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

[SpreeS]

Watch on YouTube

How many screens does Price get form Daugherty on 3P line?.... a lot!!! How many times was Coleman on an island agaisnt Price? Where is hand checking?

[HumbleRen]

He would have dominated just like he did now.

His career would have been cut in half though, his ankles would have not survived the 90’s lol.

[benhillboy]

23 pages in and this is my first (and last) time clicking this thread. Why is it still here?!?!

[dhsilv2]

Reggie Miller is probably a great example of Curry being absolutely fine in the 90's.

great shooting works in every era

Reggie Miller was 6'8". Coaches were far more apt to put up with defensive liabilities on the wing than they were with guards. Steph would either have been Steve Kerr if he was playing off-ball or if he was allowed to play PG maybe Mark Price. That's the best case scenario. Mark Price was a damn good basketball player but that's a far cry from the potential top 10-15 player Steph ended up because he played in this era.

Steve kerr had no handle. He couldn't drive. He couldn't finish at the rim. He's about 30-40 pounds lighter to peak Curry's weight. He's a worse shooter off the catch. A far worse shooter on the move. And frankly he couldn't run an offense. Despite all that Kerr played 910 games at 17.8 minutes a game and regularly got 20+ minutes a game back then. Kerr wouldn't get the court today.

Price is 2-3 inches shorter than Curry. Also in that 30-40 pounds smaller vs max Curry weight. He was a worse finisher. A worse shooter. About an equal at best play maker...though even there I'm not sure.

Curry is a better defender by a margin than either of these guys.

If these are comps and we just adjust for Curry's added size and strength he's a top 10 guy by this logic. You're massively and I mean massively forgetting how much smaller guards were in the 90's vs today. You're also failing to account for how much things like handcheck would benefit a Curry on defense while not bothering him at all on offense.

[Jamaaliver]

That's some major, major dumbassery. Nobody hurt Mike in his entire career.

You're kidding, right?

The Bad Boy Pistons notoriously mauled and assaulted Mike Jordan for years at the start of his career.
Chicago notoriously brought in Charles Oakley to protect MJ from all the cheap shots he used to take.

Watch on YouTube

[dhsilv2]

That's some major, major dumbassery. Nobody hurt Mike in his entire career.

You're kidding, right?

The Bad Boy Pistons notoriously mauled and assaulted Mike Jordan for years at the start of his career.
Chicago notoriously brought in Charles Oakley to protect MJ from all the cheap shots he used to take.

It was "notorious" because it was so uncommon and unusual at the time. Finding the exception like this, is just more proof that what he said was correct.

But again...how many games did MJ miss from these hits? 0?

[Jamaaliver]

It was "notorious" because it was so uncommon and unusual at the time.

You don't know what you're talking about. The NBA literally changed the Flagrant Foul Rules in the early 1990s to discourage all the excessively hard fouls.

NBA gets tough on flagrant fouls

Rod Thorn, vice president of operations for the NBA:

"A hard, but not flagrant, foul will be treated like a breakaway foul, with the opposing team being given two foul shots plus possession of the ball.


'Hopefully we will have fewer of these ridiculous fouls, with players not even caring whether they hurt somebody or not,' he said. 'It's just getting too rough."

Archived Article from September of 1990

[dhsilv2]

It was "notorious" because it was so uncommon and unusual at the time.

You don't know what you're talking about. The NBA literally changed the Flagrant Foul Rules in the early 1990s to discourage all the excessively hard fouls.

NBA gets tough on flagrant fouls

Rod Thorn, vice president of operations for the NBA:

"A hard, but not flagrant, foul will be treated like a breakaway foul, with the opposing team being given two foul shots plus possession of the ball.


'Hopefully we will have fewer of these ridiculous fouls, with players not even caring whether they hurt somebody or not,' he said. 'It's just getting too rough."

Archived Article from September of 1990

Who are the guys who had serious injuries outside of Thomas with that elbow from Malone?

And even if you have 2 plays like that from Malone, that's 2 more than could ever be acceptable and would justify a rule change. It doesn't mean it was common.

Nobody is claiming there were no hard fouls. We all remember them because they were wild to see but also because they were rare.

[Jamaaliver]

It was "notorious" because it was so uncommon and unusual at the time.

Who are the guys who had serious injuries outside of Thomas with that elbow from Malone?

And even if you have 2 plays like that from Malone, that's 2 more than could ever be acceptable and would justify a rule change.

Spoiler:

NBA gets tough on flagrant fouls

Rod Thorn, vice president of operations for the NBA:

"A hard, but not flagrant, foul will be treated like a breakaway foul, with the opposing team being given two foul shots plus possession of the ball.


