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

[TheGeneral99]

Here is Wilt talking about the 1980s era:

Before Rashad asked him a question, Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler chimed in.

"The greatest of all time is right here in front of me," Drexler said while sitting next to Chamberlain

Chamberlain was then asked how many points he could average in today's game.

"With the rules of today with the opposition not being able to touch you, probably about 65 or 75," Chamberlain said.

"I love Charles Barkley. He's a great player," Chamberlain said. "Patrick Ewing, a great jump shooter but you'd like to see him play with his back to the basketball a little more as a center. David Robinson seems to lose his heart when it comes to the big games."

So according to Wilt defenses aren't able to touch you anymore in the 1980s and he would have been able to average 65 or 75.

LOL!!!

[Raps in 4]

Here is Wilt talking about the 1980s era:

Before Rashad asked him a question, Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler chimed in.

"The greatest of all time is right here in front of me," Drexler said while sitting next to Chamberlain

Chamberlain was then asked how many points he could average in today's game.

"With the rules of today with the opposition not being able to touch you, probably about 65 or 75," Chamberlain said.

"I love Charles Barkley. He's a great player," Chamberlain said. "Patrick Ewing, a great jump shooter but you'd like to see him play with his back to the basketball a little more as a center. David Robinson seems to lose his heart when it comes to the big games."

So according to Wilt defenses aren't able to touch you anymore in the 1980s and he would have been able to average 65 or 75.

LOL!!!

Wilt would easily average 100 PPG today, while Steph would probably average <5 PPG in his era.

[DOT]

Here is Wilt talking about the 1980s era:

Before Rashad asked him a question, Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler chimed in.

"The greatest of all time is right here in front of me," Drexler said while sitting next to Chamberlain

Chamberlain was then asked how many points he could average in today's game.

"With the rules of today with the opposition not being able to touch you, probably about 65 or 75," Chamberlain said.

"I love Charles Barkley. He's a great player," Chamberlain said. "Patrick Ewing, a great jump shooter but you'd like to see him play with his back to the basketball a little more as a center. David Robinson seems to lose his heart when it comes to the big games."

So according to Wilt defenses aren't able to touch you anymore in the 1980s and he would have been able to average 65 or 75.

LOL!!!

If George Mikan were still around, he'd be talking about how he would've averaged 100 ppg today.

[Doctor MJ]

So you are saying a shooter of currys caliber wouldnt have caught on at some point? That coaches, who lets be real good shooting even in that era was coveted, would continue to at least not give him a chance even after witnessing the literal best shooter ever in practice? I find it truly hard to believe. Curry would be shredding guys in practice too, not just standstill shooting. You think he cant dominate a practice in the 90s? LOL
Ffs man

I don't think you realize how hard it is to actually tell who is winning a game if you're not aware of the score. The level of impact of NBA players, while huge compared to MLB players, is quite small compared to the scores in the game. If a player is making his team 5-10% more successful on a possession basis, and he's doing so based on his shots counting 50% more than other guys which allows him to actually miss more than those other guys, it's not actually going to look like domination unless you read body language and the like.

Note that this is completely different from, say, scouts from the post-up era getting to see 2 guys go out each other and one of them coming off clearly bigger/longer/stronger/quicker while doing basically the same job on both ends of the floor. Such comparisons are vastly more concrete and it allows scouts to make those judgements quite well oftentimes by watching just a single play.

It's the more abstract stuff where you just really need sizable data to expect to make any sound conclusion, and if no coach is willing to devote his team strategy to run a particular experiment, then the domain remains blind.

And just generally, the fear of trying a new way generally means that paradigm shifts happen a long time after they could have. The archetypical paradigm shift is the Copernican Revolution, and there the author(Copernicus) delayed publishing his work postulating heliocentrism for 36 years so he would not face the social wrath (think Catholic Church, etc). The field of Artificial Intelligence basically abandoned Neural Networks as an approach for over a decade when a powerful figure's (Minsky) critique made the field afraid to try (and afraid to take him on)...but the solution ended up being to just use a little calculus.

Where there is high competitive pressure, counterintuitively, great leaps forward are often curtailed as individuals fear failure branded foolish more than they have hope in improvement through bold experimentation.

You are saying nba coaches in the 90s would not be able to tell a guy is dominating scrimmages or not .. Do you not realize how asinine that sounds? Like cmon honestly you truly believe that?

