# Curry wouldn't have made it to greatness in the 80s



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

This is not coming from me. This is coming from a collection of ex players who all truly believe that Curry has had it easy and he hasn't had to play in a league of adversity. The rules are catered to him. So far, Walt Frazier, Kareem and even the great Bill Russell have criticized Stephen Curry and they claim they could have slowed him down at the very least. I'm not even sure Curry would have scored on Bowen.

It was a rough and tumble league in the 80s and 90s. It was similar to the NFL, guys would routinely have bruises and it was a game for the big boys. You never would see little guys toy with all the older giants. Just imagine Curry trying to score on Chamberlain, Hakeem or Kareem.

The fact is that Steph is not built for physical leagues. Lebron is transitional, he would be able to play in any era. Same for Westbrook and John Wall. Steph has been making a mockery of the NBA and he chews his mouthpiece. That's a testament to how soft the league is. If the played against Rodman, he would be knocked to the floor, and he'd be playing on the bench at best. Today's players aren't playing defense on him. They just let him shoot whenever he wants. Back then, they'd be all up on in him and he wouldn't want anymore. Just imagine Curry in a brawl. They had so many famous brawls in the 80s and 90s. Curry doesn't have any fighting experience. I'm not saying that you have to be a good fighter to play basketball, but I'm saying that he would be mentally weakened to do what he does now, due to fear. The guy doesn't carry the biggest muscles, I'm bigger than him.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> This is not coming from me. This is coming from a collection of ex players who all truly believe that Curry has had it easy and he hasn't had to play in a league of adversity. The rules are catered to him. So far, Walt Frazier, Kareem and even the great Bill Russell have criticized Stephen Curry and they claim they could have slowed him down at the very least. I'm not even sure Curry would have scored on Bowen.
> 
> It was a rough and tumble league in the 80s and 90s. It was similar to the NFL, guys would routinely have bruises and it was a game for the big boys. You never would see little guys toy with all the older giants. Just imagine Curry trying to score on Chamberlain, Hakeem or Kareem.
> 
> The fact is that Steph is not built for physical leagues. Lebron is transitional, he would be able to play in any era. Same for Westbrook and John Wall. Steph has been making a mockery of the NBA and he chews his mouthpiece. That's a testament to how soft the league is. If the played against Rodman, he would be knocked to the floor, and he'd be playing on the bench at best. Today's players aren't playing defense on him. They just let him shoot whenever he wants. Back then, they'd be all up on in him and he wouldn't want anymore. Just imagine Curry in a brawl. They had so many famous brawls in the 80s and 90s. Curry doesn't have any fighting experience. I'm not saying that you have to be a good fighter to play basketball, but I'm saying that he would be mentally weakened to do what he does now, due to fear. The guy doesn't carry the biggest muscles, I'm bigger than him.


Oh. My. God.


----------



## maisenza13 (Jan 4, 2016)

I don't like him too , but honestly he is changing the nba rules!
we don't have to ask anything.. just watch and appreciate what he is doing because it is incredible!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Obviously Vegan Gains is a hater in the purest form of the word, but I'm pretty sure Curry wouldn't be as great in the 80's and 90's as he is today because of the hand checking and much more physical individual defense that was allowed. This goes for Durant too. The guys who are physically weaker but possess enormous amounts of skill have benefited from the rules forcing defenders to play less physical, and I have no problem with it. I would rather tailor the game towards skill guys like Curry and Durant, rather than non-skill guys who possess greater physical strength. 

Of course, this is just transplanting the players back, which is kind of foolish. You can't simply ignore the fact that players tailor their game depending on the era they grow up. A Curry who grew up in the 70's obviously doesn't become the lethal three point shooter he is because the three point shot wasn't relevant until later. Just like a Larry Bird who grew up in the 90's probably would have been much more of a three point shooter.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Short answer: Judge a player by his greatness in his own era. He is great relative to his current competition. 

BallScientist answer: Curry would be terrible in 80's, he was an infant.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

We should have a competition where who ever can go the longest without rolling their eyes while reading a Vegan Gains post gets to be admin for a week.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> This is not coming from me. This is coming from a collection of ex players who all truly believe that Curry has had it easy and he hasn't had to play in a league of adversity. The rules are catered to him. So far, Walt Frazier, Kareem and even the great Bill Russell have criticized Stephen Curry and they claim they could have slowed him down at the very least. I'm not even sure Curry would have scored on Bowen.
> 
> It was a rough and tumble league in the 80s and 90s. It was similar to the NFL, guys would routinely have bruises and it was a game for the big boys. You never would see little guys toy with all the older giants. Just imagine Curry trying to score on Chamberlain, Hakeem or Kareem.
> 
> The fact is that Steph is not built for physical leagues. Lebron is transitional, he would be able to play in any era. Same for Westbrook and John Wall. Steph has been making a mockery of the NBA and he chews his mouthpiece. That's a testament to how soft the league is. If the played against Rodman, he would be knocked to the floor, and he'd be playing on the bench at best. Today's players aren't playing defense on him. They just let him shoot whenever he wants. Back then, they'd be all up on in him and he wouldn't want anymore. Just imagine Curry in a brawl. They had so many famous brawls in the 80s and 90s. Curry doesn't have any fighting experience. I'm not saying that you have to be a good fighter to play basketball, but I'm saying that he would be mentally weakened to do what he does now, due to fear. The guy doesn't carry the biggest muscles, I'm bigger than him.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

if you're not enjoying what Steph is doing right now you just don't like basketball


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Damon Stoudamire says 1996 expansion team Raptors can defeat Warriors.

