Where would Steph's peak rank in the 90s?

[parsnips33]

Obviously there's a conversation to be had about style of play in the 90s versus now (how many/what kind of 3s is a player "allowed" to take), but Steph is not just an accumulation of modern trends - he's got a skillset that could potentially set him apart regardless of era. So how do you think Steph's peak stacks up against the rough and tough 90s?

[OhayoKD]

If you use the build-a-player approach he likely doesn't make the nba. If you teleport him into the league as his peak self and give him time to adjust, assuming he isn't banned from 3's he's probably #1.

[AEnigma]

If we say 2016/17 is randomly grouped with the 1990s for some reason, then easy #1 regular season and top ~three postseason.

If 2016/17 Steph alone is transported backward, I would give him #1 in both by a comfortable margin. The league took a bit to properly adjust to him in his own time; twenty years earlier and the only real limitation (other than random injury) is whether his teammates could understand how to play off him properly.

If rookie Steph is transported backward and allowed to develop, with no true career-derailment from injury, top five at worst, with a path to top three or higher. Reggie Miller was a playoff dynamo without anywhere near Curry’s skill with the ball, so it is really just a question of whether Curry is given a team good enough to contend. Curry on the Knicks with Ewing, dynasty. Curry on the Jazz/Sonics, dynasty if Sloan/Karl do not try to force him to act as a glorified Hornacek/Hersey (pretty big “if” ). Curry on the Heat with Mourning, probably should win a least one title in that 1997-2000 range.

[lessthanjake]

I think his peak would be #2 behind Jordan. I think we could even make some favorable assumptions to justify putting it at #1. Specifically, if Steph’s team actually really adjusted to what he could do and ran an offense that truly optimized him, then he could be #1 just by virtue of his existence leading his team to be an unprecedented light-years ahead of the rest of the league tactically. But I think it’s more reasonable to think his team would be relatively geared towards his strengths but still anchored to the general trends of the era. And in that case I’d put him #2.

One interesting thing to think about by the way is what would happen if you put peak Steph in the shorter-three-point-line timeframe specifically? Does that help or hurt Steph? It’s not clear to me that a shorter three-point line is actually good for a guy with Steph’s massive range, since he doesn’t need it and the shorter range can close the gap for other guys in terms of effectiveness. But maybe Steph would be appreciably more lethal with a shorter line. And, perhaps more importantly, maybe if you put peak Steph into those years, there’d be more willingness to let Steph shoot tons of threes because teams would be actively looking to see what the right way to respond to the rule change is.

[penbeast0]

Probably a bit below where it actually ranked as his teammates wouldn't be setting the high screens or running the high pick and rolls out in 3 point land which get him some of his looks. Additionally, if he didn't bring Draymond with him, there weren't a lot of teams with guys over 6'3 that acted as primary distributor (though there were some that could make it work) so he'd either have to be on ball more and off ball less or be worse defensively as a 2 trying to guard legit wings with size. That's assuming his coach believed in the 3 ball and allowed him to shoot 3s at the volume he actually did shoot at . . . . which no player in the 90s approached, not even Reggie.

He'd still be a valuable player but less so than in today's league, maybe Reggie Miller level (better 3 point shooter, less skilled at drawing fouls and getting to the hole, better playmaker, more size related issues).

[AEnigma]

Probably a bit below where it actually ranked as his teammates wouldn't be setting the high screens or running the high pick and rolls out in 3 point land which get him some of his looks. Additionally, if he didn't bring Draymond with him, there weren't a lot of teams with guys over 6'3 that acted as primary distributor (though there were some that could make it work) so he'd either have to be on ball more and off ball less or be worse defensively as a 2 trying to guard legit wings with size. That's assuming his coach believed in the 3 ball and allowed him to shoot 3s at the volume he actually did shoot at . . . . which no player in the 90s approached, not even Reggie.

He'd still be a valuable player but less so than in today's league, maybe Reggie Miller level (better 3 point shooter, less skilled at drawing fouls and getting to the hole, better playmaker, more size related issues).

I think Draymond has been a necessary element to his success in the modern league — Curry’s consistent decrease in scoring efficiency when Draymond goes to the bench speaks for itself — but in the 1990s, if we say he is not being aggressively held back by his coach (not a given but much like with health is probably something the hypothetical should assume), then he would still be by comical margins the most dangerous shooter and pnr initiator in the league.