Steph curry would dominate scrimmages in the 90s lets be real man and it would be very noticeable. Stephs a volume scorer, hes not some shooting specialist. He doesnt need a system to get buckets. You think the offense was built around him his rookie year when he was averaging 17.5ppg?

And ok lets say his only job is to hit spot up threes..he would so incredibly good at it. Like he would be hitting over everybody and getting minutes and looks because of that alone. His teammates would trust him because they watch the literal best shooter in practice everday, who also happens to be dominating them in scrimmages, but shh dont tell the idiot pro coaches. Or wait, maybe 90s nba players cant tell if steph can do it in games or not and wouldnt pass to him..am I doing this right? Thats exactly how you sound btw

..and lets say the team has no starting level point guard. Steph would be the primary ball handler easily.

Okay, I'd say I'm done with you and your potshots. You clearly have no background in any of the stuff I've mentioned and you're desperately trying to talk as if you have expertise.

You don't, and you don't even know how to gain such expertise, so instead you insult those trying to help you understand things better.

[Ainosterhaspie]

I don't think you realize how hard it is to actually tell who is winning a game if you're not aware of the score. The level of impact of NBA players, while huge compared to MLB players, is quite small compared to the scores in the game. If a player is making his team 5-10% more successful on a possession basis, and he's doing so based on his shots counting 50% more than other guys which allows him to actually miss more than those other guys, it's not actually going to look like domination unless you read body language and the like.

Note that this is completely different from, say, scouts from the post-up era getting to see 2 guys go out each other and one of them coming off clearly bigger/longer/stronger/quicker while doing basically the same job on both ends of the floor. Such comparisons are vastly more concrete and it allows scouts to make those judgements quite well oftentimes by watching just a single play.

It's the more abstract stuff where you just really need sizable data to expect to make any sound conclusion, and if no coach is willing to devote his team strategy to run a particular experiment, then the domain remains blind.

And just generally, the fear of trying a new way generally means that paradigm shifts happen a long time after they could have. The archetypical paradigm shift is the Copernican Revolution, and there the author(Copernicus) delayed publishing his work postulating heliocentrism for 36 years so he would not face the social wrath (think Catholic Church, etc). The field of Artificial Intelligence basically abandoned Neural Networks as an approach for over a decade when a powerful figure's (Minsky) critique made the field afraid to try (and afraid to take him on)...but the solution ended up being to just use a little calculus.

Where there is high competitive pressure, counterintuitively, great leaps forward are often curtailed as individuals fear failure branded foolish more than they have hope in improvement through bold experimentation.

You are saying nba coaches in the 90s would not be able to tell a guy is dominating scrimmages or not .. Do you not realize how asinine that sounds? Like cmon honestly you truly believe that?

Steph curry would dominate scrimmages in the 90s lets be real man and it would be very noticeable. Stephs a volume scorer, hes not some shooting specialist. He doesnt need a system to get buckets. You think the offense was built around him his rookie year when he was averaging 17.5ppg?

And ok lets say his only job is to hit spot up threes..he would so incredibly good at it. Like he would be hitting over everybody and getting minutes and looks because of that alone. His teammates would trust him because they watch the literal best shooter in practice everday, who also happens to be dominating them in scrimmages, but shh dont tell the idiot pro coaches. Or wait, maybe 90s nba players cant tell if steph can do it in games or not and wouldnt pass to him..am I doing this right? Thats exactly how you sound btw

..and lets say the team has no starting level point guard. Steph would be the primary ball handler easily.

Okay, I'd say I'm done with you and your potshots. You clearly have no background in any of the stuff I've mentioned and you're desperately trying to talk as if you have expertise.

You don't, and you don't even know how to gain such expertise, so instead you insult those trying to help you understand things better.

One thing to add is more coaches in that era were much more hard nosed and restrictive my way or the highway type guys. Players going off script would not be tolerated. The coaches would clamp down on "bad shots" so fast it would be difficult to demo how effective you could be with it. Ignore that and shoot anyway and you'd find yourself benched real fast and get a reputation of being uncoachable.

I'm not saying every coach would be that way or that a savant like Curry might not be able to break through the institutional inertia he'd be fighting against, but it's not a guarantee it happens in a meaningful time frame.