Joel Embiid says 76ers can defeat Warriors if he is healthy.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Vegan Gains said:


> This is not coming from me. This is coming from a collection of ex players who all truly believe that Curry has had it easy and he hasn't had to play in a league of adversity. The rules are catered to him. So far, Walt Frazier, Kareem and even the great Bill Russell have criticized Stephen Curry and they claim they could have slowed him down at the very least. I'm not even sure Curry would have scored on Bowen.
> 
> It was a rough and tumble league in the 80s and 90s. It was similar to the NFL, guys would routinely have bruises and it was a game for the big boys. You never would see little guys toy with all the older giants. Just imagine Curry trying to score on Chamberlain, Hakeem or Kareem.
> 
> The fact is that Steph is not built for physical leagues. Lebron is transitional, he would be able to play in any era. Same for Westbrook and John Wall. Steph has been making a mockery of the NBA and he chews his mouthpiece. That's a testament to how soft the league is. If the played against Rodman, he would be knocked to the floor, and he'd be playing on the bench at best. Today's players aren't playing defense on him. They just let him shoot whenever he wants. Back then, they'd be all up on in him and he wouldn't want anymore. Just imagine Curry in a brawl. They had so many famous brawls in the 80s and 90s. Curry doesn't have any fighting experience. I'm not saying that you have to be a good fighter to play basketball, but I'm saying that he would be mentally weakened to do what he does now, due to fear. The guy doesn't carry the biggest muscles, I'm bigger than him.


I don't care, Vegan Gains.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

e-monk said:


> if you're not enjoying what Steph is doing right now you just don't like basketball



Would he be able to do it while getting kneed in the groin, knocked in the jaw, or knocked down to the ground and getting the wind knocked off of him on a routinely basis? Lebron could have people try to jump on him and he'd still score. The league of the past had the perfect combination of skill, physicality, and mental toughness. These days players are not trained to be physical or use intimidation. The sport is not as multi faceted.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Ballscientist said:


> Damon Stoudamire says 1996 expansion team Raptors can defeat Warriors.
> 
> Joel Embiid says 76ers can defeat Warriors if he is healthy.




Stephen Jackson said his We Believe Team could beat this Warriors. He said he is sure. I believe that too. I don't think prime Baron Davis and Stephen Jackson would fail to these pretty jump shooters. There is a reason why virtually all the ex players are calling them out. The Warriors are not intimidating. The last 4 games they got really lucky while the Spurs win by double digits.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

Vegan Gains said:


> The league of the past had the perfect combination of skill, physicality, and mental toughness. These days players are not trained to be physical or use intimidation. The sport is not as multi faceted.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Vegan Gains said:


> Would he be able to do it while getting kneed in the groin, knocked in the jaw, or knocked down to the ground and getting the wind knocked off of him on a routinely basis? Lebron could have people try to jump on him and he'd still score. The league of the past had the perfect combination of skill, physicality, and mental toughness. These days players are not trained to be physical or use intimidation. The sport is not as multi faceted.


you are a troll who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about but is driven by his tiny little hate boner for a player whose level of achievement he cant even grasp - I'm old enough to remember Tiny Archibald and you probably don't even know who that is


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

There will be thousands of comparison between Michael Jordan and Steph Curry soon.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains mindset when posting this thread:


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Vegan Gains mindset when posting this thread:




Exactly. Jordan had to go through blood and lots of struggle. Curry just lets Green and Bogut set illegal screens for him and he makes it rain. What I don't get is why are they even in the same sentence? When you say Michael Jordan, you think about a big time brand, you think about history and greatness. When you hear Steph Curry, you think about a little kid that chews his mouthpiece.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Exactly. Jordan had to go through blood and lots of struggle. Curry just lets Green and Bogut set illegal screens for him and he makes it rain. What I don't get is why are they even in the same sentence? When you say Michael Jordan, you think about a big time brand, you think about history and greatness. When you hear Steph Curry, you think about a little kid that chews his mouthpiece.


I'm making fun of how desperate your attempts are at dissing Curry.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Stephen Jackson said his We Believe Team could beat this Warriors. He said he is sure. I believe that too. I don't think prime Baron Davis and Stephen Jackson would fail to these pretty jump shooters. There is a reason why virtually all the ex players are calling them out. The Warriors are not intimidating. The last 4 games they got really lucky while the Spurs win by double digits.


Just put that up against the pile of evidence showing that Stephen Jackson engages in prolific dumbassery. Consider that Oscar Robertson couldn't win a title on his own primarily because he was such a transcendent ass that his teammates couldn't stand playing with him. These sort of opinions are coming from idiots. Your sources suck.

Everyone agrees that Pete Maravich was a legend outside of his era, true greatness. Steph is better than Pete Maravich by entire levels. His talents would play in any era, in large part because he's a ferocious worker and devastatingly smart. That characteristic is common of all of the greats - and no one would deny him those facts. The evidence of his physical transformation and his decision making numbers make this clear. You stack that onto transcendent shooting and playmaking and ball handling?

Idiots like you are always wrong, the great players would have become legend in any era.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Just put that up against the pile of evidence showing that Stephen Jackson engages in prolific dumbassery. Consider that Oscar Robertson couldn't win a title on his own primarily because he was such a transcendent ass that his teammates couldn't stand playing with him. These sort of opinions are coming from idiots. Your sources suck.
> 
> Everyone agrees that Pete Maravich was a legend outside of his era, true greatness. Steph is better than Pete Maravich by entire levels. His talents would play in any era, in large part because he's a ferocious worker and devastatingly smart. That characteristic is common of all of the greats - and no one would deny him those facts. The evidence of his physical transformation and his decision making numbers make this clear. You stack that onto transcendent shooting and playmaking and ball handling?
> 
> Idiots like you are always wrong, the great players would have become legend in any era.



You saw for yourself what happened today. Curry reminds me of Ronda Rousey, all the hype all the talk. Look at what happened to Ronda Rousey? Look at what happened to the Warriors today. I feel BAD for them.


----------



## maisenza13 (Jan 4, 2016)

ChrisWoj said:


> Just put that up against the pile of evidence showing that Stephen Jackson engages in prolific dumbassery. Consider that Oscar Robertson couldn't win a title on his own primarily because he was such a transcendent ass that his teammates couldn't stand playing with him. These sort of opinions are coming from idiots. Your sources suck.
> 
> Everyone agrees that Pete Maravich was a legend outside of his era, true greatness. Steph is better than Pete Maravich by entire levels. His talents would play in any era, in large part because he's a ferocious worker and devastatingly smart. That characteristic is common of all of the greats - and no one would deny him those facts. The evidence of his physical transformation and his decision making numbers make this clear. You stack that onto transcendent shooting and playmaking and ball handling?
> 
> Idiots like you are always wrong, the great players would have become legend in any era.