You are absolutely right that peak Steph requires a specifically uncommon team structure to be maximised, and that such a structure is far more unlikely to be replicated in the 1990s, but I think you overstate the degree to which he needs that to maintain an advantage over a similarly less developed offensive environment.

[jalengreen]

Looking back, I think looked easier for 2016 Steph than basically any point afterwards, and it seems reflective of him sort of breaking the meta in a way that the league did not adjust to for some time. Throwing him in the past makes me think that he’d be an even greater game breaking force relative to the rest of the league, until the environment adjusts. Like, clear GOAT offensive peak potential.

[lessthanjake]

Looking back, I think looked easier for 2016 Steph than basically any point afterwards, and it seems reflective of him sort of breaking the meta in a way that the league did not adjust to for some time. Throwing him in the past makes me think that he’d be an even greater game breaking force relative to the rest of the league, until the environment adjusts. Like, clear GOAT offensive peak potential.

Yeah, I think this is potentially right. If having Steph led a team in the 1990s to institute a pretty modern offense, then Steph would very likely effectively have clear GOAT-level impact IMO. But it’d take a coach with the foresight to actually break the meta like that. Even in the mid-2010s, that might not have truly happened if the Warriors kept Mark Jackson instead of moving to Kerr. In the 1990s, the chances of getting a coach who makes such a huge tactical leap from the status quo (even bigger than it was in the 2010s) would’ve been pretty low IMO. But, as mentioned in my above post, I do wonder if the chances of getting that would’ve been higher if Steph peaked during the shorter-three-point-line years. Intuitively, it feels to me like a coach might be more willing to try some huge off-meta experimentation in response to a relevant rule change rather than *just* in response to having Steph.

[migya]

Likely wouldn't hold up on defensive end, getting roughed up each game would take a big toll and effect him on offense. Wasn't a pretty place for slightly built players.

[uberhikari]

I don't think people understand the question.

If Steph Curry was born in 1968 and walked into the NBA in 1990 he would be considerably worse. The dribbling rules were stricter, he would not get the benefit of illegal screens, there was handchecking, his freedom of movement would've been much more restricted (just look at what the Cavs did to him in the 2016 Finals or what the Celtics did to KD in the 2022 playoffs as an example), nobody would let him shoot 13 threes a game, etc. Even the passing was worse back then so his off-ball movement couldn't be optimized like today.

His closest comp would've been Reggie Miller. He'd be clearly better than Reggie (especially since Curry was a much better passer and dribbler) but I think Steph's ceiling is a top-25 player. To go from top-12 to top-25 is a helluva drop.

[Verticality]

Steph could win Many MVPs but championships are hard. Maybe 2 if he replaced Reggie.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Curry would be revolutionary in any era after the introduction of the three-point line. Whether his peak outshines the likes of LeBron in his day or would outshine the likes of Duncan and Shaq in the aughts, Jordan and Hakeem in the 90s, or Bird and Magic in the 80s, I don't know, but he'd need the same team luck all dynasties (including his) enjoy to earn the very top spot in most people's eyes.

[EmpireFalls]

How would you compare Steph’s game to his dad Dell’s?

What would allow Steph to transcend his dad’s role as an off ball sniper and become something more?

[parsnips33]

How would you compare Steph’s game to his dad Dell’s?

What would allow Steph to transcend his dad’s role as an off ball sniper and become something more?

They don't even play the same position?

[AEnigma]

Seth is the one who took more after Dell.

[penbeast0]

Curry would be revolutionary in any era after the introduction of the three-point line. Whether his peak outshines the likes of LeBron in his day or would outshine the likes of Duncan and Shaq in the aughts, Jordan and Hakeem in the 90s, or Bird and Magic in the 80s, I don't know, but he'd need the same team luck all dynasties (including his) enjoy to earn the very top spot in most people's eyes.

Wizards coach Brian Keefe, with a historically bad team, would be revolutionary in any era after the introduction of the 3 point line up to at least 2015. Modern offenses that are built around spamming the 3 ball and making everything else work off that were non-existent in the 90s. The teams that take the least 3's in the league today would take way more than the team that took the most in that era. So, if you start with the premise that any star guard or wing from today's league with all the modern advantages including coaching, training, etc. goes back to any previous league and can perform with the same freedom, of course he will be a bigger star then since people didn't play that way.

