U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-16-2018, 06:51 PM
 
11,680 posts, read 7,061,094 times
Reputation: 6387

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Nonsense. If you can dribble, pass, shoot, and finish at an elite level with phenomenal IQ & work ethic, then there is a place on every basketball court for you.
Ok, now prove your assertion by traveling back in time and putting baby Steph Curry in the 1940s or 50s. Let us see if he grows up to dominate the 60s and 70s to the same extent he does 2014-now. Shooting 40% from 3 doesn’t mean jack in a league with no 3 pt line...no 3pt line means less spacing...less spacing means less room to move...less room for fancy dribbling, etc. Heck, there’s probably many bigs in the current NBA that can shoot/dribble/pass yet they’d probably be nobodies growing up in a basketball world that says bigs are forbidden from doing anything but camping out under the basket. They probably don’t even attempt to develop the same skill set as they would 35 years later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2018, 10:38 AM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,878,947 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post
Ok, now prove your assertion by traveling back in time and putting baby Steph Curry in the 1940s or 50s. Let us see if he grows up to dominate the 60s and 70s to the same extent he does 2014-now. Shooting 40% from 3 doesnít mean jack in a league with no 3 pt line...no 3pt line means less spacing...less spacing means less room to move...less room for fancy dribbling, etc. Heck, thereís probably many bigs in the current NBA that can shoot/dribble/pass yet theyíd probably be nobodies growing up in a basketball world that says bigs are forbidden from doing anything but camping out under the basket. They probably donít even attempt to develop the same skill set as they would 35 years later.
This reasoning is very . . . special. Somehow the only player who has to be transported in time without his talents is Curry. I've never heard it said that Jordan wouldn't have developed elite footwork if he played in the current era. Nor have I ever heard it said that Olajuwon wouldn't have post moves if he played in the current era.

I don't care whether you have a 3 point line. In 1957, the league high 2pt percentage was 45.2. Curry's career 3pt percentage is just a couple ticks behind that. He would be an absolute monster in an era where no one was on his planet when it comes to shooting ability, and only Cousy would deserve even honorable mention in comparison to his ball handling and passing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 10:57 AM
 
7,744 posts, read 4,587,960 times
Reputation: 8450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
This reasoning is very . . . special. Somehow the only player who has to be transported in time without his talents is Curry. I've never heard it said that Jordan wouldn't have developed elite footwork if he played in the current era. Nor have I ever heard it said that Olajuwon wouldn't have post moves if he played in the current era.

I don't care whether you have a 3 point line. In 1957, the league high 2pt percentage was 45.2. Curry's career 3pt percentage is just a couple ticks behind that. He would be an absolute monster in an era where no one was on his planet when it comes to shooting ability, and only Cousy would deserve even honorable mention in comparison to his ball handling and passing.
It’s so bizarre to argue the ball handling and shooting aren’t valuable skills in any era. Or people just don’t like giving the newer generation its due. I remember the late 80s, before Jordan won his first championship, the way all people talked about Jordan as nothing but a flashy scorer and ball-hog; saying that he would never be the player that Magic and Bird were Now the same old people, along with a few who came of age during the Jordan era are saying the same thing about today’s athletes.

Last edited by gladhands; 04-17-2018 at 11:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 12:14 PM
 
11,680 posts, read 7,061,094 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
This reasoning is very . . . special. Somehow the only player who has to be transported in time without his talents is Curry. I've never heard it said that Jordan wouldn't have developed elite footwork if he played in the current era. Nor have I ever heard it said that Olajuwon wouldn't have post moves if he played in the current era.

I don't care whether you have a 3 point line. In 1957, the league high 2pt percentage was 45.2. Curry's career 3pt percentage is just a couple ticks behind that. He would be an absolute monster in an era where no one was on his planet when it comes to shooting ability, and only Cousy would deserve even honorable mention in comparison to his ball handling and passing.
ĒSpecialĒ reasoning to assume Steph Curry doesnít become Steph Curry in a basketball world where long range shots are no more valuable and the game runs through big men? Haha.