I want also add that now they are more careful about the athletic condition, also the shortest and thinnest player are ready to compete almost against everyone


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

you mean like Nate Archibald? or more like Calvin Murphy?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> You saw for yourself what happened today. Curry reminds me of Ronda Rousey, all the hype all the talk. Look at what happened to Ronda Rousey? Look at what happened to the Warriors today. I feel BAD for them.


How is this anything like what happened to Ronda?


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

.
*Curry's PPG and true shooting %... WITHOUT the 3-point line*


_STEPHEN CURRY.. 2016:_. 24.9 ppg on 56.5% ts
_MICHAEL JORDAN 1988:_. 34.9 ppg on 60.1% ts

Formula for true shooting = PTS/(FGA + 0.44 x FTA


Why are the above stats important?

Because the 3-point line has only been around since 1980 - so it's worthwhile to consider how Curry would do in eras that didn't have a 3-point line.. Without the line, literally half of his shots would go from being the most efficient shots in the game (a sub-40% three-pointer), to the lowest efficiency shots in the game (a sub-40% long two).

Obviously, he'd still be a good player in the 70's, but nowhere NEAR the best player in the league.. He'd adjust and shoot more midrange, but midrange isn't his game - Curry has relied on the 3-point shot his entire career to be great - he couldn't morph into a bruising 2-point scorer all of a sudden.. In eras without the 3-point line, he'd rank lower than he ranks today.


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

Today's high level of 3-point attempts are achieved via pnr/drive-and-kick - however, today's drive-and-kick setup requires multiple shooters behind the 3-point line on every possession to kick the ball out to.. This offensive setup didn't exist in previous eras because teams didn't have enough 3-point-shooting personnel to position multiple shooters behind the line. 

Accordingly, 3-pointer shooters like Reggie and Bird had to run off screens to get 3-point looks - they didn't have 3-point shooting teammates to enable drive-and-kick so they could stand and wait for an easy kickout like today's 3-point shooter enjoys.. 

For example, guys like Ibaka and Bosh are expert 3-point shooters in today's game and they don't run off a SINGLE screen.. They just stand behind the arc and WAIT - it's a lot easier for Ibaka/Bosh to get 3-point looks when they have the necessary 3-point shooting teammates to make drive-and-kick viable.. In previous eras, they wouldn't be a 3-point shooters AT ALL, because they'd have to run off screens.

Obviously, Curry's offense would be weaker in the 80's and 90's if he had to run off screens for his 3-pointers like Bird/Miller, rather than benefit from today's drive-and-kick setup that generates easy 3-point looks.. And in the 70's, there was NO 3-point line, so literally half of his shots would go from being the most efficient shots in the game (a sub-40% three-pointer), to the lowest efficiency shots in the game (a sub-40% long two).

Ultimately, Curry would still be a good player in the 80's/90's even without the benefit of today's drive-and-kick, or in the 70's without the 3-point line altogether, but he wouldn't be anywhere near the best player in the game like he is in today's spaced-out, drive-and-kick league.. And btw, previous eras didn't have today's hands-OFF perimeter defense - with the hand-check ban, the league has MANDATED space between the defender and ballhandler, which makes jumpshooting and penetration easier.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

3ball said:


> .
> *Curry's PPG and true shooting %... WITHOUT the 3-point line*
> 
> 
> ...


Nice. Can you do Shaquille O'Neal without dunks and layups next?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

When I saw the thread title, who started it, and that it had 25 replies my only thought was the members of this forum are either gullible or extremely bored.

And now I contributed to this thread as well. But in my defense I didn't read a single post.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> You saw for yourself what happened today. Curry reminds me of Ronda Rousey, all the hype all the talk. Look at what happened to Ronda Rousey? Look at what happened to the Warriors today. I feel BAD for them.


Curry has a ring.
Curry has an MVP.
You have haterade, the suck quencher.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Curry has a ring.
> Curry has an MVP.
> You have haterade, the suck quencher.



He got Finals MVP?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> He got Finals MVP?


http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2016/3/7/11177284/warriors-celebrations-andrew-bogut-steph-curry-video/in/10940423

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/3/8/11177568/stephen-curry-300-threes-absurd-wow-vine-unreal/in/10940423

Meanwhile, Lebron just lost at home to a team staring the likes of Mario Chalmers, JamyChael Green (who??), P.J. Hairston, Tony Allen and Ryan Hollins.

Face it, young grasshopper: it's over. IT'S OVER!


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> He got Finals MVP?


He was THE MVP.

By the way: say hello to last night, the Spurs lost and Steph came out of his weekend even stronger blasting the Magic and getting right back on it. Further proof that you're not smart enough to understand something as simple as basketball.


----------



## maisenza13 (Jan 4, 2016)

3ball said:


> Today's high level of 3-point attempts are achieved via pnr/drive-and-kick - however, today's drive-and-kick setup requires multiple shooters behind the 3-point line on every possession to kick the ball out to.. This offensive setup didn't exist in previous eras because teams didn't have enough 3-point-shooting personnel to position multiple shooters behind the line.
> 
> Accordingly, 3-pointer shooters like Reggie and Bird had to run off screens to get 3-point looks - they didn't have 3-point shooting teammates to enable drive-and-kick so they could stand and wait for an easy kickout like today's 3-point shooter enjoys..
> 
> ...


I agree, and also if i'm not a Curry lover, i feel lucky he 's born in these years and i can watch him!
So as you explained it wouldn't be a phisical problem for him but a game rules problem


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

These what if era arguments are pretty silly. Players can really only be judged based on there level of play within their own era.

Curry is already considered by most to be the best shooter ever. He has some of, if not the best, handles in the league right now. He's one of, if not the best, finishers around the basket for a guard. He's a 90+% free throw shooter for his career. And he's an excellent passer.