'Hopefully we will have fewer of these ridiculous fouls, with players not even caring whether they hurt somebody or not,' he said. 'It's just getting too rough."

Archived Article from September of 1990

You don't know what you're talking about.

This statement from the NBA and the rule change occurred a year and a half before Karl Malone destroyed Isiah Thomas's face with his elbow.

[og15]

It was "notorious" because it was so uncommon and unusual at the time.

Who are the guys who had serious injuries outside of Thomas with that elbow from Malone?

And even if you have 2 plays like that from Malone, that's 2 more than could ever be acceptable and would justify a rule change.

Spoiler:

NBA gets tough on flagrant fouls

Rod Thorn, vice president of operations for the NBA:

"A hard, but not flagrant, foul will be treated like a breakaway foul, with the opposing team being given two foul shots plus possession of the ball.


'Hopefully we will have fewer of these ridiculous fouls, with players not even caring whether they hurt somebody or not,' he said. 'It's just getting too rough."

Archived Article from September of 1990

You don't know what you're talking about.

This statement from the NBA and the rule change occurred a year and a half before Karl Malone destroyed Isiah Thomas's face with his elbow.

I guess I'm wondering what we are arguing here, because it looks like you guys are speak around each other. I've watched many games from the 80's over the years, and the vast majority of games didn't have dangerous fouls.

On the other hand, there was less punishment for those plays and the NBA rightly changed rules so that you don't have guys on the floor who aren't there to play basketball, but just there to try and cheat their way to victory. Yea, that's kind of a good rule, and many former players actually agree, maybe the goon ones don't, but many have said those changes are/were good. Rules like that are also usually only needed if something is becoming an issue.

I can't remember who it was, but there was an old player who said the financial punishment for things like flagrants, fighting, etc, was so miniscule that they didn't care. When the financial punishment became something that you could actually feel, then according to that player it was much more of a factor.

If the argument is that every team was regularly just clobbering guys and causing them to miss games due to injury, that's just not true. That's not even something we need to speculate about, we have the direct evidence of whether that did or didn't happen available.

[dhsilv2]

It was "notorious" because it was so uncommon and unusual at the time.

Who are the guys who had serious injuries outside of Thomas with that elbow from Malone?

And even if you have 2 plays like that from Malone, that's 2 more than could ever be acceptable and would justify a rule change.

Spoiler:

NBA gets tough on flagrant fouls

Rod Thorn, vice president of operations for the NBA:

"A hard, but not flagrant, foul will be treated like a breakaway foul, with the opposing team being given two foul shots plus possession of the ball.


'Hopefully we will have fewer of these ridiculous fouls, with players not even caring whether they hurt somebody or not,' he said. 'It's just getting too rough."

Archived Article from September of 1990

You don't know what you're talking about.

This statement from the NBA and the rule change occurred a year and a half before Karl Malone destroyed Isiah Thomas's face with his elbow.

I guess I'm wondering what we are arguing here, because it looks like you guys are speak around each other. I've watched many games from the 80's over the years, and the vast majority of games didn't have dangerous fouls.

On the other hand, there was less punishment for those plays and the NBA rightly changed rules so that you don't have guys on the floor who aren't there to play basketball, but just there to try and cheat their way to victory. Yea, that's kind of a good rule, and many former players actually agree, maybe the goon ones don't, but many have said those changes are/were good. Rules like that are also usually only needed if something is becoming an issue.

I can't remember who it was, but there was an old player who said the financial punishment for things like flagrants, fighting, etc, was so miniscule that they didn't care. When the financial punishment became something that you could actually feel, then according to that player it was much more of a factor.

If the argument is that every team was regularly just clobbering guys and causing them to miss games due to injury, that's just not true. That's not even something we need to speculate about, we have the direct evidence of whether that did or didn't happen available.

My stance is these weren't common and we rarely had guys miss time. I'm not disputing we had things like that Rambus close line. But these were few and far between. But even that happening once is too much for a professional sport like basketball to allow. This is basketball...guys are playing in shorts and tanks, not body armor like the NFL or NHL.

And all this is being said in the context of those trying to imply Curry couldn't play due to the physical play. I feel sometimes we leave the context of the thread. Curry's not going to get speared on a pull up 3 and missing a month's games back in the 80's or 90's.

[dhsilv2]

It was "notorious" because it was so uncommon and unusual at the time.

Who are the guys who had serious injuries outside of Thomas with that elbow from Malone?

And even if you have 2 plays like that from Malone, that's 2 more than could ever be acceptable and would justify a rule change.

Spoiler:

NBA gets tough on flagrant fouls

Rod Thorn, vice president of operations for the NBA:

"A hard, but not flagrant, foul will be treated like a breakaway foul, with the opposing team being given two foul shots plus possession of the ball.


