Spurs are victims of the Golden Age of basketball

[Cry Havoc]

Agreed.
And I don't think they are better 3 pt shooters today in terms of skills.
Ffs today they are wide open for 2 hours lol

That's silly. Go watch NBA finals games from the 80s. Players were given open jumpers at the elbow. There wasn't even an attempt to close out on them. A guy would be standing at the dots and just letting his opponent shoot from the top of the key all damn day. At least today you have closeouts.

If you see an open shot in today's playoffs (let alone the Finals), it's the result of an offensive play that has completely fooled the defense into misrotating.

Also, I do think that by and large players are better shooters today than they were in the 90s and 00s, the hard collapsing of defense has caused a need for that skill to redevelop.

And Steph Curry is a ing freak, no one has ever shot the 3 like he can, from any angle or position.

[r0drig0lac]

^^I understand your point (especially about the general public), I just think today the defenses are with a absurd disadvantage

[DarrinS]

Why develop any good basketball fundamentals when you can just work on your shot? Idolizing players like Curry is going to ruin youth basketball.

[DarrinS]

Sometimes a good PnR is better than an iso 3. Ask Draymond.

[Cry Havoc]

Why develop any good basketball fundamentals when you can just work on your shot? Idolizing players like Curry is going to ruin youth basketball.

What's weird is that for years the narrative has been, "Nowadays players have fancy dribbles but they can't shoot. I miss the old days when players were fundamentally sound and could shoot the rock." What alternate universe have we warped into where a good shooting stroke isn't part of the fundamentals of basketball?

Also, it's kind of baffling that you're crucifying Curry. He has some of the best handles in the entire league. He's a 10/10 shot, I would put his handles at an 8.75/10, and his passing is probably slightly weaker but still well above average for a PG -- just not out of this world for a superstar. Youths truly emulating Curry would be a lot better off than they would be trying to be Jordan or Westbrook.

[Mikeanaro]

FIFY

How is a Golden Era defined? Profits? Quality teams? Transcendental talent?

I say Quality teams.

[DarrinS]

What's weird is that for years the narrative has been, "Nowadays players have fancy dribbles but they can't shoot. I miss the old days when players were fundamentally sound and could shoot the rock." What alternate universe have we warped into where a good shooting stroke isn't part of the fundamentals of basketball?

Also, it's kind of baffling that you're crucifying Curry. He has some of the best handles in the entire league. He's a 10/10 shot, I would put his handles at an 8.75/10, and his passing is probably slightly weaker but still well above average for a PG -- just not out of this world for a superstar. Youths truly emulating Curry would be a lot better off than they would be trying to be Jordan or Westbrook.

There are other fundamentals besides dribbling and shooting.

Some of those could've been used here:

[Cry Havoc]

There are other fundamentals besides dribbling and shooting.

Some of those could've been used here:

So, what fundamentals do you feel Curry lacks?

[PÒÓCH]

So in essence what OP is saying is that this is the Golden Shower age.

[NameLess Scrub]

I say Quality teams.

Makes sense.. produces quality compe ion.

[phxspurfan]

So there weren't bad PGs in the 80s and 90s? What? I think you could make the argument that of all positions in the last 20 years, PGs have had the largest influx of talent. Maybe 2nd to the new hybrid SF but it's close.

Super rose tinted glasses to suggest that because there are still sub par starting 1s in this league that it's worse than it has been historically.

Def not saying the PGs of the current era as a group aren't one of the better eras for PGs. Just saying many of the PGs in the group are aging and their replacements aren't as good on the whole. OTOH the 6'8"-6'11" guys are pretty kick ass. For instance old school HOF guys like Clyde the Glide wouldn't hold a candle to guys like DeRozan. And old school all stars like Ron Harper aren't even sixth men in today's NBA

[Cry Havoc]

Def not saying the PGs of the current era as a group aren't one of the better eras for PGs. Just saying many of the PGs in the group are aging and their replacements aren't as good on the whole. OTOH the 6'8"-6'11" guys are pretty kick ass. For instance old school HOF guys like Clyde the Glide wouldn't hold a candle to guys like DeRozan. And old school all stars like Ron Harper aren't even sixth men in today's NBA

Hmm, not sure I agree. The new breed of PG seems to be able to not only open up defenses but man, some of these young guys can launch from downtown.

I could very well see the NBA in a decade being comprised of hybrid teams with PGs that can carve inside or fire away from long range, setting up do or die moments for the defense based on what they want to cover, and then running several 6'7-6'10 guys in the 2-3-4-5 spot who are all super mobile and rangy. We're already seeing the emergency of the "3 and D" center with guys like love. Can you imagine that in the 90s? most PGs until the recent era have historically been terrible shots. We're rapidly approaching a spot in the league where you absolutely cannot afford to have >1 guy who is not a capable shooter on the floor. The 4-5 top teams in the league are full of guys that can hurt you out to and including the 3 point line. Cavs Spurs Warriors and Rockets are all chock full of gunners.

