The muck-it-up style was largely geared to slow isolation scorers who relied on "first step explosion" to beat their man at the point of attack. I don't know about "smaller perimeter players" in general but Curry in particular has really never relied on first step explosion to blow past his man. Handchecking wasn't going to prevent Curry from launching with an instant of daylight after going around a screen, nor was it going to prevent all the step-back threes he launches. Even on his drives, the defensive issue is not staying with him...he often has his own defender in close proximity. His drives are more probes, waiting for a misstep to exploit for a pass, floater or acrobatic lay-up. He's not playing the type of game that Jordan or Kobe played, which is the type of game the handcheck was most effective in slowing.
In that context it seems like Harden would be hit much much harder by such a rule change than Curry would.
When I speak of physical play in general, I'm referring more to just simple hand-checking. You literally cannot body-up a perimeter player now with any semblance of contact... and the smaller the perimeter player, the more obvious it is when there's contact, the more likely a foul gets called (a fact that annoys some stronger/sturdier players like Lebron/Harden). Also never said Steph wouldn't have success in that era.... but then again, if he's never had to make a jump shot despite contact (where no foul would be called), we'll never know if the degree of success would be mitigated. The same people who debated the merit of Steve Nash's MVP's due to rule changes will likely discuss the same with Curry.
If you call these illegal, you'd have to whistle 90% of screens in the NBA. Green isn't even moving a bit in those last two, why would anyone call that? Honestly, watch the next random game and you'll see those 'illegal screens' on nearly every possession.
This is true, we can never know a hypothetical, but I tend to think, considering that rule changes have helped both offense and defense, that Curry plays a pretty unique style game in NBA history and Curry has such a myriad of talents (not just unprecedented shooting range/accuracy, but also elite ball-handling, passing, finishing and vision) that it makes sense to default to him not being simply a product of his era (any more than Robertson, Russell, Wilt, Jordan, etc, were "products of an era" with the implication that they'd be significantly less successful outside their era). That's just my view on it; as I said, there's no way to prove these things.
This is what annoys me most about todays NBA, players are not awarded for being strong. It just isn't the case nowadays. The reason Draymond Green can get away with guarding centers is because the NBA has taken away the power post game. There are no more power post players, guys that will just bully a guy smaller than them around the basket. The centers in the 90s were HUGE, I mean you could make an all shoulders team with some of those guys, Mourning, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson and just your average center was a huge dude. Nowadays you can get away with these lean tall guys with no muscle. There have been times when Dwight had a mismatch to the Rockets post him up, then the smaller guy gets run over (because that's ALWAYS going to be the result) and the refs blow that whistle and call charging. Awarding the weaker guy. I don't think hand checking should come back, I just think the officials should award players for having strength again. I know Hand-checking was for players with strong hands and what not but the center whose game was reliant on power...that just doesn't exist. So now you see guys like Dwight trying to force hook shots.
Curry is very similar to a hybrid of Isiah Thomas (in terms of build/ball-handling) and Reggie Miller (in terms of shot making/range). If its not a stretch to presume that both Isiah AND Reggie would probably have greater success in today's game vs. their time, its also not a stretch to consider that Curry would have possibly less success if he played in a previous era. Again, hard to prove... but not hard to consider.
We will have to agree to disagree, but honestly look at the NBA video rule book (http://videorulebook.nba.com/rule/pickn-rolls/). That's just on PNRs. I know when Dwight sets screens like that it is called most of the time. Green isn't moving? Watch the legs and his butt. These guys are DAMN good at hiding contact. To their credit, players also have stopped running into the screener on those plays because they know they won't get the call. The irony is, if you avoid contact with the screener it isn't an illegal screen. It's a positive feedback loop at its best.
Somewhat agreed... but now the NBA is rewarding being fast moreso than being strong. Strong doesn't necessarily = points, but fast more often does (whether its by creating contact which leads to fouls, which leads to points, or simply creating space to make/take shots). Its also a cyclical thing... there just aren't as many skilled big-men as there once was. Some of that is because at some point, big men decided to do nothing but pound it in (rather than work on a mid-range game/shot), and their usefulness was mitigated once the rules favored the perimeter game. Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning... all possessed a mid-range shot, and would likely be just fine in today's game. Then there's Shaq who possessed the perfect combination of size/speed/athelticism that the league had never seen.... again, he'd be fine now as well, and wouldn't be stopped by Draymond Green.
But why would we presume that both players would have more success today? That requires the underlying bias of believing that defenses are worse today overall, which is begging the question. Using a premise that implies the thing being debated is true to show that thing is true. Also, I disagree that Miller is a good proxy for Curry's shot-making and range. Miller never displayed the range out to 38 feet that Curry is showing shockingly regularly. Further Miller was an All-Star standstill shooter, he wasn't regularly shooting off the dribble. Thomas is a reasonable comp for Curry as a ball-handler and finisher, though I think Curry is a more brilliant passer. Thomas was a very good passer, of course, but Curry is capable of much more difficult passes.
I know the rules, but the last two plays would be called by no ref ever. Green is maybe moving one ich on both occasions. You even admitted it, there's no contact, so there's not even a possibility of calling an illegal screen. Unless we now start calling phantom and what-if fouls, which makes no sense. I repeat, those screens with minimal movement happen nearly every possession, a screen with absolutely no movement is a rare gem.
