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

[dhsilv2]

There is a more credible argument to be made that the modern era is more physical on the peremiter, not less.

It's amazing how many videos are being posted showing just this and people are still refusing to accept it. Nobody trying to argue for the OP's case has provided a video of a guard in the 90's who's a shooter getting guarded like they keep talking about.

[G35]

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

[LockoutSeason]

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

Charles Barkley is 6’4” and he was a big man in the ‘90s.

And yes, Steph would destroy the ‘90s beyond recognition.

[dhsilv2]

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

They guard the post so well today that teams stopped using it unless they have a generational player. Also why would Robinson or Ewing benefit from the post? They weren't all that good in the 90's in the post. Both were better as face up players.

And of course all those guys would be stars today. But not because they'd get some added value in the post. If anything it would be harder for them with the mix of rules changes which were implemented to get the ball out of the Shaq's of the world's hands in the post and the just lack of any calls for big men today inside.

Oh I almost left off the league even added limits to how long you can post up because of...guys like Chuck. Again rules were implemented to make it harder for those guys, so again makes no sense if we're talking about guys like Shaq and Chuck who had rules changes made with them in mind.

[DOT]

heck, I could make 2025 look brutal if I just grabbed some Draymond video. I mean, a whole game.

Look at the brutality:







They wouldn't get away with this now, players back in my day were TUFF!

[og15]

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

I guess I'm not sure what the issue is here. These are all great players, lol. Yes, they would all dominate in different eras because they are great, why would that be something one has to struggle with admitting?

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

Charles Barkley is 6’4” and he was a big man in the ‘90s.

And yes, Steph would destroy the ‘90s beyond recognition.

Barkley as a PF was an outlier in the 80's and 90's, and PF's in the modern NBA are now a lot of times SF sized. Citing Barkley's height is irrelevant, he was a big because he played much bigger due to his body composition (thick, large legs, long arms) and athleticism. Barkley would be a killer PF to build around today. You would likely want a stretch big at C, but teams would struggle mightily to match up defenders with him (just like when he played), because the big defenders would be too slow and the quicker defenders would be too weak.

[a8bil]

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

the problem with that theory is that current rules favor the perimeter game where a made shot = 3 points, whereas a made shot in the paint is worth 2 (absent a foul). You can have a great inside game and still get blown out game after game.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Stockton vs. Payton 96 playoffs. Game 7 of the series.

Watch on YouTube

I think I counted Payton giving Stockton 4 pull-up threes more or less uncontested. Stockton gets uncontested lyaups at the rim in half court sets. I thought he was supposed to be throat punched for daring to be inside as a little guy. Almost no handchecking or physicality in the perimeter.

You don't have to cherry pick to show 90s defense wasn't what people claim. Just search for basically any playoff game involving an offensive star against a famed physical defense, and it's going to look the same.

It's pure mythology that 90s perimeter stars were relentlessly tormented by physical defense.

[Lenneth]

LOL, the basketball part of me wants to point out that zone wasn't legal and use a box and 1 couldn't be played. But...

You gotta be just straight trolling now. Could you imagine if they actually played defense like that consistently in any area?

EDIT

I'll leave me stupid above and not edit it out lol.

Oh hell, this is what I get looking at a twit. Saw FVV and assumed we were looking at raptors vs this one random game against 37 year old Curry. My bad there.

Not really worth digging into a single game with well past his prime Curry for an actual discussion. That wasn't normal defense for any area. Curry's shot was off. He still generated 8 assists and he had the best on off of any starter despite all this. But...defense like this still exists today which really goes to argue against the whole thread. We see teams get physical time to time with Curry. Normally, it doesn't work. He makes good passes and his teammates score. Doesn't happen every night and he's 37.

37 years old point guard, playing 4 games in the last 6 days against PO rivals like Memphis, Lakers, Denver, after scoring 52, 37, 36 and won 3 games, He finally played one bad in more than two months, and that's the 90's defense he would face all the time? And yes. Defense like that exists in 20's too. Memphis played really physical defense against Curry, and he dropped 52 points.

And, where are those defenses in 90's? It seems like almost all PO games in 90's exist on Youtube, and the majority of games don't show those mythical level of 90's defense. Here is a 1992 Playoff game 2 between Sonics vs Warriors, where Tim Hardaway faced two defense juggernauts in 90s, Payton and McMillian. Do they cover Hardaway throughout the whole game like Curry faced yesterday?