'Hopefully we will have fewer of these ridiculous fouls, with players not even caring whether they hurt somebody or not,' he said. 'It's just getting too rough."

Archived Article from September of 1990

You don't know what you're talking about.

This statement from the NBA and the rule change occurred a year and a half before Karl Malone destroyed Isiah Thomas's face with his elbow.

Who missed significant time from these types of plays? The discussion is over Curry getting hurt playing in the 90's because of this play. SO I'm looking for comps where someone, wasn't just hit hard, but actually missed meaningful time due to how serious the injury was.

[The Servant]

LOL. No one would be chasing him around for a game with 90s level cardio. The reason defenses were suffocating back then was no player movement or ball movement.

[Ainosterhaspie]

That's some major, major dumbassery. Nobody hurt Mike in his entire career.

You're kidding, right?

The Bad Boy Pistons notoriously mauled and assaulted Mike Jordan for years at the start of his career.
Chicago notoriously brought in Charles Oakley to protect MJ from all the cheap shots he used to take.

Watch on YouTube

Everything pictured still happens in today's game. That Laimbeer foul in the video looks like normal stuff too. You need better evidence than this to make a claim curry couldn't handle that era.

Watch on YouTube

The Morris foul on Doncic at the 50 second mark is as bad or worse than what Laimbeer did to Jordan there.

Foul at 2:20 is similar as is Embid at 4:44. The Embid one is worse than what Laimbeer did in the above video. So is what happens at 5:35 which is much more dangerous than that Laimbeer one.

Thomas at 4:25 brutally hits Wiggins in the throat. Another nasty neck shot at 6:33 especially given the two players momentum at each other.

Embiid throws a nasty elbow to the face at 7:05. Another nasty elbow by Love right after that.

This foul by Bynum in 2011 was brutal.

Watch on YouTube

Ibaka breaks LeBron's nose here and isn't even called for a foul.

Watch on YouTube

World Peace catches Harden with a brutal elbow.

Watch on YouTube

Curry gets manhandled and fouled often. He most certainly faces and overcomes physical defense and offense. Curry would be just fine against 90s physicality.

Watch on YouTube

[liquidswords]

LOL. No one would be chasing him around for a game with 90s level cardio. The reason defenses were suffocating back then was no player movement or ball movement.

EXACTLY - folks need to go watch game tape. Not a highlight reel - game tape. Offenses were primitive so defenses could set up and pack it in. The defenses really weren't that ferocious

[Jamaaliver]

I guess I'm wondering what we are arguing here, because it looks like you guys are speak around each other. I've watched many games from the 80's over the years, and the vast majority of games didn't have dangerous fouls.

In a nutshell....



The Original OP's Thesis is that 1990s basketball was slower, more physical and tilted heavily in favor of NBA defenders.

Spoiler:

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

The league addressed this by implementing multiple rules changes over the course of a decade to increase movement, fluidity and scoring.

Steph Curry has benefitted tremendously from these multiple rule changes that benefit offensive players. He's an incredibly talented player, but the entire ecosystem of early 1990s basketball would not have allowed Curry the space or freedom of movement to dominate games the way he does in the modern era.


In the same way that Shaq wouldn't dominate modern basketball, Steph Curry would be unlikely to dominate in the 90s. Because the game has changed so much over the decades.

AI's summary of the NBA rule changes...

[WarriorGM]

I guess I'm wondering what we are arguing here, because it looks like you guys are speak around each other. I've watched many games from the 80's over the years, and the vast majority of games didn't have dangerous fouls.

In a nutshell....



The Original OP's Thesis is that 1990s basketball was slower, more physical and tilted heavily in favor of NBA defenders.

Spoiler:

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

The league addressed this by implementing multiple rules changes over the course of a decade to increase movement, fluidity and scoring.

Steph Curry has benefitted tremendously from these multiple rule changes that benefit offensive players. He's an incredibly talented player, but the entire ecosystem of early 1990s basketball would not have allowed Curry the space or freedom of movement to dominate games the way he does in the modern era.


In the same way that Shaq wouldn't dominate modern basketball, Steph Curry would be unlikely to dominate in the 90s. Because the game has changed so much over the decades.

AI's summary of the NBA rule changes...

What about the 90s would have prevented Steph Curry from dominating? The shortened 3-point line? Ha!

The entire argument is based on physicality and hand checking having some outsized influence. Notably this physicality and hand checking that's brought up doesn't seem to have any measure. This is in stark contrast to the measurement of the 3-point line that we know very clearly was the same or even shorter during 90s than it is now. We also see very clearly Curry able to regularly drill shots under pressure from distances that would have made players from the 90s go agape. Curry is the greatest shooter ever. No one reputable has suggested that would change with added physicality or hand checking. Do you?

