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

[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.

You're absolutely right. The reality is that if Steph grew up earlier, it wouldn't have occurred to him to shoot 3's like he presently does.

The pattern I found relating to 3-point pioneer Mike D'Antoni was that basically whenever he became the coach of the team, the amount of 3PA's went up by about 10. It was always my interpretation that this wasn't D'Antoni setting a +10 specific goal but just how far his pro-3 mindset could push players at any given time.

When Ben Taylor eventually interviewed D'Antoni about the +10, D'Antoni had no awareness of the stat and basically confirmed that he was always just saying "take more of'em!".
A lot of it was the players, too. I couldn't dig it up, but Nash had a great quote when Curry was really starting to blow up how it simply never occurred to him to shoot the ball that aggressively and how he wished he had. And he had just about the greenest of green lights with D'Antoni.

Basically he was in true point guard mode and generally tried to only shoot 3s with his feet set and if he was somewhat wide open. Not a bad mentality, but when you have a stroke like that, you should be pushing the envelope.

Hell, Nick Van Exel is one of the first guys I remember being willing to really bomb away and he was only taking around six 3s per game at his peak.

Sometimes that's what it takes to break paradigms. Like it seems crazy to think about now, but way back in the day (and I'm sure you know this) Bill Russell's college coach used to get on him for jumping to block shots because they didn't think it was fundamental. But Bill instinctively knew that's how you should be playing, and he changed the game.

[magicsanta]

These counterfactual arguments, on top of being pure mental onanism, have in common that they almost always ignore the evolution of the game and players. If put among less evolved peers he'd probably be a perennial mvp

[Iwasawitness]

You can try to reword it anyway you want; it doesn't make what you said any less ridiculous. Saying Steph would be a role player when far inferior players than him were not only starters in the league, but made the all-star team, is a laughable thing to say. It defies all aspects of logic and has no merit.

Early 90s basketball was a very different beast. It was way more physical. Before hand checking was removed, small guards would regularly be manhandled without the benefit of a whistle.

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUVaGFuZCBjaGVja2luZyA5MHMgbmJh

A solid example, Hall of Famer Steve Nash. He played in the latter half of the 1990s. Consistently shot above league average from deep.

Nash spent his first few years coming off the bench and failed to avg double digit points.

It was a very different game and not conducive to small, weaker guards with perimeter oriented games.

What he describes at :17 happens virtually every drive in the modern NBA. All over the floor really. He's talking like it doesn't exist and it's everywhere. The whole clip is really the classic old guy with no clue what he's talking about.

Look at these Harden drives. That forearm hold Hubie is talking about is there most drives. The ones it isn't, Harden had the defender so off balance they never got a chance, or he got clear thanks to screens. Often defenders want to put hands on him, but he has so much shifting side to side, they don't have a chance. And there are examples of straight up handchecking.

Watch on YouTube

Handchecking is not the defensive check mate it's made out to be. Offensive players can counter it. Today's players are really good at playing through hand and forearm checks, but 90s mythologists don't even realize it because they're stuck looking at rulebook and listening to cranky old men instead of watching footage of actual games both of the present and the past.

Full on handcheck at 1:08. Plenty of additional hands on physical defense on the peremiter in this compilation.

Watch on YouTube

More modern handchecking from just a few minutes of one game.

Watch on YouTube

"You can't handcheck anymore" is a tip off people aren't watching games, or if they are, they aren't paying attention to what's actually happening.

Or they just don’t know what hand checking is.

[The High Cyde]

Curry would tear the league a new one had he played in that weak era

[Jamaaliver]

Nash was an All-star and getting MVP votes in 2002 and 2003 during the most defensive, slow paced and physical period in modern NBA history, before the rule changes in the summer of 2004.

You're thinking of a different, later rule change.

Rod Thorn, director of NBA operations, was a key figure in devising and implementing the new rules.

“We looked at the games and saw that the physical contact had gone to the outer extremes,” Thorn said. “I’m not talking about the fights, but all the grabbing, holding and shoving was making it almost impossible to move from place to place on the basketball court.”

