SAS admits 80s/90s players were terrible and could only stop Steph Curry by fouling him hard lol

[Bush4Ever.]

Targeted for INJURY Tdk, not “hard fouls”.

NO ONE did a Malone on Isiah even though literally every Piston (or Ewing Knick) was tougher in a real world fighting sense than Jordan

Interesting isn’t it? Steph Curry gets obliterated in this hypothetical NBA when we literally saw most stars go completely unscathed in reality, and none of them harmed to the extent their production fell off a cliff

[Bush4Ever.]

It should also be noted that those high-octaine, fast-paced Offense / zero-Defense Nuggets of 90-91 finished with a 20-62 record... put them in today's Modern Era (where almost every team features high octaine Offense and weak/soft Defense) and those Nuggets are a contender for the Championship.

LOL. Bullshit.

He’s legitimately insane. Lol

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

90s rough n' tough, lockdown defense:



Today's soft, sissy boy defense:

[thedangerouskitchen]

Targeted for INJURY Tdk, not “hard fouls”.

NO ONE did a Malone on Isiah even though literally every Piston (or Ewing Knick) was tougher in a real world fighting sense than Jordan

Interesting isn’t it? Steph Curry gets obliterated in this hypothetical NBA when we literally saw most stars go completely unscathed in reality, and none of them harmed to the extent their production fell off a cliff

So now we're equating physicality with players ending up injured?



As I said, you're trying too hard and you're embarrassing yourself. The game in the 80's - 00's was significantly more physical than it is today. That's just an irrefutable fact no matter how much you wish it wasn't, or no matter how many random 1 play / 2-minute clips your pals rob and LMD want to post.

[LNS]

90s rough n' tough, lockdown defense:



Today's soft, sissy boy defense:

Lol what a joke

[PhutureDynasty]

Why did certain NBA courts still show that high school three point line?

[Robceltsfan]

Why did certain NBA courts still show that high school three point line?

It wasn't for high school, it was for college. Many NBA teams shared their home court with the biggest local university.

[Bush4Ever.]

So now we're equating physicality with players ending up injured?

Pretty much, or rough equivalence, seeing as how this factor (according to this very legit and not made up source) takes a top 1-2 PG all-time, top shooter, top 10 ball-handler, and places him on a level that probably wouldn't even be all-star level.

When did we see *any* superstar targeted and impacted in that way?

Specific examples please. Legendary level players turning into non-all stars because of something related to toughness and grit and whatever boomer thing they are claiming.

Specifics. Not generalities. Show me the player(s), plays, injury reports, etc...

[PhutureDynasty]

Why did certain NBA courts still show that high school three point line?

It wasn't for high school, it was for college. Many NBA teams shared their home court with the biggest local university.

I had no idea the college three used to be that short.

[Deez]

It's boring to repeat the same points, but Michael Adams average 26+ a season, Reggie Miller was routinely in the low 20s, Dale Ellis was near the mid 20s for a few seasons, etc...

Steph is the GOAT shooter, and also a 98th/99th percentile ball-handler. That translates to any era, period.

"Giannis wouldn't be a starter in the 80s and 90s because we would make him take jump shots."
-Charles Oakley

Reggie would probably average more than low 20’s today. lol

[AlaskaHawks]

This take is probably worse from TDK than his take that Bynum would average 60 a night for a full season if he took 25 shots a night.

[Bush4Ever.]

Reggie would probably average more than low 20’s today. lol

Reggie is one of the relatively few players who could make a nice adjustment and fit in seamlessly.

That said, if Reggie is averaging 21-22 points a game to Curry's 17, it implies he'd average like 35 a game at Steph's peak, which is silly.

Old heads talking about how they'd lock Steph to 15-20 points a game with some magical formula, while observably not doing it in viewed reality to significantly worse players is like the guy at the bar who claims he bangs 8s and 9s all the time, when you see him directly strike out with 6s nonstop. It's in direct opposition to what you see with your eyes.

[Alex_Murphy]

the object of the game is to avoid fouling. it shouldn’t be used as a strategy in lieu of playing defense. hack a shaq was increasingly frustrating and disgusting to watch.

[thedangerouskitchen]

So now we're equating physicality with players ending up injured?

Pretty much, or rough equivalence, seeing as how this factor (according to this very legit and not made up source) takes a top 1-2 PG all-time, top shooter, top 10 ball-handler, and places him on a level that probably wouldn't even be all-star level.

When did we see *any* superstar targeted and impacted in that way?

Specific examples please. Legendary level players turning into non-all stars because of something related to toughness and grit and whatever boomer thing they are claiming.

Specifics. Not generalities. Show me the player(s), plays, injury reports, etc...

First, your TDK Derangement Syndrome has you "ass"uming TDK agrees with the notion that Steph wouldn't average more than 17-PPG in the 80's-90's... I didn't make the statement, nor did I endorse it in any way.

