I think people that have actually played basketball at a competitive level recognize just how different the defense was. Not being able to get into the lane as easy made shooting harder. If you don't have to respect the drive as much, you give less space. It seems obvious, but apparently it isn't.
For all the physical defense that players get a way on defense in the past, the offensive players get away with just as much. You want to talk about moving screens and picks, look at how Malone and Stockton do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XLvqH9qoik I don't think Malone ever stopped for more than a milisecond in any pick and roll. Also notice the slight body shoves right before rolling. Look at the arm screen at 3:30 (against the rox ) and that hard pick on Kerr right afterwards. Let's look at some Reggie Miller highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsGemg3V6BE Look at the two shots at starting at ~35 secs, the offensive big men can clear out two players. Or how push offs from offensive players are perfectly ok. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hddYKP5XYac Different era, different rules.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Statistically, Stephen Curry is so efficient this month (71.4 TS%) that every shot he takes is basically equivalent to a LeBron layup.</p>— Tom Haberstroh (@tomhaberstroh) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomhaberstroh/status/703981797680553985">February 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stephen Curry (5.13) is now averaging more threes per game the the Timberwolves (5.03).</p>— devin kharpertian (@uuords) <a href="https://twitter.com/uuords/status/703805920434855937">February 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stephen Curry in four games this week: 43.8 points, 7.3 assists and 5.8 rebounds, 60.8% from the field, 61.1% from 3-point range (33 threes)</p>— GSWStats (@gswstats) <a href="https://twitter.com/gswstats/status/703843591584555008">February 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
While Oscar Robertson is taking a beating today, ironically, he did say to pick him up half court. lol.
I have played in clubs, and as a player you should know that rule-changes like abandoning illegal defense also had a huge influence and made defenses much more complex and potent. Also, your "Not being able to get into the lane as easy made shooting harder. If you don't have to respect the drive as much, you give less space." statement is kind of nonsense when we're talking about Curry. Everyone is focused on his shooting and he's heavily guarded anywhere from a few feet behind the 3pt line on. Has nothing to do with getting into the lane, the emphasis is on denying him the 3. And how do you explain so many guys in the 90s, who were much worse shooters and ballhandlers than Curry (eg Scott, McCloud, Blaylock, Richmond, Starks, Rice etc.) being able to average 6+ or 7+ 3pa/game for a couple of seasons, when it was apparently much harder to shoot? These guys were much more one-dimensional and also worse at shooting, yet they were able to average a decent amount of points off of 3pt shots. And you really wanna tell me that Curry, with his better shooting and handles, would struggle/not shine in the same era? Rubbish. Curry would pull off the same shots he does now, even the HOFers start to realize that the "back in the day" talk doesn't apply to him. Curry would've been a superstar in any era, everything else is nostalgia talking.
I'm so sick of hearing about Curry. Between this media onslaught of Curry news and the Rockets playing like garbage, this season can't be over soon enough.
This. I already saw someone point it out (heypartner?) on the previous page...sure handchecking was thrown out but having to play against the "illegal" defense is far worse and its not even close. I'm also a big fan of 90's basketball, before someone comes in and starts the whole "well you didn't even watch before then" crap. That being said, for certain players the handchecking was pretty brutal. If you were driving to the basket, you were ****ing earning it. Guys like Lambeer and Malone would even sneak punches/kicks in. In those scenarios it might be just as bad as some of the defense played today, given how it is catered towards the guards and puts kid gloves on the big men.
I said it many times. If Reggie Miller could be a star in the 90's Curry could be a superstar in the same era. Miller is 4 inches taller but the two guys are the same weight. That means Miller would be easier to be pushed or impeded because he was skinnier and had a higher center of gravity. Both players come off multiple screens and can shoot with a hair of separation. But Curry has better handle and a faster first step. Not to mention a more accurate shot. A lot of your guys forget there have been small players who were successful shooters in older eras. Our own Calvin Murphy was a good example.
Seth Curry literally plays the same way as Stephen Curry. The only reason Seth isn't producing as much as Steph is because Seth doesn't have the freedom to trigger or do whatever he wants like Steph. Plus, Seth is only allowed to play on average 0-10 minutes a game, so realistically, if he makes a few mistakes to get in his groove, he won't ever become like his brother Steph, which he 100% is capable of doing. On a side note, Seth could be in his prime right now and the next following couple years, and the Kings could potentially be wasting Seth's talent right now and not even know it. And then when the Kings or another team release/trade Seth, and then allow him to have the freedom he wants, he won't be able to produce, because his time was over. Timing is everything, not just in sports, but in life and in everything you do. If a team could just allow Seth to be him, him and Stephen could change the NBA ridiculously together, as Curry has already done.
Don't get me wrong, I think the 80-90's were much tougher physical D until they changed the game to make it more "exciting". But there's one problem with the whole Curry wouldn't be shooting it lights out like he is back in that era. One big problem. If all that was true, then there should be a lot more Stephen Curry's in the league today, but there are not. In fact, the 3 point shooting is just about the same as it was in the 90's. Every year you still get about 20 guys in this league who shot the 3 ball better than 40%. And back in the 90's you had Steve Kerr putting it up at 52% for 2 seasons straight!! You think it's a coincidence that Kerr has been his coach as Curry has reached this insane heights? Curry doesn't benefit from different rules, he benefits from being on an incredible team just like Kerr did. It's not the rules, it's an offense that prizes spacing and when you got 5 other guys shooting 40%+ Think about it, there are 20-25 guys who shoot 40%+ in the NBA, and 6 of them are on the Warriors!!! They have 1/4 of the league's best 3-point shooters, led by one of the 90's top 3-point shooter in Kerr. So yeah, I don't buy that whole different era b.s.
Bob Costas to Larry Bird, “Larry, we know that this Bulls team is on the short list of the great teams of all-time, but what about the overall quality of the NBA in the mid-’90s?” Bird responded, “Well, I think the expansion teams have really hurt the league, and I think it’s depleted some of the talent in our league.” Bob Costas to Julius Erving, “Julius, one thing’s for sure, you had Larry and Magic to test yourselves against. There’s nothing comparable to that quality of competition at the top for these Chicago Bulls. Through no fault of their own, they don’t have the Celtics and the Lakers like you did.” Bill Simmons wrote that Chicago’s 72-win season came in the right era, citing it as “the league at its most diluted,” called 1994-98 “the weakest stretch of talent since the merger,” and also said this of the late ‘90s, claiming that if Seattle had stayed around and Kemp had matured, the Sonics could have controlled the latter part of the decade and possibly beaten out Jordan and Duncan or a ring — instead, we have the weak ‘90s: Interesting.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Never seen anything like SCurry? Remind you of Chris Jackson/ Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, who had a short but brilliant run in NBA?</p>— Phil Jackson (@PhilJackson11) <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilJackson11/status/703987224858198017">February 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Chris Jackson has one of the quickest and unguardable release when he's on. Jackson probably remember one of those games where Chris Jackson Denver Nuggets beat his 70+win Bull team.
Actually not that big of a stretch. Steph is a beast in today's era but Mahmoud put in work against actual perimeter defenders during his time in the league. Phil is simply saying that they are similar players. Super quick release, ability to pull up from anywhere (of course Steph's range is crazy), elite handles all while still holding down the playmaking duties. Sidenote: man that Denver team was nasty Another sidenote: If anything this gives a little ammo to the guys who say Steph would be as effective in the 90's. Definitely not as lethal as he is today (especially in PPG) but he'd still be a threat. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e93l5so7f9s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qXGRNGWNk0I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