This is a kid who grew up his entire life around the NBA, NBA players and the game. If there were no 3 point line you don't think this kid who could be argued as one of the most overall skilled players to have played wouldn't have adjusted?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

JNice said:


> These what if era arguments are pretty silly. Players can really only be judged based on there level of play within their own era.
> 
> Curry is already considered by most to be the best shooter ever. He has some of, if not the best, handles in the league right now. He's one of, if not the best, finishers around the basket for a guard. He's a 90+% free throw shooter for his career. And he's an excellent passer.
> 
> This is a kid who grew up his entire life around the NBA, NBA players and the game. * If there were no 3 point line you don't think this kid who could be argued as one of the most overall skilled players to have played wouldn't have adjusted*?


i agree the "what if" arguments are pointless.

But without the 3 point shot, i would say it's pretty obvious stepehn curry's game would suffer greatly. I'm not gonna say he would be a steve Kerr or John Paxson, for (like you said) Curry has great skills fr the game. But without the 3 point shot i feel the leahue would go back to post players being the center of offenses WHILE being able to defend much better.
To say that we would probbaly go back to 80's6 ball.
Curry would score much less, IMHO. 20ppg? Sure. Bot nowhere close to 30.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

So he'd be in discussion of 2nd best PG of the 80's after Magic with Isiah Thomas?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

scdn said:


> So he'd be in discussion of 2nd best PG of the 80's after Magic with Isiah Thomas?


I don't think he would get Isiah's assist numbers, but i have no problem seeing him as a Zeke-kind of player, with less explosion but better shooting. He does have the tools.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I tend to agree that curry would not and could not be this great if he came along 30 years earlier .

1 reason being health steph has benefitted a great deal from advances in sports medicine and training , it wasn't that long ago he was almost the "damaged goods" signing that allowed the warriors to sign him for far below market value based on his talent. if his career had taken place 30 years ago its unlikely he would have rebounded as well from his early career setbacks

2. the 3 point line has been there his whole life , in the 80's the 3 point line was new and in some respects still considered a gimmick, so surely an extra decade or so to practice from the 3 point line has helped .

3. the pull and grab nature of defense in the 80's not just on offense but steph would have been expected to play this more physically more taxing style of defense as well and it would have affected his game and shooting.

4.its often overlooked but curry is a great finisher in today's nba ...in the 80's between the 7 fters who were only out there because they were tall and blocked shots in the paint , the spread offenses that give penetrating guards lots of room and dirty plays that were fairly common there is just no way curry would have been allowed to roam the lane with the impunity he does today.


none of which takes away from what he is doing today right now he is playing as dominant as any player has ever played.

its only fair to judge players by what they do in their own eras


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

I think it's interesting that you rarely see the opposite arguments made, questioning how players from the 60s-90s with shaky outside shots who largely excelled against one-one-one defense and/or in the post would fare today, where it's easier to double-team individual players and load up one side of the floor defensively.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> I tend to agree that curry would not and could not be this great if he came along 30 years earlier .
> 
> 1 reason being health steph has benefitted a great deal from advances in sports medicine and training , it wasn't that long ago he was almost the "damaged goods" signing that allowed the warriors to sign him for far below market value based on his talent. if his career had taken place 30 years ago its unlikely he would have rebounded as well from his early career setbacks
> 
> ...


Wait a minute. In this exercise we are putting this era's Stephen Curry directly into the 80's? Like, without any adjustments?
Or can we pretend he was a son of a former ball player (a great shooter himself, which undoubtedly influenced Steph), being around the NBA all his life, a teenager in the 70's, attending college, thus playing against that era's defense in his formative years?


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

maisenza13 said:


> I agree, and also if i'm not a Curry lover, i feel lucky he 's born in these years and i can watch him!
> So as you explained *it wouldn't be a phisical problem for him* but a game rules problem


*Curry would struggle against the added physicality, such as real hand-checking - it's harder to get off jumpers and drive against this kind of defense:*













*The defense Curry faces is like flag football by comparison - no touch, hands-off, league-mandated space between players on perimeter:*













*Also, hand-checking was MOST prevalent and effective during the act of driving, like the gifs below (these are fouls in today's game):*































*Compare to Steph Curry driving the lane against Lebron - Lebron can't lay a finger on Curry or it's a foul:*


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

3ball said:


> *Curry would struggle against the added physicality, such as real hand-checking - it's harder to get off jumpers and drive against this kind of defense:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, again to my point, in basically every example you gave of a team defending Jordan they've placed one defender on an island against him, which played strongly in Jordan's favor because he excelled at taking his man one-on-one off the dribble, whereas today the opposing defense could cheat a man or two off of a defender and over to Jordan's side of the floor. I'm honestly not sure how Jordan would have responded to constant soft double- and triple-teams designed to force him into either passing or taking a difficult long two-pointer.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bogg said:


> Well, again to my point, in basically every example you gave of a team defending Jordan they've placed one defender on an island against him, which played strongly in Jordan's favor because he excelled at taking his man one-on-one off the dribble, whereas today the opposing defense could cheat a man or two off of a defender and over to Jordan's side of the floor. I'm honestly not sure how Jordan would have responded to constant soft double- and triple-teams designed to force him into either passing or taking a difficult long two-pointer.


Especially without a consistent shot outside of 18 feet. If Curry is dominating an era tailored to his strengths, so did Jordan. But a more accurate statement would be that both Jordan and Curry tailored their game to what the game is/was in their time.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Bogg said:


> I think it's interesting that you rarely see the opposite arguments made, questioning how players from the 60s-90s with shaky outside shots who largely excelled against one-one-one defense and/or in the post would fare today, where it's easier to double-team individual players and load up one side of the floor defensively.


Zeke from cabin creek would put terror in the hearts of his enemies though


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Why do we assume that if Curry grew up in an NBA without a 3pt shot and with more hand checking he wouldn't have adjusted? How do we know he wouldn't have become an expert at drawing fouls where he shoots 90% at the line and still scored 30 ppg? You can what if this crap for hours. 