Plenty of people have said that centers like Olajuwon wouldnít be as dominant in the 3 ball era. Whoís the current dominant post up center thatís equivalent to Olajuwon of 1994? Yes, Olajuwon would still have the coordination to do what he did in his prime, but would the league fully reward his abilities in 2018 (to the point of being a top 10 all time player?). Itís not far fetched to believe that if you turn back time 50 years, you wonít see the equivalent of Steph Curry...in fact you donít. Whoís game was based around 25-30 foot jumpers in the 50s/60s? Does that mean no one during that time had the ability (perhaps underdeveloped) to shoot well from long range?

Like I said, thereís no way of knowing what Curry becomes in another era which shapes the skills he works on and defines what is expected of a basketball player. Sure he would still have the natural ability to shoot well, but is his game as dominant if long range shots arenít taken much or rewarded with extra points? If you ask any current NBA coaches, Iím sure theyíd say Curry becomes easier to guard if every shot he makes is rewarded with 2 points instead of a possible 3 points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 12:48 PM
 
7,744 posts, read 4,587,960 times
Reputation: 8450
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post
ĒSpecialĒ reasoning to assume Steph Curry doesnít become Steph Curry in a basketball world where long range shots are no more valuable and the game runs through big men? Haha.

Plenty of people have said that centers like Olajuwon wouldnít be as dominant in the 3 ball era. Whoís the current dominant post up center thatís equivalent to Olajuwon of 1994? Yes, Olajuwon would still have the coordination to do what he did in his prime, but would the league fully reward his abilities in 2018 (to the point of being a top 10 all time player?). Itís not far fetched to believe that if you turn back time 50 years, you wonít see the equivalent of Steph Curry...in fact you donít. Whoís game was based around 25-30 foot jumpers in the 50s/60s? Does that mean no one during that time had the ability (perhaps underdeveloped) to shoot well from long range?

Like I said, thereís no way of knowing what Curry becomes in another era which shapes the skills he works on and defines what is expected of a basketball player. Sure he would still have the natural ability to shoot well, but is his game as dominant if long range shots arenít taken much or rewarded with extra points? If you ask any current NBA coaches, Iím sure theyíd say Curry becomes easier to guard if every shot he makes is rewarded with 2 points instead of a possible 3 points.
And heíd still be as good or better than every other guard from previous eras. What guard skill does he lack? He still bigger and stronger than Bob Cousy, Jerry West or Isiah Thomas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 01:32 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,878,947 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post
ĒSpecialĒ reasoning to assume Steph Curry doesnít become Steph Curry in a basketball world where long range shots are no more valuable and the game runs through big men? Haha.

Plenty of people have said that centers like Olajuwon wouldnít be as dominant in the 3 ball era. Whoís the current dominant post up center thatís equivalent to Olajuwon of 1994? Yes, Olajuwon would still have the coordination to do what he did in his prime, but would the league fully reward his abilities in 2018 (to the point of being a top 10 all time player?). Itís not far fetched to believe that if you turn back time 50 years, you wonít see the equivalent of Steph Curry...in fact you donít. Whoís game was based around 25-30 foot jumpers in the 50s/60s? Does that mean no one during that time had the ability (perhaps underdeveloped) to shoot well from long range?

