Search results

I don’t know how saucy the Spurs were when they were winning all these championships in the 21st century.

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?

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.

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.

That conversation was about Steph Curry translating the 90s. As to your question, Ewing was definitely explosive until he got old. Starks was a very good athlete and Charlie Ward was one of the best athletes of his era. In later years, Sprewell and Grandmama were top-tier athletes although in...

Agreed. But he was 6'5, 210 with some explosiveness. I'd compare Mitch Richmond to Bradley Beal and Devin Booker today.

Take Pat Beverley, let him use his hands and put Ewing, Oakley and Mason behind him. There is a reason they changed the rules.

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.

Take a team like the Knicks. They'd throw Starks on him, who was an excellent defender and a more explosive athlete than Curry. Starks isn't stopping Curry, but he will rough him up and make him work. Then if Curry gets into the lane, he isn't dealing with Kevin Love or Tristan Thompson. It's...

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.

PGs I give the edge to today because you have more athletic combo guards. The other positions I give the edge to the 90s.

The numbers I posted were per 100 possessions.

Right, but there was a reason why offenses weren't designed for PGs to score. It was much more difficult for players that size to get clean looks unless they were freak show athletes like Iverson.

One example would be Michael Carter-Williams. He is long, athletic, he can rebound, defend, see the floor and handle. But his shot is too bad. Justise Winslow was just traded for peanuts because, on top of durability issues, he can't shoot. Guys like that play, but they are devalued because they...

I've always been down on Barrett because he's a bad free throw shooter. Love everything else about him, but that's a red flag in this era. He has a ceiling on his shot. It’s flat. On the other hand, I was bullish on Tatum and Markannen because they were 80%+ guys with the size and game to get...

Shooting is a cut-off. Extremely athletic guys who do many things well are kept on the bench because of shooting limitations. That was not the case in the past. Shot-creation is, of course, the most important skill. But guys like Steve Nash, Steph Curry and Trae Young weren't getting the...

Those were two old-school decisions (driven by the Suns owner and Vlade Divac, respectively) which stood out like a sore thumb at the time. It’s a consensus among GMs that shooting has never been more valued. Non-shooters are now liabilities even if they are exceptional everywhere else.

I had Doncic and Trae Young as the top 2 players in that draft because their games fit this era. Of course, the knock on them was athleticism. That’s why they went behind run-and-jump guys like Ayton and Bagley. But that’s an outdated approach for the reasons outlined in the OP.

What Luka Doncic is now, Penny was in ‘93. Looked a little different though: