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

[Iwasawitness]

All those guys were more versatile than Curry. Curry is the human equivalent of a baseball pitching machine from the 3pt line. He's the best 3pt shooter ever in any era when all teams do is shoot 3's because the rules allow offenses to spam one play over and over and handicap defenses. Teams can't deny the ball anymore or deny the shooter his spot because of freedom of movement, which really isn't so much a formal set of rules outlined by the NBA but an officiating philosophy that says that there is a physical point of contact between the offensive and defensive player, the offensive player always wins and gets the benefit of the doubt. In the 90's Curry would be constantly harassed, denied the ball, and denied space. If he got hot, enforcers would be subbed in to knock him out, start a fight,or just employ dirty tactics against him. Curry's never even been in a fight on the court cause nobody touches him.

Mark Price more versatile than Curry.

I **** can’t with these 90’s favoritism posts.

Curry's old. Came into the league in 2009. Miller retired in 2005. Literally, two pure shooters who played in same 5 year window. First three years in the league Curry averaged 4.7 3pa, same as Miller for his career. Then league got soft after Heatles broke up with point of emphasis on freedom of movement, gather step, etc.

Rules matter.

Oh yeah sure. Curry’s injury problems totally had nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the rules changing.

[Onus]

Mark Price more versatile than Curry.

I **** can’t with these 90’s favoritism posts.

Curry's old. Came into the league in 2009. Miller retired in 2005. Literally, two pure shooters who played in same 5 year window. First three years in the league Curry averaged 4.7 3pa, same as Miller for his career. Then league got soft after Heatles broke up with point of emphasis on freedom of movement, gather step, etc.

Rules matter.

Oh yeah sure. Curry’s injury problems totally had nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the rules changing.

What's funny is that curry still gets grabbed, held, pulled and bumped off the ball. He gets hit on shots that go uncalled. All these rules meant to supposedly help Curry doesn't get called for him for some reason because he'd literally be un-guardable if they called these fouls.

There was a game recently where Steph got hit on a shot and the ref said you released the ball so they could hit you on your follow through. Then the ref called the same foul against us later in the game, and then the ref had to call it for Curry the next time down. Steph gets the least amount of respect for a generational player ever.

[Gant]

Anyone as far back as Bill Russell, who dominated any era, would not get crushed in any other era.

[Effigy]

The only major thing that would change if Curry played in the 90’s is that the league would have evolved into its current state even sooner.

I'll make a distinction:

If Curry played like he does today back then, he'd instantly be the best player in the world and force the league to wake up to 3-point shooting and evolve faster just as you say. The only question is how quickly the NBA would evolve strategically, and whether those changes would come fast enough to bring Curry back down to something near the level of effectiveness he's been at in his own era, in which case it's not clear he'd be as good as Jordan.

If Curry were the player he is now but was forced to play like coaches back then thought basketball worked, then he probably doesn't spend much time on the court in the NBA. If you're not drafting him with the intent of having him take a lot of 3's, I'm not really sure why you're drafting him.

Right I agree with this. It's all about opportunity. And he might struggle to get playing time because coaches would focus on him being not physical enough or a defensive liability and not consider how much his 3's offset any of that. It's not like he came into the league fully formed. It took him a few years to reach his full ability, and he probably wouldn't get that time or opportunity in the 90's. He'd be a Steve Kerr type role player specialist. At least at first.

[Helsbyte]

Curry would at best been a Mitch Richmond type. His dad is a good comparison as well. You can't say you can put Curry in the 90s and he would dominate. Different era and rules. Nobody spammed 3pt shots back then, no one ran an offense like that and nobody is gonna say oh hell it's Curry from 2020s let's change our offense for him. No coach is going to do that.

[firedavidkahn]

This is the dumbest thread I've seen in a while., which is saying a lot.

People are deluding themselves if they honestly think the elites of this era would suck in any other era. The only "elites" from any given ERA that might actually suck (to be specific, they wouldn't be elite) if you put them in a different ERA would be the very early NBA like Bob Cousy or George Mikan.

You could pretty much intermingle any of the "elites" from the 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s or 20s and they would still be among the elite.

[bledredwine]

He wouldn’t be able to do much inside the three, that’s for sure. But he’d get his threes.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Curry would at best been a Mitch Richmond type. His dad is a good comparison as well. You can't say you can put Curry in the 90s and he would dominate. Different era and rules. Nobody spammed 3pt shots back then, no one ran an offense like that and nobody is gonna say oh hell it's Curry from 2020s let's change our offense for him. No coach is going to do that.

