rtiff68 wrote:
No, but he did drop 18.9ppg / 8.4asts / 3.0rebs; .526 / .441 / .901 at a whopping 6'0, 170lbs...
...and Mark Price is not as good as Steph Curry.
In short, if a smaller, weaker, worse player could shoot 53% from the field in the hand check era-- "when men were men"-- I have a hard time seeing how Curry's numbers would be dramatically affected.
Price averaged 15-PPG on 47% shooting for his career... you think Curry would average 32-PPG / 53% shooting in the 80's / 90's?
Who knows? I'm not saying what he will or will not do...
...I'm simply dispelling the notion that the hand-check era would somehow dramatically change what he's currently done/doing.
Curry 2013-15: 23-PPG / 47% / 44% / 17.5-FGA
Curry career (prior to this season): 20-PPG / 47% / 44% / 16-FGA
Prime Reggie Miller (1990-98): 21-PPG /.49% / 42% / 14-FGA
Just for discussion...
Last edited by thedangerouskitchen on Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
rtiff68 wrote:
You must have missed the "Curry is a lot better (and bigger) than Price" part.
Consider this: how many guards in today's game can't shoot the 3 effectively? The mid-range game is going the way of the dinosaur due to its relative inefficiency (when compared to shots at the rim or 3's), and Jordan would absolutely be a below average 3-point shooting guard in the current "3-point era."
Based upon that, Jordan's numbers would have taken a dip in the 3-pt era, correct? Bullshit.
Transcendent talent is transcendent talent.
Curry is a great 3-point shooter in a 3-point shooting era... how is that transcendent?
Troll on, TDK. I'm off to dinner.
Have a nice night.
Really???
Explain why / how Curry is a transcendent player?
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
rtiff68 wrote:
No, but he did drop 18.9ppg / 8.4asts / 3.0rebs; .526 / .441 / .901 at a whopping 6'0, 170lbs...
...and Mark Price is not as good as Steph Curry.
In short, if a smaller, weaker, worse player could shoot 53% from the field in the hand check era-- "when men were men"-- I have a hard time seeing how Curry's numbers would be dramatically affected.
Ok so curry would averse 19ppg. Certainly not 30ppg.
His production takes a dip in the hand check era
You must have missed the "Curry is a lot better (and bigger) than Price" part.
Consider this: how many guards in today's game can't shoot the 3 effectively? The mid-range game is going the way of the dinosaur due to its relative inefficiency (when compared to shots at the rim or 3's), and Jordan would absolutely be a below average 3-point shooting guard in the current "3-point era."
Based upon that, Jordan's numbers would have taken a dip in the 3-pt era, correct? Bullshit.
Transcendent talent is transcendent talent.
Your comparison is flawed. You make a point about price being legit scorer/shooter in a diff era and then go on to say that curry is bigger/better.
Bigger/better how? In a diff era? Or are you simply assuming that curry would be bigger/better than price in the 80/90s. You do not have any proof that curry would be better than price in the 80/90s all you have to compare is Curry playing in a diff era to Price playing in an older era... Yet you conclude that curry is bigger/better?
Is he better because of the rule changes? Lack of hand check? Diff defenses? You simply cannot make a statement that curry would be better or even more ludacris that he IS better.
l3 o $$ wrote:
Ok so curry would averse 19ppg. Certainly not 30ppg.
His production takes a dip in the hand check era
You must have missed the "Curry is a lot better (and bigger) than Price" part.
Consider this: how many guards in today's game can't shoot the 3 effectively? The mid-range game is going the way of the dinosaur due to its relative inefficiency (when compared to shots at the rim or 3's), and Jordan would absolutely be a below average 3-point shooting guard in the current "3-point era."
Based upon that, Jordan's numbers would have taken a dip in the 3-pt era, correct? Bullshit.
Transcendent talent is transcendent talent.
Your comparison is flawed. You make a point about price being legit scorer/shooter in a diff era and then go on to say that curry is bigger/better.