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=mercerr22

It all goes back to how bad our memories are. The people coming up with all this 90's stuff remember the LATE 90's where the Heat, Knicks and a little bit the Pacers were really physical. And they take about 4-5 seasons from 3 teams and extrapolate that to the whole era. And even those teams weren't playing the type of defense on guards that people are trying to imply.

I'm too lazy but lets say there were 27 teams each year in the 90's (there weren't). That's 270 team seasons and those teams make up about lets be nice and call it 15 of those seasons. That's 5 and a half percent of the 90's. It's just wild.

Yeah, I watched NBA since 92, and I remember that the defense wasn't quite the physical battle as some people make out to be. I do agree that tech/flagrant fouls were called less, and more cheap shots were taken here and there, but that's not something that will break any superstar. And, while Bulls-Knicks were pretty physical, the vast majority of teams didn't play defense like that or anywhere near close to it. Otherwise, how teams average 46-47% fg till 96? I agree that the deadball era of 00's is probably what they remember as the 90's defense, where most teams artificially dragged the possession to fully utilize 24 seconds in addition to tougher defensive rules. Those Cavs vs Heat's 72-68 games... shudder...

[Lenneth]

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

Did anybody say those players would be role players, average 17 points, or would not survive today's league? While the level of success in 20's might be different for each player, they all would dominate today's league one way or another.

[tsherkin]

You can say that Curry would have dominated in the 90's.

But then you will also have to say that Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, K. Malone would have all dominated now. Why?

This isn't an equivalency, at all. It isn't wrong, it just isn't relevant to what's being discussed in any way.

Because they don't even guard the post now and look at what they consider big men nowadays. Draymond can get away with playing center......

That's a cyclical thing. We've seen small-ball centers before the current era as well.

And on the other hand...

They guard the post so well today that teams stopped using it unless they have a generational player.

That actually isn't what's happening. What's happening is that they've realized that you need to be a good passer AND a high-efficiency finisher to be worthwhile in the post. So centers tend to be more valuable as lob threats and screeners. We are also understanding that, especially if you aren't a helio playmaker, running super volume through one guy isn't a particularly wise move, because their impact goes only so far.

We've learned that post isolations mostly aren't that efficient. Like, look at Al Jefferson and Zach Randolph. Excellent post isolation scorers, but not efficient scorers. And not particularly impressive passers, either. Or someone like Melo, who was a very strong isolation player, but a horrible passer who wasted REAMS of time with overlong isolation action, right? And that correlates well with someone like Bill Cartwright on the Knicks, or a lengthy backdown isolation as opposed to a move on the catch.

But of course, the spacing is different. And we saw real-time how that affected older guys like Olajuwon and Shaq, too. It opened up a lot of things. And that's why, in part, why we've been enjoying a post renaissance for some time now. Because real post action mostly doesn't come from backdown isolations all that frequently. IT comes from off-ball movement and quick moves immediately after the catch.

Also why would Robinson or Ewing benefit from the post? They weren't all that good in the 90's in the post. Both were better as face up players.

Robinson was okay when he had a size mismatch, but he was 100% a face-up and transition guy more than anything else, which is a large part of why he struggled so much against real defenses in the playoffs. Karl Malone struggled in isolation in the playoffs, and ended up leaning hard on his fadeaway, which wasn't a hot idea. He was much better with just-in-time movement and screener action. He could finish in traffic, but he wasn't amazing at attacking in the post in isolation.

Oh I almost left off the league even added limits to how long you can post up because of...guys like Chuck. Again rules were implemented to make it harder for those guys, so again makes no sense if we're talking about guys like Shaq and Chuck who had rules changes made with them in mind.

TBF, Chuck was in literally his last year when the 5-second backdown rule was implemented. And it didn't really bother Shaq any, because O'neal was always underrated in terms of his classic post skills.

G35 isn't wrong, I stress. Those guys would be fine today. Chuck was a WILD-ass athlete who could face up, and would bang on anyone in transition. He didn't have a shot, but he was such an overwhelming physical presence it wouldn't matter. It was like if Zion knew how to rebound for real.