He's one of the most overall skilled players to have played and grew up his entire life around the NBA. To presume he couldn't have adjusted to whatever the era threw at him is baseless speculation to me based on the skills he has shown.

Compare that to a guy like Shaq who I think would not be as dominant in the current era... in his case I think an adjustment to the era would be much more difficult because he never displayed the work ethic or relative skillset of a guy like Curry.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Nate Archibald weighed 150lbs and was shorter than Curry by a couple inches and averaged 30-11 on decent efficiency without the 3pt shot


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Especially without a consistent shot outside of 18 feet. If Curry is dominating an era tailored to his strengths, so did Jordan. *But a more accurate statement would be that both Jordan and Curry tailored their game to what the game is/was in their time*.


That's the point I'm getting at - if we're going to point out that the changes in the game over the years have suited Curry's strengths, then it's reasonable to point out that the old rules suited the strengths of the older players and "would player X been able to play as effectively in era Y" works both ways. You could reasonably argue that Reggie Miller would have been _much_ more effective under the current rules. Dell Curry probably would have been an all-star today. Dominique Wilkins probably would have had a much harder time with his man sagging 5 feet off of him and a soft double keeping him from getting a solid angle to the basket.


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

Bogg said:


> Well, again to my point, in basically every example you gave of a team defending Jordan they've placed one defender on an island against him


That's because I'm showing examples of obvious hand-checking.

But here's the reality - in today's game, 3-point shooters clear the paint of defenders - ballhandlers have an open lane if they can beat their man, which is easier without hand-checking. 

Furthermore, you have it backwards regarding the positioning of defenders - Jordan faced MORE strongside defenders in his era, because his era didn't have weakside 3-point shooters to draw defenders away from the the strongside - the strongside and paint was _already flooded_ with all 5 defenders, so there was no need to flood anyone over - here's a thread on the topic that Sir Patchwork complimented:

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-...s-players-face-less-strongside-defenders.html




Bogg said:


> isolations played strongly in Jordan's favor because he excelled at taking his man one-on-one off the dribble


Jordan excelled at isolations, but he was mostly an OFF-BALL player.. You rarely saw him pounding the ball 25 feet from the hoop while taking his man 1-on-1, or waiting on a screen like today's player. 

Go watch any game of his - half his shots were midrange jumpshots.. The other half were quick catch-and-go's or cuts off-ball - extended dribble forays like today's player does were rare.. Ball-domination and extended dribble forays are things that TODAY'S wing player does, because it's easier now that the spacing exists and perimeter defense is hands-off.




Bogg said:


> *I'm honestly not sure how Jordan would have responded* to constant soft double- and triple-teams designed to force him into either passing or taking a difficult long two-pointer.


BETTER than old man Kobe in 2013, who averaged 27 ppg on 46%.. Ditto on 6'3" Westbrook or 6'4" Wade, who led the league in scoring last season and in 2009, respectively.

None of those guys are efficient from 3-point range, but they still destroy the league because their 3-point shooting teammates give them bigger driving lanes than ever before, and the hand-check ban MANDATES space between defender and ballhandler on the perimeter.

Of course - none of those guys can double-pump from the FT line with ease - MJ was a bigger, stronger, smarter and more athletic version of all those guys.
.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

3ball said:


> That's because I'm showing examples of obvious hand-checking.
> 
> But here's the reality - in today's game, 3-point shooters clear the paint of defenders - ballhandlers have an open lane if they can beat their man, which is easier without hand-checking.
> 
> ...


In your first post in that thread you flat out say that the overall difficulty in scoring hasn't changed, just that offensive and defensive strategies have shifted over the eras leading to a different way of getting points, which is the entire point. The game has absolutely shifted in a way that favors Curry, whereas the illegal defense rules made it easier for Jordan to get his defender on an island. 

None of that's saying that Jordan couldn't have played today at a high level (as you pointed out, terrific athletes who aren't great from 3 still figure it out), but either Jordan would have had to adjust and become a better outside shooter to keep teams from sagging off him or the Bulls would have to surround him with better shooting to keep teams honest (like OKC does with Westbrook or Washington does with John Wall) and get him into more of the one-on-one coverage that plays to his advantage.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Vegan Gains mindset when posting this thread:



Isn't this kind of the point, though? Curry's able to shoot at a high percentage from so far out, even when he's guarded, that he's extremely difficult to defend and has to be treated differently than other players (even very high-level ones). Why is that less valid than being able to finish in the paint, even when you're guarded, at such a high percentage that you have the be treated differently than even the best other players? Finishing from 3 feet away is difficult precisely because of the density of defenders at the rim, just like shooting from beyond the arc is difficult because of how far away you are. 

Am I really supposed to believe that reliably throwing the ball in from 30 feet is some sort of gimmick instead of a legitimate basketball skill?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

not to mention that the pics are a fairly good example of confirmation bias - there are plenty of pictures out there that show Mike taking open shots and Curry playing through traffic


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

e-monk said:


> not to mention that the pics are a fairly good example of confirmation bias - *there are plenty of pictures out there that show today's player facing heavy traffic*


Actually, there AREN'T

In today's game, the paint is never crowded _throughout a possession_ - possessions are spent with the paint mostly wide open due to 3-point shooters spreading out defenders, and also defensive 3 seconds, explained in the post below.