[ShootersShoot]

I don't think you realize how hard it is to actually tell who is winning a game if you're not aware of the score. The level of impact of NBA players, while huge compared to MLB players, is quite small compared to the scores in the game. If a player is making his team 5-10% more successful on a possession basis, and he's doing so based on his shots counting 50% more than other guys which allows him to actually miss more than those other guys, it's not actually going to look like domination unless you read body language and the like.

Note that this is completely different from, say, scouts from the post-up era getting to see 2 guys go out each other and one of them coming off clearly bigger/longer/stronger/quicker while doing basically the same job on both ends of the floor. Such comparisons are vastly more concrete and it allows scouts to make those judgements quite well oftentimes by watching just a single play.

It's the more abstract stuff where you just really need sizable data to expect to make any sound conclusion, and if no coach is willing to devote his team strategy to run a particular experiment, then the domain remains blind.

And just generally, the fear of trying a new way generally means that paradigm shifts happen a long time after they could have. The archetypical paradigm shift is the Copernican Revolution, and there the author(Copernicus) delayed publishing his work postulating heliocentrism for 36 years so he would not face the social wrath (think Catholic Church, etc). The field of Artificial Intelligence basically abandoned Neural Networks as an approach for over a decade when a powerful figure's (Minsky) critique made the field afraid to try (and afraid to take him on)...but the solution ended up being to just use a little calculus.

Where there is high competitive pressure, counterintuitively, great leaps forward are often curtailed as individuals fear failure branded foolish more than they have hope in improvement through bold experimentation.

You are saying nba coaches in the 90s would not be able to tell a guy is dominating scrimmages or not .. Do you not realize how asinine that sounds? Like cmon honestly you truly believe that?

Steph curry would dominate scrimmages in the 90s lets be real man and it would be very noticeable. Stephs a volume scorer, hes not some shooting specialist. He doesnt need a system to get buckets. You think the offense was built around him his rookie year when he was averaging 17.5ppg?

And ok lets say his only job is to hit spot up threes..he would so incredibly good at it. Like he would be hitting over everybody and getting minutes and looks because of that alone. His teammates would trust him because they watch the literal best shooter in practice everday, who also happens to be dominating them in scrimmages, but shh dont tell the idiot pro coaches. Or wait, maybe 90s nba players cant tell if steph can do it in games or not and wouldnt pass to him..am I doing this right? Thats exactly how you sound btw

..and lets say the team has no starting level point guard. Steph would be the primary ball handler easily.

Okay, I'd say I'm done with you and your potshots. You clearly have no background in any of the stuff I've mentioned and you're desperately trying to talk as if you have expertise.

You don't, and you don't even know how to gain such expertise, so instead you insult those trying to help you understand things better.

Its just so obvious steph would stand out in practices and scrimmages enough to at least gain some trust, even in the 90s..hes too skilled not to. Its not rocket science. He was literally a starter day one as a rookie. To think a top 15 player all time wouldnt be able to stand out in any basketball environment is such a ridiculous notion its nonsensical.

Same concept with shaq playing today. Throw him in a practice against capela or okongwu or wendell carter jr what have you and he would absolutely destroy them. You think coaches today would say nah this guy cant shoot threes lets make him a role player? Puhlease. If that was the case zion williamson would never see the floor today. Not how basketball works..only casuals see the game like that.

[ShootersShoot]

You are saying nba coaches in the 90s would not be able to tell a guy is dominating scrimmages or not .. Do you not realize how asinine that sounds? Like cmon honestly you truly believe that?

Steph curry would dominate scrimmages in the 90s lets be real man and it would be very noticeable. Stephs a volume scorer, hes not some shooting specialist. He doesnt need a system to get buckets. You think the offense was built around him his rookie year when he was averaging 17.5ppg?

And ok lets say his only job is to hit spot up threes..he would so incredibly good at it. Like he would be hitting over everybody and getting minutes and looks because of that alone. His teammates would trust him because they watch the literal best shooter in practice everday, who also happens to be dominating them in scrimmages, but shh dont tell the idiot pro coaches. Or wait, maybe 90s nba players cant tell if steph can do it in games or not and wouldnt pass to him..am I doing this right? Thats exactly how you sound btw

..and lets say the team has no starting level point guard. Steph would be the primary ball handler easily.

Okay, I'd say I'm done with you and your potshots. You clearly have no background in any of the stuff I've mentioned and you're desperately trying to talk as if you have expertise.

You don't, and you don't even know how to gain such expertise, so instead you insult those trying to help you understand things better.