Bigger/better how? In a diff era? Or are you simply assuming that curry would be bigger/better than price in the 80/90s. You do not have any proof that curry would be better than price in the 80/90s all you have to compare is Curry playing in a diff era to Price playing in an older era... Yet you conclude that curry is bigger/better?
Is he better because of the rule changes? Lack of hand check? Diff defenses? You simply cannot make a statement that curry would be better or even more ludacris that he IS better.
I lived through and watched hoops avidly through the Mark Price years. Not to be overly disparaging, but Mark Price is nowhere near Curry.
If he had been, the Cavs wouldn't still be looking for their first title.
Mark Price was a bad man. But, the Cavs teams he was a part of were very flawed. Brad Daughterty was either hurt or more interested in stock car racing, and Larry Nance was old by then. Other than those two you had role players like Craig Ehlo and Steve Kerr, and guys who were shadows of their formerly athletic selves like Gerald Wilkins and John Hot Rod Williams. Cavs were good, but not near good enough.
l3 o $$ wrote:
Ok so curry would averse 19ppg. Certainly not 30ppg.
His production takes a dip in the hand check era
You must have missed the "Curry is a lot better (and bigger) than Price" part.
Consider this: how many guards in today's game can't shoot the 3 effectively? The mid-range game is going the way of the dinosaur due to its relative inefficiency (when compared to shots at the rim or 3's), and Jordan would absolutely be a below average 3-point shooting guard in the current "3-point era."
Based upon that, Jordan's numbers would have taken a dip in the 3-pt era, correct? Bullshit.
Transcendent talent is transcendent talent.
Your comparison is flawed. You make a point about price being legit scorer/shooter in a diff era and then go on to say that curry is bigger/better.
Bigger/better how? In a diff era? Or are you simply assuming that curry would be bigger/better than price in the 80/90s. You do not have any proof that curry would be better than price in the 80/90s all you have to compare is Curry playing in a diff era to Price playing in an older era... Yet you conclude that curry is bigger/better?
Is he better because of the rule changes? Lack of hand check? Diff defenses? You simply cannot make a statement that curry would be better or even more ludacris that he IS better.
"Bigger" is not an assumption, it's a fact. Price was listed at 6'0, 170lbs. Steph Curry is listed at 6'3, 185lbs. Curry is the bigger player...
...a fact that is pretty relevant when we're discussing how the "hand check" era would have affected Steph's numbers. If Price was as successful as he was with his size and physique, I find it hard to believe that Steph's "physical limitations" would have lead to significantly inferior numbers in Price's era.
As for being "better," I can't prove that Curry would have been just as good in the '90's any more than anyone in this thread can prove that Jordan would've been just as good in today's "3-point era." You simply have to look at the preponderance of evidence in both cases and draw your own conclusions.
ripper76 wrote:Mark Price was a bad man. But, the Cavs teams he was a part of were very flawed. Brad Daughterty was either hurt or more interested in stock car racing, and Larry Nance was old by then. Other than those two you had role players like Craig Ehlo and Steve Kerr, and guys who were shadows of their formerly athletic selves like Gerald Wilkins and John Hot Rod Williams. Cavs were good, but not near good enough.
Daugherty was pretty healthy except in 89-90 and 93-94. The cavs biggest mistake at the time was trading Ron Harper for Danny Ferry. Harper was like a 18+ppg guy.
rtiff68 wrote:
You must have missed the "Curry is a lot better (and bigger) than Price" part.
Consider this: how many guards in today's game can't shoot the 3 effectively? The mid-range game is going the way of the dinosaur due to its relative inefficiency (when compared to shots at the rim or 3's), and Jordan would absolutely be a below average 3-point shooting guard in the current "3-point era."
Based upon that, Jordan's numbers would have taken a dip in the 3-pt era, correct? Bullshit.
Transcendent talent is transcendent talent.
Your comparison is flawed. You make a point about price being legit scorer/shooter in a diff era and then go on to say that curry is bigger/better.
Bigger/better how? In a diff era? Or are you simply assuming that curry would be bigger/better than price in the 80/90s. You do not have any proof that curry would be better than price in the 80/90s all you have to compare is Curry playing in a diff era to Price playing in an older era... Yet you conclude that curry is bigger/better?