But people didn't play that way goes for coaches, referees, etc. as well. Steph Curry would not be allowed to be the Steph Curry we know. He might indeed revolutionize the league, he might be the next Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. I just don't think assuming he gets all the advantages he holds today on a team and indeed an entire league built around his particular skillset. I think you have to look at how he would fit the environment of that era rather than assume the era would suddenly adapt itself to him.

[tsherkin]

Curry would be revolutionary in any era after the introduction of the three-point line. Whether his peak outshines the likes of LeBron in his day or would outshine the likes of Duncan and Shaq in the aughts, Jordan and Hakeem in the 90s, or Bird and Magic in the 80s, I don't know, but he'd need the same team luck all dynasties (including his) enjoy to earn the very top spot in most people's eyes.

Wizards coach Brian Keefe, with a historically bad team, would be revolutionary in any era after the introduction of the 3 point line up to at least 2015. Modern offenses that are built around spamming the 3 ball and making everything else work off that were non-existent in the 90s. The teams that take the least 3's in the league today would take way more than the team that took the most in that era. So, if you start with the premise that any star guard or wing from today's league with all the modern advantages including coaching, training, etc. goes back to any previous league and can perform with the same freedom, of course he will be a bigger star then since people didn't play that way.

But people didn't play that way goes for coaches, referees, etc. as well. Steph Curry would not be allowed to be the Steph Curry we know. He might indeed revolutionize the league, he might be the next Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. I just don't think assuming he gets all the advantages he holds today on a team and indeed an entire league built around his particular skillset. I think you have to look at how he would fit the environment of that era rather than assume the era would suddenly adapt itself to him.

It is relevant to remember Reggue Miller. And how Steph changed the paradigm in his own career. And his conventional skills as a PG, and at acoring inside the arc. Also Mookie Blaylock, Tim Hardaway, Vernon Maxwell, Michael Adams. A bunch of guys were rocking 6+ 3PA/g in the 90s, and not just during the shortened line years.

I think Steph's talent would out regardless, personally. When he hit the league, he was the starting point for a lot of that change anyway.

[parsnips33]

I think an interesting guy to look at is Tim Hardaway - small PG who's a volume shooter and playmaker. All NBA 1st team in 96-97 attempting 7 3s a game. Also took 7 a game in 94-95, granted his coach was the very forward thinking Don Nelson.

Compare to pre-breakout Steph in his last year under Mark Jackson - 7.9 attempted 3s per game at 42% and averaging 8.5 assists as team's primary playmaker (Draymond still coming off the bench at this point) Even in his first MVP year, he'd only take a little over 8 3s per game. Seems like the league leader in attempts per game for the 90s tends to hover around 5.5-8.5 from season to season. Granted the types of shots are different, but Steph coming into the 90s and shooting around 8 3s a game as he's reaching his prime doesn't seem so totally far fetched. Would he ever play 2016 super Steve Kerr ball to maximize his impact? Maybe not, but he might still get to play league MVP and champion 2015 ball, which isn't half bad

[SHAQ32]

I'm thinking Mark Price with weaker defense and playmaking.

[OhayoKD]

I think an interesting guy to look at is Tim Hardaway - small PG who's a volume shooter and playmaker. All NBA 1st team in 96-97 attempting 7 3s a game. Also took 7 a game in 94-95, granted his coach was the very forward thinking Don Nelson.

Compare to pre-breakout Steph in his last year under Mark Jackson - 7.9 attempted 3s per game at 42% and averaging 8.5 assists as team's primary playmaker (Draymond still coming off the bench at this point) Even in his first MVP year, he'd only take a little over 8 3s per game. Seems like the league leader in attempts per game for the 90s tends to hover around 5.5-8.5 from season to season. Granted the types of shots are different, but Steph coming into the 90s and shooting around 8 3s a game as he's reaching his prime doesn't seem so totally far fetched. Would he ever play 2016 super Steve Kerr ball to maximize his impact? Maybe not, but he might still get to play league MVP and champion 2015 ball, which isn't half bad

There's probably going to be some sort of positive feedback loop allowing him to push for more than 8 3s if he hits 8 3s, likely wide open, at the clip we expect him too lol