One thing to add is more coaches in that era were much more hard nosed and restrictive my way or the highway type guys. Players going off script would not be tolerated. The coaches would clamp down on "bad shots" so fast it would be difficult to demo how effective you could be with it. Ignore that and shoot anyway and you'd find yourself benched real fast and get a reputation of being uncoachable.

I'm not saying every coach would be that way or that a savant like Curry might not be able to break through the institutional inertia he'd be fighting against, but it's not a guarantee it happens in a meaningful time frame.

Don nelson started curry day one as a rookie lol. Obviously he was ahead of his time but imagine steph playing for don in the 90s. Would steph really not be able to play like tim hardaway as a scorer but way more efficient?

Did coaches not build offenses around point guards in the 90s or something? There were star point guards who could score during that era iirc. What am I missing here? Just because steph can shoot means coaches will turn a blind eye to his other skills? Not how basketball works ...not even in the 90s

[The High Cyde]

You guys are over analyzing this. This is a game where the goal is to score points by shooting a ball in a hoop. Gee, I wonder how the best shooter the world has ever seen shoot the ball would do at this at any given history of the sport. That’s at the bare minimum. Steph as we know is much more of a complete player. For starters, he’d be starting, his ball handling and passing alone would get him there, let alone his size. And then he would just bend the game and break it with his shooting. It’s as simple as that, Steph is too good and too competitive and his astounding talent would be seen. He did it and ushered the modern age of basketball. I’m seeing this as disrespectful to Curry and some kind of need to prop up the 90s or whatever. That era was hella weak and Steph Curry would give Jordan a run for his money every year back then, or anyone.

[SNPA]

You guys are over analyzing this. This is a game where the goal is to score points by shooting a ball in a hoop. Gee, I wonder how the best shooter the world has ever seen shoot the ball would do at this at any given history of the sport. That’s at the bare minimum. Steph as we know is much more of a complete player. For starters, he’d be starting, his ball handling and passing alone would get him there, let alone his size. And then he would just bend the game and break it with his shooting. It’s as simple as that, Steph is too good and too competitive and his astounding talent would be seen. He did it and ushered the modern age of basketball. I’m seeing this as disrespectful to Curry and some kind of need to prop up the 90s or whatever. That era was hella weak and Steph Curry would give Jordan a run for his money every year back then, or anyone.

There is very little evidence for this view. Great shooters existed, they never “broke the league.”

Curry gains from not only the dramatically increased threes (which of course he helped) but the motion offenses and freedom of movement. The 90s was iso ball and guys like Payton putting hands on you. Those two facts alone take some edge off of Curry even if he did find a coach to let him chuck at will.

There’s also going to be a decrease in his drive game. Teams would be more physical down there and he’d end up on his backside more…thus, he’d do it less or be beat up and playing hurt more.

[ShootersShoot]

You guys are over analyzing this. This is a game where the goal is to score points by shooting a ball in a hoop. Gee, I wonder how the best shooter the world has ever seen shoot the ball would do at this at any given history of the sport. That’s at the bare minimum. Steph as we know is much more of a complete player. For starters, he’d be starting, his ball handling and passing alone would get him there, let alone his size. And then he would just bend the game and break it with his shooting. It’s as simple as that, Steph is too good and too competitive and his astounding talent would be seen. He did it and ushered the modern age of basketball. I’m seeing this as disrespectful to Curry and some kind of need to prop up the 90s or whatever. That era was hella weak and Steph Curry would give Jordan a run for his money every year back then, or anyone.

There is very little evidence for this view. Great shooters existed, they never “broke the league.”

Curry gains from not only the dramatically increased threes (which of course he helped) but the motion offenses and freedom of movement. The 90s was iso ball and guys like Payton putting hands on you. Those two facts alone take some edge off of Curry even if he did find a coach to let him chuck at will.

There’s also going to be a decrease in his drive game. Teams would be more physical down there and he’d end up on his backside more…thus, he’d do it less or be beat up and playing hurt more.

Shooters even today dont break the league..looking at the best players today giannis, Luka, jokic, shai, tatum..yea there are some great shooters on that list but really only just a part of their advanced games. Thats why steph is special and thats why he could do it in any era with a 3pt line. The shooting ability is transcendent that even modern day players cant match. The fallacy here is that people are treating steph like he is just some normal shooter. Hes a level above even a guy like reggie miller for chrissake.