Is he better because of the rule changes? Lack of hand check? Diff defenses? You simply cannot make a statement that curry would be better or even more ludacris that he IS better.
"Bigger" is not an assumption, it's a fact. Price was listed at 6'0, 170lbs. Steph Curry is listed at 6'3, 185lbs. Curry is the bigger player...
...a fact that is pretty relevant when we're discussing how the "hand check" era would have affected Steph's numbers. If Price was as successful as he was with his size and physique, I find it hard to believe that Steph's "physical limitations" would have lead to significantly inferior numbers in Price's era.
As for being "better," I can't prove that Curry would have been just as good in the '90's any more than anyone in this thread can prove that Jordan would've been just as good in today's "3-point era." You simply have to look at the preponderance of evidence in both cases and draw your own conclusions.
I actually think in an odd sort of way that both would likely have had more success in the other's era.
MJ was made for the initial period when hand check started being enforced rigidly in the 2005-6 season. Defenses had not adjusted yet and refs called it much tighter than they do now. His slashing ability was tailor made for the 4-5 years from 2006 to 2010 or 2011 or so. Defensive adjustments and referees calling it less strictly now have neutralized that somewhat.
Curry's ability to so easily get his shot no matter the defensive attention without needing that many screens would have made him almost unguardable back in the 80s and 90s when defenses were more focused on defending the post than the perimeter.
In any case, great is great in any era. Curry is other worldly right now.
ripper76 wrote:Mark Price was a bad man. But, the Cavs teams he was a part of were very flawed. Brad Daughterty was either hurt or more interested in stock car racing, and Larry Nance was old by then. Other than those two you had role players like Craig Ehlo and Steve Kerr, and guys who were shadows of their formerly athletic selves like Gerald Wilkins and John Hot Rod Williams. Cavs were good, but not near good enough.
Daugherty was pretty healthy except in 89-90 and 93-94. The cavs biggest mistake at the time was trading Ron Harper for Danny Ferry. Harper was like a 18+ppg guy.
Yeah but when Daugherty was healthy he didn't really care about basketball. It was never his first passion. Very talented big man but he just wasn't that committed to the game. Not to the level of the great players anyway.
Agreed about trading Harper for Ferry. Ferry turned into a decent role player, but it was a bad move.
ripper76 wrote:Mark Price was a bad man. But, the Cavs teams he was a part of were very flawed. Brad Daughterty was either hurt or more interested in stock car racing, and Larry Nance was old by then. Other than those two you had role players like Craig Ehlo and Steve Kerr, and guys who were shadows of their formerly athletic selves like Gerald Wilkins and John Hot Rod Williams. Cavs were good, but not near good enough.
Daugherty was pretty healthy except in 89-90 and 93-94. The cavs biggest mistake at the time was trading Ron Harper for Danny Ferry. Harper was like a 18+ppg guy.
Yeah but when Daugherty was healthy he didn't really care about basketball. It was never his first passion. Very talented big man but he just wasn't that committed to the game. Not to the level of the great players anyway.
Agreed about trading Harper for Ferry. Ferry turned into a decent role player, but it was a bad move.
It's iffa, coulda woulda baloney that is obviously unprovable but I believe current Curry in the same circumstances could well have ended the Cavs run of futility. Unfortunately, unless you have a fancy DeLorean, we can't check it out.
elmouse03 wrote:
Daugherty was pretty healthy except in 89-90 and 93-94. The cavs biggest mistake at the time was trading Ron Harper for Danny Ferry. Harper was like a 18+ppg guy.
Yeah but when Daugherty was healthy he didn't really care about basketball. It was never his first passion. Very talented big man but he just wasn't that committed to the game. Not to the level of the great players anyway.
Agreed about trading Harper for Ferry. Ferry turned into a decent role player, but it was a bad move.