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

.
.....................................................Defensive 3 Seconds


*Notice how Duncan's defender (Pau) is reaching out and touching Duncan* - Pau is making sure he remains within "_armslength_", as stipulated by the defensive 3 second rule.. He isn't allowed to wait under the rim, since that's 8 feet away from Duncan, and out of "armslength".. Since Pau must touch Duncan instead of waiting under the rim, Kawhi gets a wide open and uncontested dunk:













Here's another example - Maurice Speights must follow Tristan Thompson to the block to stay within "_armslength_", which prevents him from contesting Lebron at the rim - this angle shows how wide the paint is (16 feet wide):













But in previous eras, defenders didn't have to stay within "_armslength_" to remain in the paint - the armslength requirement didn't exist - defenders were allowed to stand under the rim while their man was 8 feet away on the block.. Specifically, a defender could remain in the paint indefinitely (no armslength requirenent) when their man was already in the paint or within 3 feet of either side, as stipulated in Rule 2b of the Illegal Defense Guidelines:

2b. When a defensive player is guarding an offensive player who is adjacent (posted-up) to the 3-second lane, the defensive player may be within the "inside lane" area with no time limitations. An offensive player shall be ruled as "postedup" when he is within 3' of the free throw lane line. A hash mark on the baseline denotes the 3' area.​

With defenders allowed to camp under the rim in Pau's position, Kawhi would NOT have gotten a wide open dunk in previous eras:






















Btw, look how much defenders are sagging off their man - yet many ignoramuses think defenders in previous eras had to "follow" their man to the 3-point line - it's pure made-up lies from ignoramuses... Plain and simple... That myth is busted here, where the rules of the game are explained.
.


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

.
*The 2015 Finals was the first time I've seen a team run clearouts as their MAIN offense - no player in history got these kinds of overt, wide open clearouts over and over - it looks like a playground game:*

























































*Of course - today's 3-point shooting ensures that help defenders are the furthest possible distance away on these clearouts.

Lebron got dozens of these every game and it's a documented fact that he wasn't double-teamed - he was double-teamed a total of 18 times the entire Finals!!

"When James was double-teamed, the Cavaliers scored 5 points on 2-of-18 shooting (11 percent)".

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/po...defensive-team​

Compare that to Jordan, who was double-teamed 10+ times in a single quarter, as a STANDARD:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=386210
*


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

3ball said:


> Actually, there AREN'T
> 
> In today's game, the paint is never crowded _throughout a possession_ - possessions are spent with the paint mostly wide open due to 3-point shooters spreading out defenders, and also defensive 3 seconds, explained in the post below.


actually it's easier to float in and near the paint today than it use to be because of changes in the rules - and of course there are such pictures dummy


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

Bogg said:


> The game has absolutely shifted in a way that favors Curry,
> 
> *whereas the illegal defense rules made it easier for Jordan to get his defender on an island*.


^^^^ Not true - today's spacing means help defenders are FURTHER away than previous eras - that's the definition of s-p-a-c-e.. I looked it up.

It's physics - today's spacing forces defenders to cover more ground than ever before.. You talk about shading and playing halfway - but without spacing, help defenders were already nearby and standing in the same spot that today's spaced-out, "_halfway_" defenders would be standing.

Btw, look at the 2015 Finals - no player in history got as many clearouts as Lebron - it was ridiculous (see previous post) - he got these amazing clearouts AND was never double-teamed, yet he still shot horrifically.. We know why - Lebron is a horrible jumpshooter - he shot 26% on 2-point jumpshots (52% of offense), 68% at the rim (27% of offense), and 31% on 3-pointers (21% of offense).




Bogg said:


> the illegal defense rules made it easier for Jordan to get his defender on an island


Btw, even though defenders were already nearby due to the lack of spacing, they were still allowed to sag off a 3-point shooter, all the way to the edge of the paint, just like Stockton and Hornacek are doing in the famous GIF shown above.. _This is the same as today's game_ - perimeter defenders can only sag off shooters until they meet the edge of the paint, because that's when defensive 3 seconds kicks in.

The paint blocks today's defender from being able to stand further away from their man than previous eras.. The only exception where today's defenders are allowed to be a FURTHER distance from their man than previous eras is during "flooding". 

But flooding merely attempts to make today's concentration of strongside defenders equivalent to the un-spaced courts of previous eras, and therefore wasn't needed back then.. Flooding also wasn't viable because the unspaced courts of previous eras activated the NBA's legal paint-camping provision, which is a superior defensive tactic to flooding.




Bogg said:


> but either Jordan would have had to adjust and *become a better outside shooter* to keep teams from sagging off him or the Bulls would have to surround him with better shooting


*You probably don't realize that Jordan was one of the best shooters in HISTORY inside 20 feet, better than Curry:*



*.....................MJ 1997...................Curry 2015............ Curry 2016* *<---- links to nba.com data*

5-9 ft.......... 49.2%, 126 fga........... 40.3%, 72 fga.......... 49.1%, 55 fga

10-14 ft....... 51.5%, 466 fga........... 52.9%, 85 fga.......... 54.5%, 44 fga

15-19 ft....... 49.5%, 594 fga........... 43.9%, 132 fga........ 39.2%, 79 fga



*Overall midrange % (all shots inside the 3-point line but outside the paint)*

_JORDAN 1997_: 49.3%, 1202 fga
_CURRY.. 2015_: 41.1%, 285 fga
_CURRY.. 2016_: 44.7%, 152 fga
_LEBRON 2015_: 37.0%, 343 fga
_LEBRON 2016_: 31.9%, 119 fga


_Anyone who disagrees that MJ is a better shooter than Curry inside 20 feet must explain why Curry shoots far worse percentage inside 20 feet, on literally ONE-FIFTH the volume.._


----------



## 3ball (Mar 7, 2016)

.
The NBA said the new rules in 2005 were meant to help perimeter players - here are their official statements on the new rules:

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...son/index.html


*NBA.COM*: _Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season._ Was this anticipated back in 2004?

*NBA*: _Our objective was to allow more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration._ As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.


*NBA.COM*: _Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location_ -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

*NBA*: It doesn't. _With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration_, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. With more dribble penetration, _ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. _


*NBA.COM*: From an Xs and Os perspective, how have coaches adjusted to a more wide-open game? What have they done differently?

*NBA*: _Coaches have utilized more space on the floor so to create more room for dribble penetration_, two-man pick-and-roll basketball and dribble exchanges on the perimeter.


*NBA.COM*: When you watch the game today, does it closely resemble an international game or are there still distinct differences in the style of play?