[Sedale Threatt]

Curry is one of the best finishers at the rim among PG in NBA history...

Career 0-3ft

Curry: 65.2%
Irving: 62.5%
Westbrook: 60.3%
Harden: 63.8%
Iverson: 57.3%
CP3: 62.0%
Nash: 63.9%
Kidd: 55.6%
Payton: 64.7%

Seriously, you didn't know?

Missed this from yesterday, but great post, and a perfect illustration of why these discussions can be so unbelievably frustrating.

Full disclosure: I don't read nearly as much as I used to, and I've never had more than a layman's grasp of hoops strategy. So it's not like I'm some secret genius who can immediately discern how Team A is attacking Team B's pick-and-roll.

But it's not like Curry's a newcomer. He's been around a loooong time now, and it's very rare to watch a game where one of the commentators doesn't gush over his dribbling and finishing skills. They've been big parts of his game for way over a decade now.

But I guess because he's relatively undersized and doesn't dunk on people, they still don't get it.

[Ritzo]

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!

[SNPA]

You guys are over analyzing this. This is a game where the goal is to score points by shooting a ball in a hoop. Gee, I wonder how the best shooter the world has ever seen shoot the ball would do at this at any given history of the sport. That’s at the bare minimum. Steph as we know is much more of a complete player. For starters, he’d be starting, his ball handling and passing alone would get him there, let alone his size. And then he would just bend the game and break it with his shooting. It’s as simple as that, Steph is too good and too competitive and his astounding talent would be seen. He did it and ushered the modern age of basketball. I’m seeing this as disrespectful to Curry and some kind of need to prop up the 90s or whatever. That era was hella weak and Steph Curry would give Jordan a run for his money every year back then, or anyone.

There is very little evidence for this view. Great shooters existed, they never “broke the league.”

Curry gains from not only the dramatically increased threes (which of course he helped) but the motion offenses and freedom of movement. The 90s was iso ball and guys like Payton putting hands on you. Those two facts alone take some edge off of Curry even if he did find a coach to let him chuck at will.

There’s also going to be a decrease in his drive game. Teams would be more physical down there and he’d end up on his backside more…thus, he’d do it less or be beat up and playing hurt more.

Shooters even today dont break the league..looking at the best players today giannis, Luka, jokic, shai, tatum..yea there are some great shooters on that list but really only just a part of their advanced games. Thats why steph is special and thats why he could do it in any era with a 3pt line. The shooting ability is transcendent that even modern day players cant match. The fallacy here is that people are treating steph like he is just some normal shooter. Hes a level above even a guy like reggie miller for chrissake.

This doesn’t actually address any of the structural issues I brought up. I even set aside finding a coach to let him chuck.

I’ve put forth Mark Price plus one level up. Mark shot 40%. Curry shoots 42%. Same level passers. Curry shoots 7-8 more shoots per game and triple the 3s per game…he scores 10 more points.

Mark Price made an all first team. I haven’t seen a better 90s comp provided. It’s not a knock on Curry..he would just be throttled some by the facts of that era.

[ShootersShoot]

There is very little evidence for this view. Great shooters existed, they never “broke the league.”

Curry gains from not only the dramatically increased threes (which of course he helped) but the motion offenses and freedom of movement. The 90s was iso ball and guys like Payton putting hands on you. Those two facts alone take some edge off of Curry even if he did find a coach to let him chuck at will.

There’s also going to be a decrease in his drive game. Teams would be more physical down there and he’d end up on his backside more…thus, he’d do it less or be beat up and playing hurt more.

Shooters even today dont break the league..looking at the best players today giannis, Luka, jokic, shai, tatum..yea there are some great shooters on that list but really only just a part of their advanced games. Thats why steph is special and thats why he could do it in any era with a 3pt line. The shooting ability is transcendent that even modern day players cant match. The fallacy here is that people are treating steph like he is just some normal shooter. Hes a level above even a guy like reggie miller for chrissake.

This doesn’t actually address any of the structural issues I brought up. I even set aside finding a coach to let him chuck.

I’ve put forth Mark Price plus one level up. Mark shot 40%. Curry shoots 42%. Same level passers. Curry shoots 7-8 more shoots per game and triple the 3s per game…he scores 10 more points.

