OT- Have athletes gotten worse in the NBA/MLB?

[bshaw28]

So handchecking has zero impact on Curry?

The rule was designed to make it easier for guards. Somebody like Curry who is not overly physical will benefit more than most.

He would still be great. Just not as great.

Michael Adams
5-10, 162 lbs.
1990/91 averages 26.5 pts

Here's Adams dropping 31 on the Celtics that season.

I don't know how you can watch this and think Steph Curry wouldn't drop 30 a game.

 

[TruCane81]

wut

Why the confusion?

Slowing a guy down isn’t the same as locking a guy down.

Slowing him down is making him work hard for his numbers and holding him to at least a little below his general percentages.

Lock down is when the defender takes his man out of the game and holds him way under percentage.

 

[westcoastcanes]

Why the confusion?

Slowing a guy down isn’t the same as locking a guy down.

Slowing him down is making him work hard for his numbers and holding him to at least a little below his general percentages.

Lock down is when the defender takes his man out of the game and holds him way under percentage.

How do you know when someone is being slow'd if they are getting it regardless. That would imply they aren't being slown'd down after all. Otherwise they wouldn't be getting it, or at least they wouldn't be getting it regardless.

 

[User-4525]

Michael Adams
5-10, 162 lbs.
1990/91 averages 26.5 pts

Here's Adams dropping 31 on the Celtics that season.

I don't know how you can watch this and think Steph Curry wouldn't drop 30 a game.

This is the exact type of example I was looking for

 

[DMoney]

Michael Adams
5-10, 162 lbs.
1990/91 averages 26.5 pts

Here's Adams dropping 31 on the Celtics that season.

I don't know how you can watch this and think Steph Curry wouldn't drop 30 a game.

Adams was a career 14 ppg scorer. He had one season out of eleven averaging 20 points. And he shot 39% that season.

Yes, Curry could put up those numbers in that era.

 

[TruCane81]

How do you know when someone is being slow'd if they are getting it regardless. That would imply they aren't being slown'd down after all. Otherwise they wouldn't be getting it, or at least they wouldn't be getting it regardless.

The percentages.

It’s the NBA Finals. The other teams star player averages 28 pts and 9 ast for the playoffs on 51% fg and 45 % 3pt fg.

You hold him to 23 pts and 7 ast on 45% fg and 39% 3 pt. A good game and he got his, but not his typical dominating numbers.

That is a very good defensive effort, especially when you consider that guy closed out their previous series with 41 pts and 11 ast on 60% fg and 55% 3pt fg.

He went ape **** on the last opponent but you brought him back down to earth a bit and gave your team a chance to win game 1.

 

[westcoastcanes]

The percentages.

It’s the NBA Finals. The other teams star player averages 28 pts and 9 ast for the playoffs on 51% fg and 45 % 3pt fg.

You hold him to 23 pts and 7 ast on 45% fg and 39% 3 pt. A good game and he got his, but not his typical dominating numbers.

That is a very good defensive effort, especially when you consider that guy closed out their previous series with 41 pts and 11 ast on 60% fg and 55% 3pt fg.

He went ape **** on the last opponent but you brought him back down to earth a bit and gave your team a chance to win game 1.

If he didn't get his typical numbers, he didn't get his, regardless. I guess he isn't a superstar?

 

[TruCane81]

If he didn't get his typical numbers, he didn't get his, regardless. I guess he isn't a superstar?

Agree to disagree.

 

[TruCane81]

Adams was a career 14 ppg scorer. He had one season out of eleven averaging 20 points. And he shot 39% that season.

Yes, Curry could put up those numbers in that era.

Exactly.

He had the green light and put up big numbers with inefficient shooting on a bad team.

Curry would be a lot better than that, but he would not be the Curry we saw at his peak.

Curry could have been a great college player that didn’t live up to his potential, but he was drafted into a great situation. His first two coaches didn’t try to stifle or change him the way some other college players were ruined and got their confidence destroyed.