*NBA*: Our game does more closely resemble an international game in terms of the style of play than it used to. However, there are distinct differences in the international game vs. the NBA game. _The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to our defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration._



*There it is in black and white (and red).. Today's game is designed to help perimeter players - ANY athletic perimeter player or great shooter from a prior era would benefit from today's game.. :whoknows:*


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Bogg said:


> Isn't this kind of the point, though? Curry's able to shoot at a high percentage from so far out, even when he's guarded, that he's extremely difficult to defend and has to be treated differently than other players (even very high-level ones). Why is that less valid than being able to finish in the paint, even when you're guarded, at such a high percentage that you have the be treated differently than even the best other players? Finishing from 3 feet away is difficult precisely because of the density of defenders at the rim, just like shooting from beyond the arc is difficult because of how far away you are.
> 
> Am I really supposed to believe that reliably throwing the ball in from 30 feet is some sort of gimmick instead of a legitimate basketball skill?


No, because I posted that pic to make fun of Vegan Gains logic, hence the "Vegan Gains logic right now:" before the pic.


----------



## maisenza13 (Jan 4, 2016)

3ball said:


> *Curry would struggle against the added physicality, such as real hand-checking - it's harder to get off jumpers and drive against this kind of defense:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes that's true thank you for your explicit presentation


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

Curry in the 80's would probably if not definitely be an all star.

He most definitely wouldn't be the leagues best player. And would never sniff a MVP.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the 3pt shot existed in the 80s - Steph would force teams to change the way they defended his team just like now - he's not Mike and no one is really saying he is but he would change the game and the 3pt revolution might have come a little earlier (of course he would have to have played for Don Nelson or Doug Moe to be given the sort of freedom he would need to do it)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Curry really has a combination of skills that would translate in any era. The range, the quick release, the ball handling and the accuracy is matched by no one in history. It goes without saying, but obviously a guy who can juke a defender and stroke a contested 30 footer with only a sliver of space would be great in any era.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Can you imagine Steph on one of those Doug Moe Nuggets teams that would make the D'Antoni 7 seconds Suns teams look lead footed? 

there's too much dumbass, know nothing, worse era of the game, Daly/Riley's Knicks, ugly 90s, love going on here 

Steph + Doug Moe = gorgeous madness


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

3ball said:


> .
> .....................................................Defensive 3 Seconds
> 
> 
> ...


Seems like if Jordan were as good of a shooter as Curry he would have had an easier time scoring. Probably should have spent more time in the gym.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Michael Adams has spoken and Vegan Gains is found wanting


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

I will admit Curry and the Warriors have an advantage because they take more 3s than other teams. But that's because players didn't think they could make the 3 pointer or because their coaches told them not to. If the game is changing, you're going to see lots and lots of teams practicing their 3 point shot. Once they are able to match Golden State, Golden State will just be another team. Curry figured out that you could shine with the 3 ball. Other players were taught not to play that way. But in the future you're going to have TONS of players making 300 to 400 3 pointers a year. You'll have athletic players making 3s, tall players making 3s, and everyone making 3s. It's just that players don't practice it. If one team keeps making 3s, it's hard to catch up making just 2 pointers. So that's why teams will all have DESIGNATED 3 pointer shooters.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> I will admit Curry and the Warriors have an advantage because they take more 3s than other teams. But that's because players didn't think they could make the 3 pointer or because their coaches told them not to. If the game is changing, you're going to see lots and lots of teams practicing their 3 point shot. Once they are able to match Golden State, Golden State will just be another team. Curry figured out that you could shine with the 3 ball. Other players were taught not to play that way. But in the future you're going to have TONS of players making 300 to 400 3 pointers a year. You'll have athletic players making 3s, tall players making 3s, and everyone making 3s. It's just that players don't practice it. If one team keeps making 3s, it's hard to catch up making just 2 pointers. So that's why teams will all have DESIGNATED 3 pointer shooters.


You're never going to have "tons" of players making 300-400 3s per year because it is not that easy. You're right - a lot of guys will take and make a lot more than in the past, but there won't be a bunch of Steph Currys. Not a chance.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> I will admit Curry and the Warriors have an advantage because they take more 3s than other teams. But that's because players didn't think they could make the 3 pointer or because their coaches told them not to. If the game is changing, you're going to see lots and lots of teams practicing their 3 point shot. Once they are able to match Golden State, Golden State will just be another team. Curry figured out that you could shine with the 3 ball. Other players were taught not to play that way. But in the future you're going to have TONS of players making 300 to 400 3 pointers a year. You'll have athletic players making 3s, tall players making 3s, and everyone making 3s. It's just that players don't practice it. If one team keeps making 3s, it's hard to catch up making just 2 pointers. So that's why teams will all have DESIGNATED 3 pointer shooters.


Do you not realize why Golden State is so great to begin with? It isn't just because of their ability to hit the three ball. Try paying some form of attention when you watch their games and you'll figure it out.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

So when all these players start shooting threes in the future and Draven Duncan joins the league being a star skilled in the post will Vegan Gains criticize him for not being a 3 point shooter?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

scdn said:


> So when all these players start shooting threes in the future and Draven Duncan joins the league being a star skilled in the post will Vegan Gains criticize him for not being a 3 point shooter?


If he's on the cavs? Probably not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Wait a minute. In this exercise we are putting this era's Stephen Curry directly into the 80's? Like, without any adjustments?
> Or can we pretend he was a son of a former ball player (a great shooter himself, which undoubtedly influenced Steph), being around the NBA all his life, a teenager in the 70's, attending college, thus playing against that era's defense in his formative years?


there was no 3 point shot in the 70;s nba so dell curry the 3 point specialist would have had to make his profession doing something else.

the whole father being in the nba is really overblown , has it helped magic's or Jordan's or kareem's kids , hell it really isn't even helping seth curry.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> You're never going to have "tons" of players making 300-400 3s per year because it is not that easy. You're right - a lot of guys will take and make a lot more than in the past, but there won't be a bunch of Steph Currys. Not a chance.