Mark Price made an all first team. I haven’t seen a better 90s comp provided. It’s not a knock on Curry..he would just be throttled some by the facts of that era.

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

[SNPA]

Shooters even today dont break the league..looking at the best players today giannis, Luka, jokic, shai, tatum..yea there are some great shooters on that list but really only just a part of their advanced games. Thats why steph is special and thats why he could do it in any era with a 3pt line. The shooting ability is transcendent that even modern day players cant match. The fallacy here is that people are treating steph like he is just some normal shooter. Hes a level above even a guy like reggie miller for chrissake.

This doesn’t actually address any of the structural issues I brought up. I even set aside finding a coach to let him chuck.

I’ve put forth Mark Price plus one level up. Mark shot 40%. Curry shoots 42%. Same level passers. Curry shoots 7-8 more shoots per game and triple the 3s per game…he scores 10 more points.

Mark Price made an all first team. I haven’t seen a better 90s comp provided. It’s not a knock on Curry..he would just be throttled some by the facts of that era.

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.

[KyletheDingbat]

That clip you posted is awesome and it's from a great video called Michael Jordan: Air Time, probably gonna get a little hate now though cause you framed it like that hahaha

For the purposes of the thread, I think Curry would be amazing in the regular season in the 90's, and the playoffs too, but he'd probably have to make some adjustments playing against the 92 Bulls. Anyone would though.

[dhsilv2]

There is very little evidence for this view. Great shooters existed, they never “broke the league.”

Curry gains from not only the dramatically increased threes (which of course he helped) but the motion offenses and freedom of movement. The 90s was iso ball and guys like Payton putting hands on you. Those two facts alone take some edge off of Curry even if he did find a coach to let him chuck at will.

There’s also going to be a decrease in his drive game. Teams would be more physical down there and he’d end up on his backside more…thus, he’d do it less or be beat up and playing hurt more.

Shooters even today dont break the league..looking at the best players today giannis, Luka, jokic, shai, tatum..yea there are some great shooters on that list but really only just a part of their advanced games. Thats why steph is special and thats why he could do it in any era with a 3pt line. The shooting ability is transcendent that even modern day players cant match. The fallacy here is that people are treating steph like he is just some normal shooter. Hes a level above even a guy like reggie miller for chrissake.

This doesn’t actually address any of the structural issues I brought up. I even set aside finding a coach to let him chuck.

I’ve put forth Mark Price plus one level up. Mark shot 40%. Curry shoots 42%. Same level passers. Curry shoots 7-8 more shoots per game and triple the 3s per game…he scores 10 more points.

Mark Price made an all first team. I haven’t seen a better 90s comp provided. It’s not a knock on Curry..he would just be throttled some by the facts of that era.

The problem is he isn't a level up. Curry's better at contested shots, 3's or otherwise. He's a better finisher.

and I mean...he's just a way bigger dude.



He's not winning a body building show or whatever, but for a small guard. He's jacked.

[dhsilv2]

That clip you posted is awesome and it's from a great video called Michael Jordan: Air Time, probably gonna get a little hate now though cause you framed it like that hahaha

For the purposes of the thread, I think Curry would be amazing in the regular season in the 90's, and the playoffs too, but he'd probably have to make some adjustments playing against the 92 Bulls. Anyone would though.

Where John Paxson and BJ Armstrong might be guarding him?

[dhsilv2]

This doesn’t actually address any of the structural issues I brought up. I even set aside finding a coach to let him chuck.

I’ve put forth Mark Price plus one level up. Mark shot 40%. Curry shoots 42%. Same level passers. Curry shoots 7-8 more shoots per game and triple the 3s per game…he scores 10 more points.

Mark Price made an all first team. I haven’t seen a better 90s comp provided. It’s not a knock on Curry..he would just be throttled some by the facts of that era.

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.

But Curry's an elite iso ball player. He doesn't do it as much today because of zones. If you forced him to play strict iso, he'd feast on lessor defenders from that era.

[ShootersShoot]

This doesn’t actually address any of the structural issues I brought up. I even set aside finding a coach to let him chuck.

I’ve put forth Mark Price plus one level up. Mark shot 40%. Curry shoots 42%. Same level passers. Curry shoots 7-8 more shoots per game and triple the 3s per game…he scores 10 more points.

Mark Price made an all first team. I haven’t seen a better 90s comp provided. It’s not a knock on Curry..he would just be throttled some by the facts of that era.

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.