League officials are aware that scoring in regular season games dropped 17 points between 1986 and [1993-1994]. Defense became the best route to the Finals, if not the championship.

LA Times -- 1994

[sashaturiaf]

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.

[Black Jack]

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.

This thread is insane. Curry would break the old NBA. Are you kidding?

[Jamaaliver]

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.

Bingo. Imagine Step Curry playing in the Eastern Conference playoffs in the early to mid 90s...they would have eaten that kid alive.

[tsherkin]

I’m not sure where you’re getting your pacing numbers but they do not match what I see on B-Ball reference.

Yeah, I was using b-ref as my source and averaged them out. He got really slow in the mid-late 90s but take his first AS season, when he posted his career-high in PPG. The Pacers were 16th in the league in pace. A year later, 7th, and 5th in 1992.

[nikster]

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

I feel like you have no idea what makes Curry elite if you think Dell and Kerr have similar ability

[RRR3]

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.

[RRR3]

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.

Bingo. Imagine Step Curry playing in the Eastern Conference playoffs in the early to mid 90s...they would have eaten that kid alive.

Muggsy Bogues was 5'3 and didn't get eaten alive

Delusional

[Snakebites]

I’m not sure where you’re getting your pacing numbers but they do not match what I see on B-Ball reference.

Yeah, I was using b-ref as my source and averaged them out. He got really slow in the mid-late 90s but take his first AS season, when he posted his career-high in PPG. The Pacers were 16th in the league in pace. A year later, 7th, and 5th in 1992.

Yeah, I was primarily focusing on his 1994-1999 peak. This is where he was at his personal best as a player IMO.

By the early 2000s the Pacers pace (hah) had picked up relative to the rest of the league, but by that point he was in his mid 30s and other players had risen to prominence on those teams.

Lest you think that's cherry picking, I was similarly choosey when looking at Richmonds years, as I wanted a prime to prime comparison- he was at his best and most efficient in Sacramento, and this is also where he got All NBA 2nds over Reggie. Those Kings teams were generally near the top in pace.

If you want to make a case for Mitch over Reggie that's fine. I disagree, but the larger point was that, in terms of accolades, it seems the LEAGUe clearly valued Mitch over Reggie. They played the same position and peaked at roughly the same time, yet Mitch got more and higher accolades than Reggie. I don't think that's right.

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

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 (Dell: 4.1 assists per 100 possessions; Steph: 9.1); a far superior finisher around the rim (Dell: 48.3% career at the rim; Steph: 65.2%) and shoots 2.2 percentage points better on 3s despite taking almost five more attempts per game. Dell's second-best 3-point shooting barely cracks Curry's top 10.

Got it.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, I was primarily focusing on his 1994-1999 peak. This is where he was at his personal best as a player IMO.

During that period, he was a 20/3/3 player on 61.7% TS. From 89-93, he was a 21/3.5/3.5 guy on 63.1% TS, just FWIW. It is during this period that the Pacers' average pace is highest.

By the early 2000s the Pacers pace (hah) had picked up relative to the rest of the league, but by that point he was in his mid 30s and other players had risen to prominence on those teams.

Sure, as he got older, they picked up the pace a tiny bit again, yes.

Lest you think that's cherry picking, I was similarly choosey when looking at Richmonds years, as I wanted a prime to prime comparison- he was at his best and most efficient in Sacramento, and this is also where he got All NBA 2nds over Reggie. Those Kings teams were generally near the top in pace.

Yep, I mean he played on Run TMC and the Kings, he was definitely an up-tempo guy. Limited some in terms of his statistical output by playing alongside Mullin and Hardaway, but still.

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

Bingo. Imagine Step Curry playing in the Eastern Conference playoffs in the early to mid 90s...they would have eaten that kid alive.

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.

[Jamaaliver]

Muggsy Bogues was 5'3 and didn't get eaten alive

6'0" Allen Iverson did alright, too.

Neither played Curry's style of basketball. Both dudes were tough as nails.

[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??????

[Haldi]

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.

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.

[dhsilv2]

...Steph came into the league looking like a middle schooler, he was so frail.