Like I said, thereís no way of knowing what Curry becomes in another era which shapes the skills he works on and defines what is expected of a basketball player. Sure he would still have the natural ability to shoot well, but is his game as dominant if long range shots arenít taken much or rewarded with extra points? If you ask any current NBA coaches, Iím sure theyíd say Curry becomes easier to guard if every shot he makes is rewarded with 2 points instead of a possible 3 points.
We know that Curry has unlimited range & deadly accuracy. We know he is an elite finisher with both hands inside the paint. We know he is an elite passer and ball handler. We know he is a basketball savant in terms of IQ & vision. Drop Curry in the 50s/60s, and he torches defenses who have never seen anything like him. Drop him in the 70s and he's redefining what it means to shoot at the pro level (kind of like now). Drop him in the 80s, and you have an alternative to Showtime. Drop him in the 90s/early 2000s and he's Iverson with better passing, vision, and range. Drop him in the 2010s and you have what we see today--one of the top 2 basketball players in the world--the deadly combination of Nash & Iverson.

If you take away the 3 point line in a league that allows zone defense, then every team becomes much easier to guard. You form a wall around the paint and force 2 pt jump shots outside. A player like Curry becomes even more valuable, because he'll hit those shots at a good enough rate to make defenses pay for walling off the paint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 02:36 PM
 
11,680 posts, read 7,061,094 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
We know that Curry has unlimited range & deadly accuracy. We know he is an elite finisher with both hands inside the paint. We know he is an elite passer and ball handler. We know he is a basketball savant in terms of IQ & vision. Drop Curry in the 50s/60s, and he torches defenses who have never seen anything like him. Drop him in the 70s and he's redefining what it means to shoot at the pro level (kind of like now). Drop him in the 80s, and you have an alternative to Showtime. Drop him in the 90s/early 2000s and he's Iverson with better passing, vision, and range. Drop him in the 2010s and you have what we see today--one of the top 2 basketball players in the world--the deadly combination of Nash & Iverson.

If you take away the 3 point line in a league that allows zone defense, then every team becomes much easier to guard. You form a wall around the paint and force 2 pt jump shots outside. A player like Curry becomes even more valuable, because he'll hit those shots at a good enough rate to make defenses pay for walling off the paint.
You still arenít getting it. Thereís a lot of basketball played in ~50 years (not to mention training methods, diet, physical therapy, medicine, etc) that goes into making up the skill set of a 2018 basketball player. You canít just assume that every player transported back in time will develop the same exact skill set (which is refined from birth) and be given the exact same opportunity to display those skills. Heck, drop 2018 JR Smith in the 60s and we probably now consider him on par with Oscar Robertson. He would have moves like players of the time have never seen. Does that nessesarily mean JR Smith is a GOAT candidate?

The player that someone becomes is greatly impacted by the era in which they play...Curry happens to play in an era which is most suited to the skill he developed. To same degree there are likely players born in another period which may be much better if they developed their skills in the modern era. The modern game is better suited for Curry than any previous era...there are 3 pointers, players are allowed to freely shoot 10 3 point attempts per game, the floor is spread with 3 point shooters at basically every position, the lanes arenít packed with big men near the rim, coaches are more open minded about running offense through a scoring/creative point guard, etc. The NBA is guard driven league now and the statistics show it.

It's a point guard's game | The Washington Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 04:26 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,878,947 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post
You still arenít getting it. Thereís a lot of basketball played in ~50 years (not to mention training methods, diet, physical therapy, medicine, etc) that goes into making up the skill set of a 2018 basketball player. You canít just assume that every player transported back in time will develop the same exact skill set (which is refined from birth) and be given the exact same opportunity to display those skills. Heck, drop 2018 JR Smith in the 60s and we probably now consider him on par with Oscar Robertson. He would have moves like players of the time have never seen. Does that nessesarily mean JR Smith is a GOAT candidate?

The player that someone becomes is greatly impacted by the era in which they play...Curry happens to play in an era which is most suited to the skill he developed. To same degree there are likely players born in another period which may be much better if they developed their skills in the modern era. The modern game is better suited for Curry than any previous era...there are 3 pointers, players are allowed to freely shoot 10 3 point attempts per game, the floor is spread with 3 point shooters at basically every position, the lanes arenít packed with big men near the rim, coaches are more open minded about running offense through a scoring/creative point guard, etc. The NBA is guard driven league now and the statistics show it.