The next problem with your post is the claim that physicality = Defenses specifically targeting another player with the sole intention of trying to injury him. Players weren't "literally" trying to hurt each other (although with teams like the Bad Boys and early 90's Knicks you could argue they ddn't necessarily care if a guy got injured via a thug-like foul). Rather, the HOFER in question, who made the "we would hurt him" comment, was most likely alluding to how the players' mindset was in the 80's-90's... that being, no easy baskets.

Steph would still be an impact player in that era; however it's much EASIER to play in a wide-open, free-flowing, zero-contact style, when you don't have to worry about some 7-footer clotheslining you at the rim, or a Defender being allowed to grab/hold/bump you on the perimeter in an effort to get in-your-space and restrict your ability to move/dribble.

These intangibles don't show up on your graphs and charts, and in the 80's/90's Steph would see this type of Defense every night... and NO (before the BWGC starts posting their silly 1-minute clips), this wouldn't be the case for 48 minutes every single game; however Steph would be getting knocked on his ass (with hard fouls) a LOT more often AND (with less spacing and contact "allowed") it would be much harder for him to use his fancy dribbling to create space/open looks on the perimeter.

That's not even debatable; it's an irrefutable fact... and anyone who has a clue about how the game/mindset was in the 80's-90's understands this. So instead of focusing all your efforts on quantum statistical analysis (lol), perhaps you should spend more time learning about the history of the Era you love to hate on.

[Robceltsfan]

So now we're equating physicality with players ending up injured?

Pretty much, or rough equivalence, seeing as how this factor (according to this very legit and not made up source) takes a top 1-2 PG all-time, top shooter, top 10 ball-handler, and places him on a level that probably wouldn't even be all-star level.

When did we see *any* superstar targeted and impacted in that way?

Specific examples please. Legendary level players turning into non-all stars because of something related to toughness and grit and whatever boomer thing they are claiming.

Specifics. Not generalities. Show me the player(s), plays, injury reports, etc...

First, your TDK Derangement Syndrome has you "ass"uming TDK agrees with the notion that Steph wouldn't average more than 17-PPG in the 80's-90's... I didn't make the statement, nor did I endorse it in any way.

The next problem with your post is the claim that physicality = Defenses specifically targeting another player with the sole intention of trying to injury him. Players weren't "literally" trying to hurt each other (although with teams like the Bad Boys and early 90's Knicks you could argue they ddn't necessarily care if a guy got injured via a thug-like foul). Rather, the HOFER in question, who made the "we would hurt him" comment, was most likely alluding to how the players' mindset was in the 80's-90's... that being, no easy baskets.

Steph would still be an impact player in that era; however it's much EASIER to play in a wide-open, free-flowing, zero-contact style, when you don't have to worry about some 7-footer clotheslining you at the rim, or a Defender being allowed to grab/hold/bump you on the perimeter in an effort to get in-your-space and restrict your ability to move/dribble.

These intangibles don't show up on your graphs and charts, and in the 80's/90's Steph would see this type of Defense every night... and NO (before the BWGC starts posting their silly 1-minute clips), this wouldn't be the case for 48 minutes every single game; however Steph would be getting knocked on his ass (with hard fouls) a LOT more often AND (with less spacing and contact "allowed") it would be much harder for him to use his fancy dribbling to create space/open looks on the perimeter.

That's not even debatable; it's an irrefutable fact... and anyone who has a clue about how the game/mindset was in the 80's-90's understands this. So instead of focusing all your efforts on quantum statistical analysis (lol), perhaps you should spend more time learning about the history of the Era you love to hate on.

No, he wouldn't. Neither did anyone else. ALMOST NOBODY was covered 24 feet from the basket. And exactly 0.00000 players were covered 30 feet from the basket, which is well within Curry's range.

Curry would mind fuck that era. He's like nothing they had ever seen.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Pretty much, or rough equivalence, seeing as how this factor (according to this very legit and not made up source) takes a top 1-2 PG all-time, top shooter, top 10 ball-handler, and places him on a level that probably wouldn't even be all-star level.

When did we see *any* superstar targeted and impacted in that way?

Specific examples please. Legendary level players turning into non-all stars because of something related to toughness and grit and whatever boomer thing they are claiming.

Specifics. Not generalities. Show me the player(s), plays, injury reports, etc...

First, your TDK Derangement Syndrome has you "ass"uming TDK agrees with the notion that Steph wouldn't average more than 17-PPG in the 80's-90's... I didn't make the statement, nor did I endorse it in any way.