The bolded is probably completely correct and is an indictment on the era. The reason why the era was what it was more than handchecking, more than physicality, more than rules, was that the coaches firmly believed in playing basketball in a way that was fundamentally flawed.

Watch those games and you see guys routinely have chances to shoot threes but step inside the arc for a long two, or pass inside for a contested 10 footer instead of shooting an open or semi-open three. These things were believed to be good basketball plays, but they are objectively terrible.

If Curry were crushed in the 90s it would be by terrible coaching, not by the opposing players or the rules.

[DwayneSchintzus]

its not that the defense was so intense, defense is better now.

its the contact they could get away with. the bigger guys were allowed to absolutely hammer anyone inside. the antidote for very good small players was "knock them on their ass" for decades.

i think if Curry was magically transported as a 22 year old to the 90s, he would still be good (or great) for a period of time, but the bigger players would be allowed to knock the s--- out of him until he was physically not the same player anymore.

[scrabbarista]

Curry would be considered the GOAT if he played in the 90s lol they didn't even guard the 3PT line seriously a lot of the time let alone from the distance he shoots from he'd **** feast

A) If Curry was in the 90's he wouldn't have shot half as many threes.

B) This is irrelevant, but if he had, teams would've guarded him.

No chance he'd be considered the GoAT.

But I agree with the general sentiment: obviously someone as great as Curry would be great in any era.

[NYPiston]

Curry has plenty of toughness, whose to say that he'd shrink like a violet in a more physical era. With his dribbling and shooting ability not to mention his underrated playmaking, he could excel in any era.

[chilluminati]

Stockton and Thomas were both like 6'1 180lbs. they did pretty well for themselves.

[pipfan]

Been watching the NBA since the late 70's and a huge Bulls' fan
Curry would be a super-duper star in any era-no doubt

[warriorschamps]

So let me get this straight. Curry who took what Reggie Miller did to the next level would struggle against the big bad tough New York Knicks when Reggie Miller made those guys look like absolute fools throughout his career. Right.

Watch on YouTube

[TheGeneral99]

Curry would dominate the league way more in the 1980s because 7 foot slow centers would get **** destroyed on the pick and roll over and over again.

[Effigy]

Curry would at best been a Mitch Richmond type. His dad is a good comparison as well. You can't say you can put Curry in the 90s and he would dominate. Different era and rules. Nobody spammed 3pt shots back then, no one ran an offense like that and nobody is gonna say oh hell it's Curry from 2020s let's change our offense for him. No coach is going to do that.

Mitch was 6'5" and 220 pounds. I don't see Curry playing like Mitch. With Curry his size would have been a concern. That wasn't the case for Mitch.

[bledredwine]

So let me get this straight. Curry who took what Reggie Miller did to the next level would struggle against the big bad tough New York Knicks when Reggie Miller made those guys look like absolute fools throughout his career. Right.

Watch on YouTube

Reggie would go absolutely berserk today.

[warriorschamps]

Remember the big bad tough physical Knicks NEVER won anything. Let's not lose sight of the that. Why the Knicks of the 1990s is so celebrated is beyond me. All I remember about that team is Miller toying with them. Hakeem Olajuwon dismantling them in the finals. And of course the Chicago Bulls walking all over them. Meanwhile all Chef Curry has done is lead his team to four NBA titles. The "tough" Knicks couldn't win a single chip.

Watch on YouTube

[liquidswords]

The softened defensive rules, outlawing handchecking or touching an offensive player in any way, removing physicality and promoting freedom of movement have allowed players to run amok on the offensive end.

This is best exemplified by Curry. A relatively unimpressive 6-3(if that) physical specimen.

How much is Curry dominating in a game like this?

Watch on YouTube

Probably the most perpetuated lie in the history of the NBA. Sure there were physical games/series between teams but go back and watch, even, highlights of games/players. Absolute swiss cheese defense

On Steph, he's a conditioning freak/specimen. He would be absolutely fine.

[Yoshun]

Curry is not only an all time great shooter, but he also moves off the ball exceptionally well and has a lightning release. How he moves off-ball does not get discussed nearly enough. He's slowed down a little, but, in his prime, he was one of the best in the league at it.

The only area he may struggle a little more in is on D. I often think his defense is a little underrated in this era because he has always been a good help defender. He's smaller, but he has a high bball IQ and he's quick and smart. In the 90s though, man D was even more important than it is now. He would struggle against bigger guards.

All in all, he'd still be a superstar.