It's a point guard's game | The Washington Post
So you're saying Jordan wouldn't be Jordan in the 60s? LeBron wouldn't be LeBron in the 90s? There is no point to comparing players across eras? Nothing is really knowable, anyways?

I take a different tack. The elite players are never elite because of mere circumstance. It is work ethic, IQ, and talent that makes them elite. It would cause them to rise above their peers in any era in which they play. Of course they would adjust how they play, but they would be able to do so because of . . . the work ethic, IQ, and talent that makes them elite. Equally as important, the results they obtain in their own eras--wins & titles--can be compared to the results obtained in prior eras.

Don Nelson ran his 90s offense through a creative, scoring point guard in Tim Hardaway. He took the talent his team had and put it to use. If a decent coach has a talent like Curry, they put that talent to use. Red Auerbach put Cousy to work in an era that was unused to his passing and ball handling.

JR Smith is simply not in the conversation in terms of talent. The NBA is always driven by its top talents. Right now, the top talents are LBJ, Curry, and Harden. Among today's NBA elite are Anthony Davis, KD, Giannis, Capela, and Embiid--all bigs. MJ was a top talent in an era of bigs like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, and Shaq.

Lanes weren't being packed with bigs in the 90s. Bigs were playing post defense against each other, and trying their best to time help in the illegal defense era against drives. It is much easier in a zone defense era to load up driving lanes. That makes it harder for ISO wings to attack the basket. It makes role-playing shooters more valuable. Curry is not a role-playing shooter. He is an all-world, multi-dimensional basketball talent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 05:20 PM
 
11,680 posts, read 7,061,094 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
So you're saying Jordan wouldn't be Jordan in the 60s? LeBron wouldn't be LeBron in the 90s? There is no point to comparing players across eras? Nothing is really knowable, anyways?

I take a different tack. The elite players are never elite because of mere circumstance. It is work ethic, IQ, and talent that makes them elite. It would cause them to rise above their peers in any era in which they play. Of course they would adjust how they play, but they would be able to do so because of . . . the work ethic, IQ, and talent that makes them elite. Equally as important, the results they obtain in their own eras--wins & titles--can be compared to the results obtained in prior eras.

Don Nelson ran his 90s offense through a creative, scoring point guard in Tim Hardaway. He took the talent his team had and put it to use. If a decent coach has a talent like Curry, they put that talent to use. Red Auerbach put Cousy to work in an era that was unused to his passing and ball handling.

JR Smith is simply not in the conversation in terms of talent. The NBA is always driven by its top talents. Right now, the top talents are LBJ, Curry, and Harden. Among today's NBA elite are Anthony Davis, KD, Giannis, Capela, and Embiid--all bigs. MJ was a top talent in an era of bigs like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, and Shaq.

Lanes weren't being packed with bigs in the 90s. Bigs were playing post defense against each other, and trying their best to time help in the illegal defense era against drives. It is much easier in a zone defense era to load up driving lanes. That makes it harder for ISO wings to attack the basket. It makes role-playing shooters more valuable. Curry is not a role-playing shooter. He is an all-world, multi-dimensional basketball talent.
Jordan and Lebron have bodies and athleticism that pretty much make any play style irrelevant. As physical specimens they are among the most elite athletes to ever exist.

Work ethic, talent, IQ are always good to have, but itís hard to deny that certain styles of play can bring out the best in a player. For example, there are probably some good big men of the 80s and 90s that arenít as good in an era where bigs are expected to move their feet, pass well, sometimes handle the ball and have the ability to be a threat from outside. How many teams are running an offense through back to the basket post up bigs? Itís a spread the court guard/wing league more than ever...Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Lebron, Lillard, Kyrie, Simmons, Giannis, etc - basically all point guards. Sure Curry has innate genetic talent that could be put to use, but thereís no guarantee that the Curry who grew up in the 2000s and plays in the 2010+ NBA will be as dominate if he grows up in the 50s and plays in the 1960s NBA. The basketball world may just not be ready to fully develop and implement what he could offer.

