MrPerfect1 wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:MrPerfect1 wrote:
-Those 2 points were not even remotely covered in what I quoted
-Rofl Curry would not have been 1 of the "biggest and strongest.
Additionally, even if he was (he wasn't) he would have been having to into the lane against far bigger players than today. Trying to finish over a 6'10 PF and a 7'0 Center is drastically different than an open lane and the opposing "C" who is like 6'9
Why would curry even bother to drive when nobody would guard him from 3?
And yes a 6'3 "point guard" in the 80's would be among the bigger guys.
Hell I just randomly grabbed the 88 season, PG's by minutes
1. Mark Jackson - 6'1 180 smaller
2. Derek Harper - 6'4 185ish about the same size, lets call him bigger
3. Terry Porter - 6'3 195 about the same size, lets just call him bigger too
4. Isiah Thomas - 6'1 180ish smaller
5. Maurice Cheeks - 6'1 and listed at 180, by then he was heavier but still smaller
6. John Stockton - 6'1 and listed at 170...actually believe that smaller
7. Michael Adams - 5'10 and 165 Smaller
8. John Bagley - 6'0 and 180 smaller
9. Vern Fleming - 6'5 185 sure lets call him bigger
10. Dj - ok the first clear bigger guy
11. Magic - way bigger
12. Mark Price - of course smaller
I' not going to keep going but yeah Curry is bigger than most points of that era and certainly stronger.
Picking 1988 is a really random year to pick. Why not 93? 98?
Also, using weight as a proxy for strength/toughness is far from a good estimate. Stockton for example was WAYYYY tougher than Curry despite being smaller.
Also, you think Nobody would guard Curry from 3? He would have a far tougher time getting off his shot vs constant hand checking. If he drove to the lane he would get knocked to the ground, especially during the playoffs. Good luck getting uncontested layups vs the 90s Knicks/Pacers/Heat, etc
Curry would still be an All Star but he wouldn't be an MVP candidate. He benefits more than most from the elimination of physical play due to rule changes.
Because I literally randomly picked a year? As in I put in a random formula in excel and that was the result?
As for stockton, no he isn't way stronger than Curry. Maybe curry years ago, but that guy's put a considerable amount of muscle on his frame. Stockton never got grabbed, clawed, and pushed around like Curry. Stockton didn't throw his body into screens like Curry does either. (though he took some chargers) And please don't think I'm trying to paint stockton has a weakling, he wasn't. But curry isn't this frail small guy that so many seem to paint him as. He came into the league like that, but he hasn't been that guy in some time.
As for guarding Curry, eventually sure a team would learn to guard him. Team's were backwards about defending the line, but they weren't complete morons. Much like we have to constantly see people explain to us that teams really did illegally get away with zone defenses in the playoffs in the 80's and 90's we must remember that teams get away with hand checking on guys like Curry in the playoffs today. In both cases the legal versions were more obvious but none the less both happen.
Now on the topic of layups, if you play an 80's or 90's offense against that era's defenses of course you'll get less uncontested layups. The paint was packed because both teams would put out at least 2 big men who had minimal range as shooters (some teams would do 3 big men, hell bird was a godly shooter and he'd still play offense 15 feet from the rim), where else would those guys stand on offense, unless the coach just had them go stand in the corner? That is why today teams want to put 5 guys on the floor who can shoot. Now of course most teams don't have 5 guys who can actually shoot and the league has by no means gotten rid of the shot blocker, see Gobert having an all time great defensive season this year. The league however has mostly gotten rid of what I'll coin "the second big man" which was the role an Oakley or Davis or Grant would have fallen into in the 90's. Or to more extremes a guy like McHale who was a bad man in the post as the "forward". The whole "stretch" concept with stretch 4's isn't about the offense. It's about stretching the defense away from the rim (high value scoring zone) by moving a big man to say the corner 3 (another high value scoring zone).
I also would point out that ~97-99 is really a different era than the 80's and 90's generally implies. 97-04 really was an era to itself. The combination of SERIOUS focus on defense from coaching, a thing that had started with the bad boy pistons but hadn't really dominated the league until that point, and a period of some really bad drafts outside of that 96 one had left the league talent depleted and really lacking shooting talent. So if your focus is on that era and not the broader 80's and 90's where the vast majority of the time had completely awful transition defense, an era with the nuggets attempting to literally outscore teams running and gunning, and where guards like Jordan were trying to post up 12 feet from the rim then we'd have to adjust the conversation. The 97-04 era is a different discussion. Just to compare the bad boy pistons in their first title year gave up 100.8 points a game and 104.7 per 100. The 98 knicks gave up 89.1 and 100.3. Just a very different era.
TL/DR - Curry would absolutely be bigger than the average small guard the majority of the 80's and 90's. His current build is impressive even in the league today. He is a guy who actively gets physical off ball and who has to deal with as much holding, grabbing, and pushing as any player ever (guards not posting up of course). Lanes today are open because of shooters, not a change in rules. If Curry had a team of non shooters, he'd not have open lanes to drive on. Instead he'd have to play differently, but we're talking about the best off ball player and best shooter ever. He doesn't really need shots at the rim to be elite. The late 90's knicks, heat and pacers are EXTREME outliers when discussing the 80's and 90's as a whole.