Did the rule changes benefit Curry? What rule changes are you talking about? The ones that led to a decrease in free throw attempts? How does that benefit Curry? Curry is the all-time leader in free throw shooting percentage among established players. If he got more free throws he'd be even more effective! Is it the rules that opened up the paint? It probably helps increase his scoring a little but it's hardly critical for him. More than half of Curry's shots are from 3-point range! Packing the paint isn't going to hamper Curry. Indeed if there is a player in NBA history who you'd pick to punish drop coverage it would be Curry.

Curry first set his record for 3-pointers made in a single season in 2013. Is the basketball of 2013 the same as the basketball of 2025? Curry thrived then and he thrives now. If there were changes since it's easier to say he was the one who caused them rather than he was the end effect.

[dhsilv2]

I guess I'm wondering what we are arguing here, because it looks like you guys are speak around each other. I've watched many games from the 80's over the years, and the vast majority of games didn't have dangerous fouls.

In a nutshell....



The Original OP's Thesis is that 1990s basketball was slower, more physical and tilted heavily in favor of NBA defenders.

Spoiler:

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

The league addressed this by implementing multiple rules changes over the course of a decade to increase movement, fluidity and scoring.

Steph Curry has benefitted tremendously from these multiple rule changes that benefit offensive players. He's an incredibly talented player, but the entire ecosystem of early 1990s basketball would not have allowed Curry the space or freedom of movement to dominate games the way he does in the modern era.


In the same way that Shaq wouldn't dominate modern basketball, Steph Curry would be unlikely to dominate in the 90s. Because the game has changed so much over the decades.

AI's summary of the NBA rule changes...

And you're simply wrong.

Curry is an outlier even today in terms of his physical play and overall strength/size. He would be an even larger one in the 90's.

Meanwhile, the rise of physicality was mostly in the late 90's and we didn't see the impact fully until the early 00's where perhaps it might work that way. The 90's saw dozens of star level small guards, who were almost all smaller and weaker physically than Curry is today. Meanwhile none came close to his level of skill.

Yes, his game would change some, but what makes Curry effective doesn't go away in the 90's or even the early 00's. The only valid argument against Curry would be related to medical help with this early career ankle issues.

The two guards in the modern era who'd be least impacted by going back to the 90's are CP3 and Steph Curry. Both would benefit greatly on the defensive end with more physical play while neither should be bothered by the weaker guards and wings of that era hand checking them. This isn't Dame Lillard who'd most certainly struggle. This isn't an AI type of player who'd do better today because of his speed attacking the rim. This is a guy who's game is built on shooting, passing, god level handles, and the best off ball game in NBA history.

[Jamaaliver]

...the rise of physicality was mostly in the late 90's and we didn't see the impact fully until the early 00's where perhaps it might work that way.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The league publicly acknowledged the concerns about physicality and then announced multiple rule changes in the early 1990s.


Rod Thorn, director of NBA operations::

“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.”

[Lenneth]

I guess I'm wondering what we are arguing here, because it looks like you guys are speak around each other. I've watched many games from the 80's over the years, and the vast majority of games didn't have dangerous fouls.

In a nutshell....



The Original OP's Thesis is that 1990s basketball was slower, more physical and tilted heavily in favor of NBA defenders.

Spoiler:

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

The league addressed this by implementing multiple rules changes over the course of a decade to increase movement, fluidity and scoring.

Steph Curry has benefitted tremendously from these multiple rule changes that benefit offensive players. He's an incredibly talented player, but the entire ecosystem of early 1990s basketball would not have allowed Curry the space or freedom of movement to dominate games the way he does in the modern era.


In the same way that Shaq wouldn't dominate modern basketball, Steph Curry would be unlikely to dominate in the 90s. Because the game has changed so much over the decades.

AI's summary of the NBA rule changes...

I mean, why not just watch the full game, which is available on the internet?

This is Bulls vs Pistons. Game 6. Elimination game between two bitter rivals. Top of the cream in terms of physical play in 80' and 90's. Based on some people's belief, you expect that every layup will be greeted with a push, rebound with elbow, 3 points with a bodyslam, no space to breathe, and the defense would remind more of Mad Max. So, did that happen? Not really. It's not all that different from today's pushing and shoving, and I could argue that today's defense is tougher in some aspects. 3 point defense was really basic, and if you throw that kind of perimeter defense to Curry, he would drop 10 3 points.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=WymanHomeVideo

And, if this is one of the most physical games in that era, can you imagine how little physical game can be between something like Kings vs Clippers on Tuesday? Those are defenses that Curry couldn't thrive?