[r0drig0lac]

Youths truly emulating Curry would be a lot better off than they would be trying to be Jordan

Do not you like it when a guy like Demar (even with 1/10 of MJ's talent) proves that it's possible to be an effective scorer even without a 3pt shot? particularly, I find this fantastic, only shows what more devastating MJ would be today

[Cry Havoc]

Do not you like it when a guy like Demar (even with 1/10 of MJ's talent) proves that it's possible to be an effective scorer even without a 3pt shot? particularly, I find this fantastic, only shows what more devastating MJ would be today

I think you're selling Demar pretty short there. Have you watched him play this year? He's a monster in every sense of the word. Jordan would be a freak in any era, no doubt, but he's not unapproachable by modern standards.

[r0drig0lac]

I think you're selling Demar pretty short there. Have you watched him play this year? He's a monster in every sense of the word. Jordan would be a freak in any era, no doubt, but he's not unapproachable by modern standards.

Maybe, I just see MJ being much much better on all the atributes, so maybe I disagree with you about someone (except prime Lebron) getting close to MJ currently, I just think it would be even easier for him these days

[phxspurfan]

We're rapidly approaching a spot in the league where you absolutely cannot afford to have >1 guy who is not a capable shooter on the floor. The 4-5 top teams in the league are full of guys that can hurt you out to and including the 3 point line. Cavs Spurs Warriors and Rockets are all chock full of gunners.

Arms race and all sure but there's only one ball. I think the playoffs show having some shooters on the floor, a defensive stopper, rim protection and a 6'8" guy who can see over defenses (aka LeBron) can win over super teams like the Dubs with all shooters. Even guys like Roberson should retain great value.

[Arcadian]

The Spurs aren't "victims" of anything. They won a championship during the time frame you cited.

If you're gonna talk about victims, use a team that hasn't won as your example. Such as...the Thunder! They're victims, not us.

[DarrinS]

Rockets vs Warriors, Dec. 1

Rockets 14 of 44 on 3 pt attempts
Warriors 12 of 44 on 3 pt attempts

Ah, the "Golden Age" of basketball

[lefty]

Here's the problem with that (and to a point, I agree, FYI, just saying for the sake of argument).

The more contact you allow, the harder it becomes to ref, because the line between "contact that degrades a player's ability to shoot or move freely" and "contact that is incidental or 'compe ive'" gets blurred very very quickly. It could also have some pretty big disadvantages for larger players. If contact is called less, you quickly get a system where bigger players cause more "impact" and thus get called for more fouls, whereas a small player can hit you pretty hard without sending you flying. If you've ever played ball, you know that even if you're a smaller player, it doesn't take much to disrupt someone's shot. A hand in the back going up for a jumper is all it takes to completely throw the shot off.

I also prefer tightly contested defensive games, but the general public certainly does not. And I would couch that in the idea that I also like clean, beautiful ball movement -- but if you allow offensive players to get mugged, it not only stops scorers, but it causes havoc on offenses as well. Holding a player for just a half second is sometimes enough to throw off an entire offensive set, if it's timed to allow for picks and screens to rub off one another.

Additionally, I find hand checking an extremely lazy way to play defense. I'm glad to see that gone even if I think more physicality could be beneficial -- although given how much refs are struggling in this era with calls, I don't know if it's something we actually want.

Interesting post tbh

[cutewizard]

Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell say " o!"

[cutewizard]

[cutewizard]

[100%duncan]

The Spurs aren't "victims" of anything. They won a championship during the time frame you cited.

If you're gonna talk about victims, use a team that hasn't won as your example. Such as...the Thunder! They're victims, not us.

Tbh even the clippers or the rockets who are clearly a tier below the league's top.

[ViceCity86]

2017 Warriors.

[GSH]

So, what fundamentals do you feel Curry lacks?

If they called carrying they way they did in the Jordan era? He wouldn't be half as dangerous with the ball in his hands. That's just fact. Not saying it's limited to him, but since this thread is comparing NBA teams and players of different eras, that has to be part of the discussion. Curry is still the best pure shooter I've ever seen, but his "fundamentals" as a PG depend on being in the league at a time when they have crippled defense, and allowed ball-handlers to carry, so that they can create a lot of highlight reel plays. Forget better or worse, or "Golden Age". The game is being played under a different set of rules now.

Make modern golfers play with the clubs and balls of the 70's, they would look like duffers. You simply can't do some of the things they do now with those old clubs. (At least not often enough to count.) The same goes for the incredible moves we see on a basketball court. They couldn't do a lot of those things on the court if they were still calling carrying. And Bruce Bowen wouldn't be nearly the same defensive stopper today, because they wouldn't allow him to play the same way.

The old ABA was known as the "no-defense league". But after the merger, a lot of ABA players turned out to be really good defenders - some of the best, in fact. The problem had been that the rule structure in the ABA prevented them from playing defense aggressively, instead rewarding wide-open offense. The NBA hasn't reached the level of the old ABA, but it's heading that direction. I'm not saying good or bad, just naming the tune.