Because they're perimeter players that had to fight through a lot more contact when taking/making their shots. They've all said it... i'll trust that first-hand knowledge over a message board observation. You need to go back and actually watch Reggie Miller night-in/night-out... not just the highlight videos. He was not just an all-star standstill shooter. You also presume his game would be exactly the same had he played in today's era... when in fact he wouldn't have to worry about passing down low to Rik Smits (likely ineffective with today's rules), and he instantly would have more space to shoot over a defender that wouldn't be allowed to body him up. Its easier to make passes and take shots when defenders can't body you up or come close to you without fear of a foul... that was simply a fear that previous defenders didn't have. Do you honestly think older players (who aren't that old) haven't considered the other rule changes like illegal defenses when considering whether or not their games would be enhanced now? The no-contact on the perimeter does enhance the chance of a perimeter player having success... hence why its not going away as long as the perimeter game (and scoring) is thriving.
Do you really believe that players saying that they and their era cohort were the best ever are free of bias? There's a pretty obvious element of self-aggrandizement in their position that current basketball is trash and current stars have it easy compared to when they played. The viewpoint that things were better/the best in one's youth is so old and cliched that it's essentially become a joke. And yes, I do think they haven't considered the effect of illegal defense because it's not convenient to their argument and they're not really making a carefully considered analysis, they're knee-jerking. Magic Johnson last night said that if Curry keeps up his current level of play for 4-5 years, he'll be the best we've ever seen. Based on your belief that "past era players are the proper source of basketball knowledge," how does that square with Curry putting up his numbers in an easier era? That said, if your position ultimately boils down to "I think I'll take what a player says over someone on the Internet, I think he knows what he's talking about!" then we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't really feel that's going to lead to a particularly productive discussion.
No they don't. Illegal Defense favors the offense like no other rule in the history of the game. That is why it was created, for godsakes. Watch how defenses play WB and Harden. They are guarded with what used to be illegal defenses. Hand-checking is so minor compared to the freedom to do anything you want on defense. I'm flabbergasted by anyone who could possibly disagree with that. There is an entire video devoted to this of many stars in 2002 saying what is the worst rule for the game. They all said zone. They all thought it would bring offenses to its knees. It did for awhile, then coaches adapted by implementing faster offenses. Forcing offenses to sink or swim against all defenses is what actually sped up the game. It forced them to quicken the pace to score before the defense set up. And it forced them to move towards 3pt shooting, to shoot over the defenses. Eliminating hand-checking did not increase scoring. Show me how it did in 1995.
We're talking about players who've been retired less than a decade making these sorts of inferences.... this isn't about things being better in "childhood/youth" or simply a nostalgia factor. And yes, first-hand experience about how tough it was to play this game at a certain time, and how rule changes were designed to specifically eliminate some of these hardships are valid observations that warrant consideration. He's also said that perimeter contact/defense was a lot tougher previously... again, I've already said that Curry would have success in any era, but that its reasonable to presume that he may not have more success with more physical play allowed. You can't just ignore the no-contact perimeter defense effect on scoring... it wasn't that long ago. Even guys still playing, who transcended eras (Parker/Duncan, Kobe) have admitted as much.
They also benefit from defenders unable to body-up and make contact... and while zone defenses can help stop one singular star player (and lets face it, neither of these guys are ever stopped), it also typically frees up open shots which if a team is making them, causes the defense to typically switch back. They're not facing zone defenses every possession. They are benefitting from the no perimeter contact every possession. We're not simply talking about hand-checking. We're talking about eliminating all perimeter contact by the defense. Defenses are not allowed to simply do anything they want.... far from it. Scoring didn't pick up again till this was implemented. Offenses would still be limited if perimeter defense was called less closely... this does happen in the playoffs, and we still see scoring go down significantly each post-season.
If Curry played in previous Era, Draymond will clear the the space for him to allow him to have even more space when shooting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEUvKOanhUg This would be the play every time down the floor.
I've gone back and forth on that. In the previous era I could just as easily see Draymond's man fouling Steph just as hard as he takes the shot. Flagrant foul level stuff to go tit for tat. Then again, who knows...
I haven't denied that perimeter bodying/handchecking makes a difference. My point is that that's not the totality of the changes. Illegal defense being gone and defenses being less stagnant have had at least as much impact the other direction, if not more. It's reasonable to presume he wouldn't have more success, I agree. I'm not one who believes that Curry would be far more successful in the '80s/'90s. I just don't see a lot of compelling evidence that Curry would have significantly less success. My impression was that you felt that Curry would still be good, but not as good, which is what I disagree with. I think transcendent talents of (almost) any era would be transcendent in the other eras (I don't know about pre-modern-age stars like George Mikan, the environment he dominated in is too different to have any basis for comparison at all, IMO). Especially one with as diverse a skillset as Curry (even if we agreed on the Miller/Thomas hybrid, there's a big difference between comparing two players with fewer skills each to a single player with all the skills...basketball skills aren't independent, they're synergistic and make each other more dangerous).
It's getting redundant with them. There were alot of great things about 80s and 90s. But, Nostalgia seems to erasing some of the bad things about both eras of Basketball. The 80s and 90s was an era of basketball were it was frequent to have teams with losing records in the playoffs, while having 3rd - 5th seed only being a few games above .500. Annually. there was really only 3-4 teams who was going to win a title. IN the 90s, it might have been 2 or 3 at best. I'm not even mentioning the 2000s. which was very forgettable rating wise. Hell, if people want to get technical about it, alot of critics 80s thought Michael Jordan was too much of showboat, ball-hog, and took too many shots to win a title. Guards never won titles, and he proved people wrong. He took the league to new heights. Critics are almost always on the wrong side of time. Things change in the league for better or worse.