Situation matters more than people like to think. Steve Nash was considered an overrated bust for most of his time in Dallas and struggled in the role of 90s style point guard. It took Mike Dantoni to reach his all NBA potential.

Could you imagine Curry having gotten drafted by a guy like Mike Fratello?

Today’s rules and coaching style have allowed point guards to dominate in ways they never have in the history of the game.

But that goes both ways. I think guys like Bradley Beal, Zach Levine, and Demar Derozan would have put up big, big numbers if they were allowed to play the volume shooting and iso style shooting guards used to dominate.

 

[DMoney]

Today’s rules and coaching style have allowed point guards to dominate in ways they never have in the history of the game.

Which is exactly what they were designed to do.

The only argument is that the rules didn't work for their intended purpose. And nobody can make that argument.

 

[bshaw28]

Adams was a career 14 ppg scorer. He had one season out of eleven averaging 20 points. And he shot 39% that season.

Yes, Curry could put up those numbers in that era.

Adams was also an All Star the next year in 91/92 averaging 18 ppg on 39% shooting. Same inefficiency as when he put up 26, he just shot less.

Adams was that inefficient and still one of the best in the game in the early 90's.

So if Steph could put up numbers in the early 90's - starting around what year do you think he wouldn't be able to?

I'm not disagreeing hand checking wouldn't have affected Steph's game some - but there's a ton of little dudes smaller than Steph dropping around 20 a game in the 90's who were a lot less talented.

I think you're overrating the effect hand checking would have on a player who can handle and shoot as good or better than anyone at that time.

 

[AllAboutTheU]

The other thing that these arguments about “slowing Curry down” don’t take into consideration is how much more advanced defensive schemes are now. We don’t have positional versatility in other eras like we see now. PnRs and those slow footed, physical bigs getting caught up on Curry would be a nightmare for those guys.

 

[bshaw28]

This is the exact type of example I was looking for

Yeah, the early 90's Paul Westhead Nuggets are the only real close example of playing with pace and shooting 3's in a similar way to today.

Problem is they weren't talented. Their starting lineup was:

Michael Adams
Todd Lichti
Reggie Williams
Orlando Woolridge (Jordan's original #2 guy)
Blair Rasmussen

Now give them the Warriors lineup, and watch them feast.

 

[bshaw28]

It was all part of the same movement. They wanted to remove physicality and help the guards. So they got rid of handchecking first, then changed the illegal defense rules.

Put it together and you have Steve Nash winning two MVPs and Trae Young averaging 30 ppg at 21.

The rule changes were only part of the perfect storm that was Nash's first MVP. Nash was already a 2 time All Star before getting to Phoenix.

It was the combo of:

1) The rule changes
2) Mike D'Antoni's pace & space style in his first full year as a head coach was revolutionary and the perfect fit for Nash
3) A starting line-up around Nash of long, athletic, multiple position guys who could shoot - Joe Johnson, Q Richardson, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire

That was the perfect storm for Nash's MVP

 

[gogeta4]

All that matters. Steph Curry would have no problems in the 90s era. That's literally the argument. You conceded that he wouldn't have any problem. A one game situation is pretty irrelevant to this argument.

Yea they tend to try to move the goal post when they realize that they conceded he would have no problems in any era. Also when they realize he is more athletic than most at his position in the era they are saying was more athletic

 

[gogeta4]

Adams was also an All Star the next year in 91/92 averaging 18 ppg on 39% shooting. Same inefficiency as when he put up 26, he just shot less.

Adams was that inefficient and still one of the best in the game in the early 90's.

So if Steph could put up numbers in the early 90's - starting around what year do you think he wouldn't be able to?

I'm not disagreeing hand checking wouldn't have affected Steph's game some - but there's a ton of little dudes smaller than Steph dropping around 20 a game in the 90's who were a lot less talented.

I think you're overrating the effect hand checking would have on a player who can handle and shoot as good or better than anyone at that time.

This is EXACTLY what they are doing. A dude like Curry may be affected for a grand total of 10 games and adjusts and continues to bust ***....Ok you were allowed to hack more back then...the free throw line was still there and dude is money from there as well.