[dhsilv2]

Oh I almost left off the league even added limits to how long you can post up because of...guys like Chuck. Again rules were implemented to make it harder for those guys, so again makes no sense if we're talking about guys like Shaq and Chuck who had rules changes made with them in mind.

TBF, Chuck was in literally his last year when the 5-second backdown rule was implemented. And it didn't really bother Shaq any, because O'neal was always underrated in terms of his classic post skills.
.

Yes, which mean if they'd had that rule further back it would have hurt sun's era Chuck some. Just like one of the reasons for the push to bring in zone was to make it easier to guard someone like Shaq and in general has made the post harder to use (not impossible).

And I don't disagree that they'd all be good today...I disagree it's because of the post.

[tsherkin]

Yes, which mean if they'd had that rule further back it would have hurt sun's era Chuck some.

A little, sure. But he didn't hit Phoenix until his 9th year in the league. And he was a fine shooter in the upper half of the key, still dangerous in transition on and off-ball, he could dribble drive, still a good offensive rebounder, etc, etc. And he was still good moving without the ball in the post.

Honestly, that rule would be the least of his problems in today's game because of the absence of the illegal D rules. With the spacing of today's game, he'd get matched up with guys and he could make quick moves easily enough.

And I don't disagree that they'd all be good today...I disagree it's because of the post.

I mean, I think it's because of the skills and tools they had, which remain relevant, heh.

[ReddoverKobe]

Why are NBA fans like this?

[tsherkin]

Why are NBA fans like this?

Nostalgia, the limitations of memory recall and entirely too much Inside the NBA and similar content.

[Curmudgeon]

Curry would dominate in any era. But the physical play in the 90's would have likely shortened his career. You get clobbered by the likes of Charles Oakley a few times and it wears on you.

[og15]

Why are NBA fans like this?

Is it simply the fans though? Some of the former players don't help / fuel into some of this with the exaggeration / hyperbole they will sometimes inject. On the other hand, when the former players do say things that don't fit into the more exaggerated narratives, it doesn't get the same traction.

For example, Tim Hardaway saying that actually hand checking against guards was not really effective against anyone who had handles and was more effective against the "set-up" PG's who would stand around waiting for that guy coming off the screen, or for the big man to set up in the post. He even said a skinny guy like Jennings would be licking his chops against it because he had handles. So then if a guy who played from 89-90 to 02-03 says that, is he now lying? If he is, why would he? So maybe the truth is more in that some of these things were situational. Hand checking helped against some guys, but the really skilled guys, not so much.

There was a post which showed Kenny Smith talking about hand checking, and then I said, okay, but let's look at the WCF game 7 in 1995. Kenny Smith is guarding KJ, and NONE of the things he said made hand checking so useful was he able to do on KJ, and similarly you can see how illegal defense actually opened up court for isolation and also opened up the inside because the big couldn't wait outside the paint on the strong side, but had to be all the way up at the FT line.

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=TheThrowback

So then should I believe the film, game 7 in a conference finals playoff series, where defense and intensity are at the max, or anecdotal memory and narrative?

Now, I can also find other games where it was more physical than that in the 96 finals for example.

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=WeGotGame

So then is it all true or all a lie? Maybe it is both (NO! People hate this, nuance!). Maybe there is nuance, and maybe we also see similar things, even in this era where yes, some games, teams, matchups are more physical and intense, and the refs are letting it happen, and others are simply not.

The broad brush painting is I think what gets a lot of people in trouble, because it is easily falsified, and then if you falsify that, then the whole argument is actually done. We know that some of the examples (eg: even the one I gave, close-out finals game) are in NO WAY representative of the average regular season game. If people were more careful to say, "in some instances", and phrases like that, they would be much better off.

[madmaxmedia]

The hot takes people had in the 90's would absolutely destroy the ones on RealGM now.

[Jamaaliver]

Was old man Steph really whining about the physicality of 2020s NBA basketball?

Read on Twitter

[Ice Man]

The hot takes people had in the 90's would absolutely destroy the ones on RealGM now.

Fans are always wrong. In the Eighties, I "lost" argument after argument with fans who told me that Mike would never be as good as Bird or Magic, because they were champions and he was just a guy who scored points but didn't make his teams better. Was that sillier than saying that Curry wouldn't be a superstar in the Nineties? Nah ... it's a draw.

Terrible takes are unkillable. They always exist.