And he was still larger than Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf coming in. Both added size as they got older. Curry of course added FAR more size and it's a big reason he played into his 30's and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was out of the league by then.

Spoiler:

But if you can't tell that Curry's got a bigger bone structure, wider shoulders, longer arms...please just don't speak about players or compare their builds.

The fact you'd even come back with this response after you got called out for being completely wrong is staggering

.

Now this is great context and analysis. Thanks for insight.

Larger picture, I feel like my take has been waaaaaaaaaaay more controversial than it should be.

I'll try to reiterate again.

Steph Curry is one of the most unstoppable offensive forces the NBA has seen in its history. Three things would have realistically prevented Steph from having a similar impact in past eras.

1. Stubborn 90s coaches who likely would have benched him the first time he missed a contested 35 footer.
   
2. Stagnant 90s offenses that were still built around post play and mid range jump shots.
   
3. 90s defenses that allowed small guards to get mauled on ball and especially away from the action.

TL;DR: In the same way that Shaq, a dominant force in his time, would struggle to play in the is era because of style of play on both ends, Steph Curry would similarly struggle to play in the more physical 90s era. He would literally get fouled on every play, but would rarely be rewarded with Free Throws.

3 is just absolutely BS though. The league was NOT brutally at all. Guys weren't mauled. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was we've covered was a TINY little man. No, he wasn't short by human male standards but his frame and build was below average for just normal everyday non athletes. Curry on the other hand is an actual big dude, and again his frame is big. Go look how wide his shoulders are in the picture you posted above. Then notice his waist isn't super tiny despite obviously having no body fat. Then look at how long his arms are. He'd be one of the larger point guards in the league. Curry did just fine being hand checked on nearly every play by Boston who had some HUGE guards to put on him. Smart was a 220-230 pound dude hand checking Curry. I've not seen hand checking like that on a guard outside of MAYBE a miami vs knick series in the 90's.

Meanwhile, no zone to stop Curry? You're going to let Curry work the outside against Avery Johnson? Or Scott Skiles? Or Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf? Is Mark Price going to give him problems in iso? You think ANY of those guys are going to go through the screen to stay with Curry on a pick and roll?

Defensively, Curry again would be one of the bigger point guards, suddenly on defense he's now able to use his size and strength more. And there were less lethal scoring guards in the league to try and get past Curry. There's no screen switching to get a 6'9 guy on Curry either.

And this isn't even to get into, what team is even going to contest a 35 foot shot in the 90's. The 2 years where the 3 point line was brought in....Curry might shoot 60% on 10 shots a game with that line. Oh and as I've covered there were guys shooting 8+ or 7+ 3's all through the 90's.

I said this before but I'll say it again.

Michael Adams shot 8.5 threes per game in 1991 at 29.6%. Vernon Maxwell that same year took 6.2 at 33.7%

Their coaches let them shoot.

We all know guys like Pitino would have killed to have a Curry, he was completely good even in the 80's living and dying by the 3. He just couldn't find the people to shoot them. Between Walker and Walter McCary he was letting his big men bomb them. Paul Westhead who started the whole show time idea, would have been 100% good with a Curry bombing 3's. I can't imagine Don Nelse wouldn't get it instantly. PJ Carlesimo was another guy who seemed to let his guys shoot.

And this reminds me of Bobby Knight's quote about MJ on him telling guys to never jump without knowing what they were going to do with the ball. Well, that rule doesn't apply to MJ. And a shooter like Curry would completely change the rules in the 90's too. Coaches let guys shoot more the second the line shortened. If someone came into the league shooting like Curry, they'd adapt.

So let me just break this down into a few bullet points.

1. Curry is an elite iso player. 90s would make this better.
2. Curry would get a green light in his first few years to shoot, wouldn't happen day one.
3. Curry would be better defensively due to the rules and the small points of the era.
4. Curry actively look for physical contact on offense. This is one of the reasons he's such a good off ball player. This...I'm not sure coaches than would have figured out and without a motion offense...what benefit is there?
5. Curry would be a better scorer in this era.
6. Curry wouldn't have the gravity he has today to the same extent.

Yes, he's still an MVP level guy in the 90's. Maybe an even more conventional one than today.