On one hand you argue that itís now harder for guards/wings to score yet the statistics show that they are scoring more than ever. Look at the top 10 scorers in the NBA - notice any traditional big men there? The closest example might be Aldridge who only cracks the list because Kawhi isnít playing. Now look at say 1995 and what do you see? Malone, Mourning, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Howard. Not a single point guard cracks the top 10. Only ONE point guard cracks the top 20. How can one argue that it isnít easier for guards to score in todayís NBA? The acceptance and implementation of greater 3 pt volume totally changes the game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2018, 06:33 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,878,947 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post
Jordan and Lebron have bodies and athleticism that pretty much make any play style irrelevant. As physical specimens they are among the most elite athletes to ever exist.

Work ethic, talent, IQ are always good to have, but itís hard to deny that certain styles of play can bring out the best in a player. For example, there are probably some good big men of the 80s and 90s that arenít as good in an era where bigs are expected to move their feet, pass well, sometimes handle the ball and have the ability to be a threat from outside. How many teams are running an offense through back to the basket post up bigs? Itís a spread the court guard/wing league more than ever...Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Lebron, Lillard, Kyrie, Simmons, Giannis, etc - basically all point guards. Sure Curry has innate genetic talent that could be put to use, but thereís no guarantee that the Curry who grew up in the 2000s and plays in the 2010+ NBA will be as dominate if he grows up in the 50s and plays in the 1960s NBA. The basketball world may just not be ready to fully develop and implement what he could offer.

On one hand you argue that itís now harder for guards/wings to score yet the statistics show that they are scoring more than ever. Look at the top 10 scorers in the NBA - notice any traditional big men there? The closest example might be Aldridge who only cracks the list because Kawhi isnít playing. Now look at say 1995 and what do you see? Malone, Mourning, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Howard. Not a single point guard cracks the top 10. Only ONE point guard cracks the top 20. How can one argue that it isnít easier for guards to score in todayís NBA? The acceptance and implementation of greater 3 pt volume totally changes the game.
So a freak athlete like Javale McGee or Nate Robinson makes any play style irrelevant? Basketball talent is simply not athleticism. MJ & LeBron are great basketball players, not mere athletes. Both continued to be great basketball players as their athleticism was surpassed by younger players.

I guarantee you that any NBA team today would build around Kareem, or Olajuwon, or Yao, or Shaq. These were great basketball players then and they would be great basketball players now. The Pels are building around AD, who is a great basketball player. You list a bunch of "spread the court" players who can't spread the court. Giannis, Simmons, and Westbrook are not good shooters. LeBron has a solid outside shot, but is far more dangerous working from the midrange & in. Lillard & Kyrie aren't leading winners.

Top 3 NBA players today: LBJ (big), Harden (middle), Curry (small)
Next 3 NBA players today: KD (big), AD (big), Giannis (big)

As for '95, Richmond & Glen Rice were top 10 scorers, with Penny, Payton, Sprewell, Barros, and Rider all in the top 20. You, of course, chose one of those years when one of the greatest scorers ever--a guard--wasn't playing. Take a look at efficiency in '95: TS% leaders include 3 point guards in the top 5, and five more guards in 6-10.

Taking more 3s is a necessary response to a pro league that allows zone defense. You can't effectively drive on a zone. You can't effectively ISO the mid & low post against a zone. To post against a zone, you need to spread the floor with shooters and you need a post player with passing ability.

You also can't overemphasize scoring in importance. Wins are important. Playoff success is important. Tim Duncan continued to thrive in today's NBA. Kevin Garnett & the Gasols & KD & LBJ & Dwight Howard all had tremendous success in the pace & space era. Al Horford has been putting up big win totals since his Atlanta days.

Great players are great players.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top