I mean to me shooting translates in any era....and one of if not the best shooter ever seen isnt going to be too much affected by Dee Brown or Sherman Douglas tugging on his jersey now and again

 

[bshaw28]

This is EXACTLY what they are doing. A dude like Curry may be affected for a grand total of 10 games and adjusts and continues to bust ***....Ok you were allowed to hack more back then...the free throw line was still there and dude is money from there as well.

I mean to me shooting translates in any era....and one of if not the best shooter ever seen isnt going to be too much affected by Dee Brown or Sherman Douglas tugging on his jersey now and again

All this. Plus....

1) Steph gets his shot off quicker than anyone I've seen
2) Steph would be shooting 3's in ways that just didn't happen then - in transition, step-backs, off of cross-overs - it would blow defenders minds.

The only thing that could hold Steph back is 90% of the coaches back then would bench him immediately for taking those type of shots.

But Steph's basically got Isiah Thomas handle, Joe Dumars size, and Larry Bird shooting in one package.

 

[DMoney]

The rule changes were only part of the perfect storm that was Nash's first MVP. Nash was already a 2 time All Star before getting to Phoenix.

It was the combo of:

1) The rule changes
2) Mike D'Antoni's pace & space style in his first full year as a head coach was revolutionary and the perfect fit for Nash
3) A starting line-up around Nash of long, athletic, multiple position guys who could shoot - Joe Johnson, Q Richardson, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire

That was the perfect storm for Nash's MVP

You wouldn't have 2 and 3 without 1.

The rule changes were intended to do exactly what they did. So is your argument that they were ineffective?

 

[bshaw28]

You wouldn't have 2 and 3 without 1.

The rule changes were intended to do exactly what they did. So is your argument that they were ineffective?

It was all of them working together

Bryan Colangeo had already been building a smaller, faster European type team before Nash got there. In 2003 the Suns were starting Marbury (who wasn't as good as Nash), Penny Hardaway (who was broken down at this point), Marion (coming into his prime), Joe Johnson (who was 21), and Stoudemire (who was 20).

The thought and foundation was there, but the players (some just not ready yet) and coach weren't right yet.

I totally agree the NBA had all these athletic players who weren't allowed to show their athleticism, so they did away with hand-checking in 2004. And it definitely worked. But it benefited all players, not just guards.

If you look at NBA scoring by year

1) When Nash won his 05 & 06 MVP scoring went up, but only about 2 pts compared to previous years - and was well below the 90's
2) Steph Curry, and Analytics changed the game in the last 5-6 years and now 3 pointers are being bombed and that's why scoring has spiked

 

[User-4525]

To add something that I never really mentioned... Trae Young have been practicing 2+ hours everyday since he was a little kid. And there's soooooo many others just like that now. That increases competition, although some of those kids plateau in middle or high school.

Point being, Trae's elite fundamentals and basketball iq get discredited for whatever reason. Same with Ja Morant, who is a film junkie. There is also so much more generational knowledge being passed down from former college players (Trae Young dad), overseas hoopers (Justise Winslow dad) or NBA guys (Darius Garland dad, Jermai/Jerian Grant's father/uncle, Austin Rivers) to their sons.

I even think I was a little off base by not giving today's big men enough praise. Ayton, Jaren Jackson, Bam, Sabonis, Karl Anthony-Towns, Porzingis, Giannis, Nurkic, Jokic, and Embiid are all 26 years old or younger. Anthony Davis is 27. Zion is 1 of a kind but Pelicans have been using him at the 4 and sometimes the 5. Jonathan Isaac is one of the best defensive players in the league. Lot of the big men of yesteryear were never asked to switch onto guards in PnR situations. Not saying they couldn't possibly do it, but there wasn't much switching back then. Andre Drummond is a 26 year old 2x all star whose value is diminishing partially because he can't switch on the PnR. His strengths would be more apparent if he were dropped off in the 90s.