It's iffa, coulda woulda baloney that is obviously unprovable but I believe current Curry in the same circumstances could well have ended the Cavs run of futility. Unfortunately, unless you have a fancy DeLorean, we can't check it out.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that 3 point shooting efficiency is way up across the board than it was for players in the 90s for 2 reasons
In the 90s 3point line was further out and handchecking was allowed
The league purposely made the 3 point line closer and took away handchecking to help teams and players score more.
This fact alone negates any theory that Curry would have the same success in the 90s for the apparent reason is that he is exploiting the changes in the rules. Although he can knock it down from 40 out that's without a player handchecking him.
Do you have any idea what handchecking is? The way grizz and rtiff are sounding make me feel they have no idea what that rule was about or even moreso how it affected dribble penetration
l3 o $$ wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that 3 point shooting efficiency is way up across the board than it was for players in the 90s for 2 reasons
In the 90s 3point line was further out and handchecking was allowed
The league purposely made the 3 point line closer and took away handchecking to help teams and players score more.
This fact alone negates any theory that Curry would have the same success in the 90s for the apparent reason is that he is exploiting the changes in the rules. Although he can knock it down from 40 out that's without a player handchecking him.
Do you have any idea what handchecking is? The way grizz and rtiff are sounding make me feel they have no idea what that rule was about or even moreso how it affected dribble penetration
You might want to delete your post. You are embarrassing yourself. I'll see how long it takes you to figure it out.
Hand-Checking. Hand-checking is defined as illegal contact by a defensive player which impedes the forward and/or lateral movement of the offensive player. Hand-checking should be dealt with early in the game, with particular attention being paid during perimeter play and drives to the basket.
l3 o $$ wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that 3 point shooting efficiency is way up across the board than it was for players in the 90s for 2 reasons
In the 90s 3point line was further out and handchecking was allowed
The league purposely made the 3 point line closer and took away handchecking to help teams and players score more.
This fact alone negates any theory that Curry would have the same success in the 90s for the apparent reason is that he is exploiting the changes in the rules. Although he can knock it down from 40 out that's without a player handchecking him.
Do you have any idea what handchecking is? The way grizz and rtiff are sounding make me feel they have no idea what that rule was about or even moreso how it affected dribble penetration
The three point line was further out in the 90s? Are you sure about that?
l3 o $$ wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that 3 point shooting efficiency is way up across the board than it was for players in the 90s for 2 reasons
In the 90s 3point line was further out and handchecking was allowed
The league purposely made the 3 point line closer and took away handchecking to help teams and players score more.
This fact alone negates any theory that Curry would have the same success in the 90s for the apparent reason is that he is exploiting the changes in the rules. Although he can knock it down from 40 out that's without a player handchecking him.
Do you have any idea what handchecking is? The way grizz and rtiff are sounding make me feel they have no idea what that rule was about or even moreso how it affected dribble penetration
The three point line was further out in the 90s? Are you sure about that?
I think someone might be requesting another name change soon...
l3 o $$ wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that 3 point shooting efficiency is way up across the board than it was for players in the 90s for 2 reasons
In the 90s 3point line was further out and handchecking was allowed
The league purposely made the 3 point line closer and took away handchecking to help teams and players score more.
This fact alone negates any theory that Curry would have the same success in the 90s for the apparent reason is that he is exploiting the changes in the rules. Although he can knock it down from 40 out that's without a player handchecking him.
Do you have any idea what handchecking is? The way grizz and rtiff are sounding make me feel they have no idea what that rule was about or even moreso how it affected dribble penetration
The three point line was further out in the 90s? Are you sure about that?
That's part of what I was chiding him about. For three years in the mid 90s the league brought the three point line in CLOSER, making it the same distance in the corners and the top of the arc. After three seasons, they reverted to the old line and it remains the same.
Hand check enforcement was a bigger factor in 2006-2010 or so when it was much more strictly enforced. Wings routinely got double digit FTAs for a few seasons. It's not nearly as strictly enforced now. And hand check rules really benefit slashers much more than shooters.
If I'm wrong about the line distances I apologize I just remember the distance was changed a few times in the 90s and a couple of times in the 2000s and I believe I read something on the Internet that stated it was closer in today's era than in the early 90s