The next problem with your post is the claim that physicality = Defenses specifically targeting another player with the sole intention of trying to injury him. Players weren't "literally" trying to hurt each other (although with teams like the Bad Boys and early 90's Knicks you could argue they ddn't necessarily care if a guy got injured via a thug-like foul). Rather, the HOFER in question, who made the "we would hurt him" comment, was most likely alluding to how the players' mindset was in the 80's-90's... that being, no easy baskets.

Steph would still be an impact player in that era; however it's much EASIER to play in a wide-open, free-flowing, zero-contact style, when you don't have to worry about some 7-footer clotheslining you at the rim, or a Defender being allowed to grab/hold/bump you on the perimeter in an effort to get in-your-space and restrict your ability to move/dribble.

These intangibles don't show up on your graphs and charts, and in the 80's/90's Steph would see this type of Defense every night... and NO (before the BWGC starts posting their silly 1-minute clips), this wouldn't be the case for 48 minutes every single game; however Steph would be getting knocked on his ass (with hard fouls) a LOT more often AND (with less spacing and contact "allowed") it would be much harder for him to use his fancy dribbling to create space/open looks on the perimeter.

That's not even debatable; it's an irrefutable fact... and anyone who has a clue about how the game/mindset was in the 80's-90's understands this. So instead of focusing all your efforts on quantum statistical analysis (lol), perhaps you should spend more time learning about the history of the Era you love to hate on.

No, he wouldn't. Neither did anyone else. ALMOST NOBODY was covered 24 feet from the basket. And exactly 0.00000 players were covered 30 feet from the basket, which is well within Curry's range.

Curry would mind fuck that era. He's like nothing they had ever seen.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. These 90s nostalgic types have their head so far up their asses. Lol.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Pretty much, or rough equivalence, seeing as how this factor (according to this very legit and not made up source) takes a top 1-2 PG all-time, top shooter, top 10 ball-handler, and places him on a level that probably wouldn't even be all-star level.

When did we see *any* superstar targeted and impacted in that way?

Specific examples please. Legendary level players turning into non-all stars because of something related to toughness and grit and whatever boomer thing they are claiming.

Specifics. Not generalities. Show me the player(s), plays, injury reports, etc...

First, your TDK Derangement Syndrome has you "ass"uming TDK agrees with the notion that Steph wouldn't average more than 17-PPG in the 80's-90's... I didn't make the statement, nor did I endorse it in any way.

The next problem with your post is the claim that physicality = Defenses specifically targeting another player with the sole intention of trying to injury him. Players weren't "literally" trying to hurt each other (although with teams like the Bad Boys and early 90's Knicks you could argue they ddn't necessarily care if a guy got injured via a thug-like foul). Rather, the HOFER in question, who made the "we would hurt him" comment, was most likely alluding to how the players' mindset was in the 80's-90's... that being, no easy baskets.

Steph would still be an impact player in that era; however it's much EASIER to play in a wide-open, free-flowing, zero-contact style, when you don't have to worry about some 7-footer clotheslining you at the rim, or a Defender being allowed to grab/hold/bump you on the perimeter in an effort to get in-your-space and restrict your ability to move/dribble.

These intangibles don't show up on your graphs and charts, and in the 80's/90's Steph would see this type of Defense every night... and NO (before the BWGC starts posting their silly 1-minute clips), this wouldn't be the case for 48 minutes every single game; however Steph would be getting knocked on his ass (with hard fouls) a LOT more often AND (with less spacing and contact "allowed") it would be much harder for him to use his fancy dribbling to create space/open looks on the perimeter.

That's not even debatable; it's an irrefutable fact... and anyone who has a clue about how the game/mindset was in the 80's-90's understands this. So instead of focusing all your efforts on quantum statistical analysis (lol), perhaps you should spend more time learning about the history of the Era you love to hate on.

No, he wouldn't. Neither did anyone else. ALMOST NOBODY was covered 24 feet from the basket. And exactly 0.00000 players were covered 30 feet from the basket, which is well within Curry's range.

Curry would mind fuck that era. He's like nothing they had ever seen.

Pssst... hey genius: If Curry played in the 90's he WOULDN'T be camping out on the perimeter all game long because he would be forced to adapt to the style/rules in place AT THE TIME... and at the time the game was played inside-out, meaning 3-point shooting wasn't a focal point.

If he played in the 90's he'd be another Reggie Miller.

Fact.

[thedangerouskitchen]

at the BWGC/Modern Era fanboys thinking players today would walk into the 90's and start playing Modern Era ball.



You guys can't be that clueless... can you?

[Robceltsfan]

Oh...so ACTUAL skills don't matter.

You and your boy Deez always talk about how players from back then would obviously be better shooters if they played now, but Curry just happens to not get to utilize his greatest skills back then.

Makes sense!

Based on that, the Shaqs, Wilts & Jabbars of the world would be useless today because "teams don't play like that now". AMIRITE???

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

Nostalgic boomer retards perpetually stuck in the past, crying while the world passes them by lol