How well would Stephen Curry do against 80s/90s defensive rules

[Blazers-1977]

I would say he wouldnt as well as he wouldnt get nearly as open as he does now.

[oaktownwarriors87]

He'd be even better, or a lot worse.

[mischievous]

35/8/10 75 ts%. Curry would destroy the weak and slow athletes of that time. Hand checking? Who cares, he would just slap them back when they put their hands on him.

[Kabookalu]

He'd suffer without Golden State's legendary offensive sets to benefit from. The Warriors' split action do a fantastic job of utilizing Curry's 3 point shooting where he can consistently get open with or without the ball. Without that offense his numbers would look a lot like during the final Mark Jackson year where everything was being funneled through Curry. Still one of the best players in the league, just not the all time great we know him as now.

[clyde21]

The league would have absolutely no idea what hit them.

[Blazers-1977]

Say today's players with those rules.


I think he slows down considerably when he cant dribble down and shoot a 3 as a defender will be checking him the whole time .

[iggymcfrack]

He’d waffle crush. A player that quick that does most of his scoring from deep would have the biggest relative advantage against slow defenders who rely on being physical inside. If Curry played in the 80s, I think 35 PPG is fair when healthy. HOWEVER, I don’t know if he would have been able to maintain the same kind of career without modern training technique to help him get over his ankle issues. I think there’s a pretty good chance that if he was born earlier, he’s just an occasional flash of brilliance who can never stay healthy.

[70sFan]

Would Curry know the rules? If not, of course he would struggle at first but then he would adjust and be as good as he is now.

All-time greats would be great in any era. 1980s doesn't suit Curry as well as 2010s so maybe he wouldn't become unanimous MVP, but he would be still MVP-caliber player.

Of course, the most things depends on his team and coach. He wouldn't do much with mid-80s Warriors, even though he would be brilliant.

[r0drig0lac]

without illegal screens and with handcheking? hum, it would be "much better"

[mihail_petkov]

Curry is one of the GOAT off the ball players. He would find a space in every era. This with combination of his quick release, he would be the same player. Sometimes when I read the myths about 90s, it looks like they played MMA, not basketball

Can you imagine a league where Curry shoots more 3s per games than most of the teams? They wouldn't have an idea how to guard the perimeter. He would create even more space than today.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Off the ball it would be impossible to stop, in the right system.
Today his gravity is creating options for the other. In the past the defense would have had no chances to adjust.

[Goudelock]

fwiw, I've seen thin, slight guys like Mo Cheeks and Norm Nixon routinely beat their man and get to the rim and/or get open for a jumper off the dribble during the 80's games I've seen. I think that Curry would be fine.

[Sark]

Mahmoud Abdul Rauf/Chris Jackson.

[eminence]

Great. How do you defend a Curry PnR with Illegal Defense? (The answer is you cheat and have a kind of illegal defense, but the point is help defense was significantly worse) In isolation he's slightly less successful (players more physical, though partially balanced by being a bit slower), off the ball even more successful (off ball defense was less emphasized and he'd be unique in his off ball perimeter presence). All balances out, really depends on if his coach lets him bomb away from deep like he does. If he can he's still transcendent, comparable to only a few players in the league at a given time, if not he is held back a bit and more of a souped up Reggie Miller (easy top 10 player, probably not a serious contender for best in the league).

[dhsilv2]

80's 50+ a game 10-20 assists. He'd be Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds combined. 82-0 seasons would happen. We'd be like Mike who?

Did I nail the typical crazy stuff that "90's" fans do with everyone from that era?

[Kabookalu]

I think what people aren't taking into consideration is that his off the ball deadliness wouldn't be nearly as utilized as it is being now. Coaches back then would value his on ball skills a lot more than his potential as an off ball shooter, since offensive systems aren't nearly as sophisticated back then as they are now. His Mark Jackson days would be an accurate look of how teams in the past would have used Curry where he was the primary ballhandler and wouldn't have as many chances to come off of screens for a wide open shot.

[dhsilv2]

I think what people aren't taking into consideration is that his off the ball deadliness wouldn't be nearly as utilized as it is being now. Coaches back then would value his on ball skills a lot more than his potential as an off ball shooter, since offensive systems aren't nearly as sophisticated back then as they are now. His Mark Jackson days would be an accurate look of how teams in the past would have used Curry where he was the primary ballhandler and wouldn't have as many chances to come off of screens for a wide open shot.

This ignores that Reggie Miller is a thing.

[Kabookalu]

I think what people aren't taking into consideration is that his off the ball deadliness wouldn't be nearly as utilized as it is being now. Coaches back then would value his on ball skills a lot more than his potential as an off ball shooter, since offensive systems aren't nearly as sophisticated back then as they are now. His Mark Jackson days would be an accurate look of how teams in the past would have used Curry where he was the primary ballhandler and wouldn't have as many chances to come off of screens for a wide open shot.

This ignores that Reggie Miller is a thing.

I knew someone would bring him up. Reggie Miller wasn't a point guard. Back then roles were a lot more restrictive. If you were the point guard you ran the offense, no one else was allowed to, or rather it wasn't expected of them so no one but the point guard ran the offense. Curry would be expected to quarterback the offense and would do the majority of his damage pulling up off of screens or splitting the defense like Mark Price. Curry wouldn't have the luxury of his power forward running the offense for him to run around screens and nail 3 pointers.

[dhsilv2]

I think what people aren't taking into consideration is that his off the ball deadliness wouldn't be nearly as utilized as it is being now. Coaches back then would value his on ball skills a lot more than his potential as an off ball shooter, since offensive systems aren't nearly as sophisticated back then as they are now. His Mark Jackson days would be an accurate look of how teams in the past would have used Curry where he was the primary ballhandler and wouldn't have as many chances to come off of screens for a wide open shot.

This ignores that Reggie Miller is a thing.

I knew someone would bring him up. Reggie Miller wasn't a point guard. Back then roles were a lot more restrictive. If you were the point guard you ran the offense, no one else was allowed to, or rather it wasn't expected of them so no one but the point guard ran the offense. Curry would be expected to quarterback the offense and would do the majority of his damage pulling up off of screens or splitting the defense like Mark Price. Curry wouldn't have the luxury of his power forward running the offense for him to run around screens and nail 3 pointers.

Pippen and Grant Hill would disagree with that statement.

But Curry is 6'3 and bigger than most shooting guards from the 80's (mass) so why wouldn't he play the 2?

[Ron Swanson]

He'd still be pretty damn awesome. Shooting translates in any era. But he wouldn't be nearly as deadly of an on-ball scorer because you couldn't spam illegal screens like you can today. He'd be used to more off-ball and running through outside set screens ala Reggie Miller. Which of course, he'd still probably be the best in the league at. Whoever originally said he'd have to play SG instead of PG to maximize his impact is absolutely correct.