a bit of time depending on coaches, but they would adjust sooner or later.

And 90's defense will prevent Curry from doing so? Here are 10+ minutes of game footage from Price and Abdul-Rauf against Jordan/Bulls

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=MJ23HisAirnessForever

Watch on YouTube

;t=166s&ab_channel=MJ23HisAirnessForever

Where is the brutal hand-checking, grabbing, bumping defense of 90's, that will make Curry a role player off the bench? While price and Abdul-Raulf scored 30/32 points, Bulls really didn't punish them with a mythical defense of 90's, because it really is a myth. They went wherever they wanted to go without much resistance, and if Curry has that much space to shoot 3, he would bomb 3 points like there is no tomorrow like now.

What does pointing out a couple of good games mean? These were good players, what Curry would be back then. Not MVP's.