But the point is that they will take away Curry's advantage. He is just a pioneer. Collectively teams will be able to make just as many 3 pointers as the Warriors on the average. That will be enough to neutralize the impact of Steph Curry. In fact it's going to start next year. Lots of players are going to practice this offseason including Lebron. If Lebron starts knocking down 4 3 pointers a game on high efficiency Curry will have nothing on him.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> But the point is that they will take away Curry's advantage. He is just a pioneer. Collectively teams will be able to make just as many 3 pointers as the Warriors on the average. That will be enough to neutralize the impact of Steph Curry. In fact it's going to start next year. Lots of players are going to practice this offseason including Lebron. If Lebron starts knocking down 4 3 pointers a game on high efficiency Curry will have nothing on him.


Stop. Posting. Please.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Da Grinch said:


> there was no 3 point shot in the 70;s nba so dell curry the 3 point specialist would have had to make his profession doing something else.
> 
> the whole father being in the nba is really overblown , has it helped magic's or Jordan's or kareem's kids , hell it really isn't even helping seth curry.


obviously the ball Dell was playing with while little Steph was growing up was Red, White and Blue, he was on the Squires or maybe the Denver Rockets...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Vegan Gains said:


> But the point is that they will take away Curry's advantage. He is just a pioneer. Collectively teams will be able to make just as many 3 pointers as the Warriors on the average. That will be enough to neutralize the impact of Steph Curry. In fact it's going to start next year. Lots of players are going to practice this offseason including Lebron. If Lebron starts knocking down 4 3 pointers a game on high efficiency Curry will have nothing on him.


you stupid little monkey, Lebron was shooting 40% from behind the arc on 4 or 5 attempts a game as recently as just a couple of seasons back and his shot has actually regressed - you just don't understand the game, history, the world, logic, words etc - stop embarrassing yourself


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

e-monk said:


> you stupid little monkey, Lebron was shooting 40% from behind the arc on 4 or 5 attempts a game as recently as just a couple of seasons back and his shot has actually regressed - you just don't understand the game, history, the world, logic, words etc - stop embarrassing yourself




I know his shot regressed. That's why I'm saying he's gotta practice.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> there was no 3 point shot in the 70;s nba so dell curry the 3 point specialist would have had to make his profession doing something else.
> 
> the whole father being in the nba is really overblown , has it helped magic's or Jordan's or kareem's kids , hell it really isn't even helping seth curry.


The ability to play in the NBA is a combination of learned techniques and hitting the genetic lottery. Even the greatest NBA superstars (Jordan, Kareem, Magic) may not necessarily be superstars at conveying ideas, training others, nurturing a love for the game... In other cases the sons simply don't hit that genetic lottery and all the skills and talent in the world aren't going to make a difference.

The NBA is the tiniest of the major sport leagues, by far. The sons of NBA athletes have a distinct advantage over others, that much is clear - but the advantage isn't going to manifest in every situation, and even when it does in a league of 450 athletes the number is going to be small anyway.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Vegan Gains said:


> I know his shot regressed. That's why I'm saying he's gotta practice.


but the rest of what I said including the fact that you're a stupid little monkey is accurate right?


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> But the point is that they will take away Curry's advantage. He is just a pioneer. Collectively teams will be able to make just as many 3 pointers as the Warriors on the average. That will be enough to neutralize the impact of Steph Curry. In fact it's going to start next year. Lots of players are going to practice this offseason including Lebron. If Lebron starts knocking down 4 3 pointers a game on high efficiency Curry will have nothing on him.


And my point is that if it were that simple - this 'revolution' would have happened faster. The league is cyclical. You're going to get some copycat teams - but the real movement isn't going to result in every team trying to play like Golden State. The real revolution is occurring in the way offenses move the ball. More threes are going up than ever, but that number is arriving at its peak. We're starting to see more and more guys taking these shots that have no business taking them and there will be a reigning in as a result. On average every team has 1.5+ guys shooting over 2 3's per game at below a 33% clip. That isn't good basketball.

The great shooters will continue to see an uptick in their shooting numbers from beyond the arc, which will drive overall numbers from beyond the arc up a touch further in the next few years, but you're going to see a slight reduction at the bottom end as teams reign in a few of these guys who aren't succeeding as 'decoys' when they step out there.

I really don't think we're going to see much more of a swing upward in three point attempts per night - another leaguewide triple per team per night could wind up resulting but there comes a point of diminishing returns, and with the advent of the SportVu tech we're seeing teams push radicalization particularly quick right now, its like a rubber band stretching. It's going to come back to equilibrium a little bit - unless some radical new idea regarding shooting emerges there's no change in the paradigm coming that'll allow this high speed acceleration away from the basket to continue.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

ChrisWoj said:


> The ability to play in the NBA is a combination of learned techniques and hitting the genetic lottery. Even the greatest NBA superstars (Jordan, Kareem, Magic) may not necessarily be superstars at conveying ideas, training others, nurturing a love for the game... In other cases the sons simply don't hit that genetic lottery and all the skills and talent in the world aren't going to make a difference.
> 
> The NBA is the tiniest of the major sport leagues, by far. The sons of NBA athletes have a distinct advantage over others, that much is clear - but the advantage isn't going to manifest in every situation, and even when it does in a league of 450 athletes the number is going to be small anyway.


and yet it does seem that I can think of more relatives in the NBA (ewing, hayes, wilkins, curry, barry, bryant etc) than I can of other sports excepting maybe baseball (Griffey, Bonds et al)


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

e-monk said:


> and yet it does seem that I can think of more relatives in the NBA (ewing, hayes, wilkins, curry, barry, bryant etc) than I can of other sports excepting maybe baseball (Griffey, Bonds et al)


You just don't notice it as much. There are 50 guys in the big leagues that are the sons of former major leaguers right now. Lot of solid major leaguers - Jayson Werth, Neil Walker, Nick Swisher, Joc Pederson, Dee Gordon, Prince Fielder, Robinson Cano, Peter Bourjos. Cano and Fielder are sons-of-major-leaguers that both have potential Hall of Fame credentials if they can finish out strong careers.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

yeah plus I don't follow baseball half as closely as I do hoops


----------

