Lebrons Cavs vs Jordan’s Bulls

[tlance]

How I see it. IF he didn't make it in the 90s it would be because a coach didn't know how to use him right. Not because he couldn't handle getting hit.

Yeah I agree with that.

Could have been college/high school coaches at fault there too. He very nearly didn’t get any scholarship offers in whatever year it was he graduated.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah, that Lebron dude is a pretty solid ballplayer. lol

2008-09 would have been the perfect time to have it too. Kobe was 30 and just starting the last couple of seasons of his prime and Lebron was 24 and just entering his.

I think the Lakers take it because Kobe was more experienced and had more help than Lebron.

Plus, the coaching match up was Phil against Mike Brown.

But win or lose, Lebron would have wanted to show out against Kobe, so you know he'd have had a monster series.

Now, had the Lakers been able to get out of the West when Lebron was in Miami...I don't think the Lakers win any of those years.

If this was, say, a 55 win team I might be less inclined to give the Cavs much of a chance. 66 wins is pretty damn good, though. They didn't have wade/Bosh or Krie/Love but they had some talent. You cannot win 66 by accident.

Mike Brown, BTW, has taken a team with 1 star to the Finals. Phillip needs at least 2. Just sayin'.

 

[trojanfan12]

If this was, say, a 55 win team I might be less inclined to give the Cavs much of a chance. 66 wins is pretty damn good, though. They didn't have wade/Bosh or Krie/Love but they had some talent. You cannot win 66 by accident.

The Lakers won 65 that year. In the tougher conference.

Mike Brown, BTW, has taken a team with 1 star to the Finals. Phillip needs at least 2. Just sayin'.

Lebron took a team with 1 star to the finals. Mike Brown was just along for the ride.

In seriousness though, Brown was a good defensive coach. But he's not close to Phil level as a coach.

 

[flyerhawk]

right...steph never gets hit. This was easy to find. My point is thinking steph could not play in the 90s and play well is absurd.

Right. The game is just as violent today as it was in 1992.

 

[dtgold88]

Right. The game is just as violent today as it was in 1992.

Never said it was "just as violent". But Steph gets hit all the time and has lived to tell about it.

Ever gonna explain how guys like BJ armstrong or Mark Price started and played well in the rugged 90s?

of course you wont

 

[flyerhawk]

Never said it was "just as violent". But Steph gets hit all the time and has lived to tell about it.

Ever gonna explain how guys like BJ armstrong or Mark Price started and played well in the rugged 90s?

of course you wont

Why do I need to explain that? Did Armstrong or Price have Curry's injury history?

 

[flyerhawk]

Never said it was "just as violent". But Steph gets hit all the time and has lived to tell about it.

Ever gonna explain how guys like BJ armstrong or Mark Price started and played well in the rugged 90s?

of course you wont

You know, what? You win. I'm sure Curry would have just thrived in the 90s just like today.

 

[dtgold88]

Why do I need to explain that? Did Armstrong or Price have Curry's injury history?

Getting hit and knocked around in the upper body promotes ankle injuries? Or were you thinking they'd be stepping on and diving at Curry's feet? and, yes, Price had his share of injuries. and still he survived the 90s.

Strike 1.

Look, you made an absurd comment. You can own it and move on (suggested) or keep making more foolish comments and digging the hole deeper.

 

[flyerhawk]

Getting hit and knocked around in the upper body promotes ankle injuries? Or were you thinking they'd be stepping on and diving at Curry's feet? and, yes, Price had his share of injuries. and still he survived the 90s.

Strike 1.

Look, you made an absurd comment. You can own it and move on (suggested) or keep making more foolish comments and digging the hole deeper.

This is why people generally think you are a dick.

There was nothing "foolish" about my comment. It was a claim based on a hypothetical. You can agree with it or disagree with it. If you want to think that Steph Curry would have flourished in the NBA in 1992, knock yourself out. I really don't give a shit. Just as I no longer find it worthwhile to "argue" with you about whether Curry would get knocked around if he played in the early 90s.

 

[dtgold88]

This is why people generally think you are a dick.

There was nothing "foolish" about my comment. It was a claim based on a hypothetical. You can agree with it or disagree with it. If you want to think that Steph Curry would have flourished in the NBA in 1992, knock yourself out. I really don't give a shit. Just as I no longer find it worthwhile to "argue" with you about whether Curry would get knocked around if he played in the early 90s.

I can be an ass. wont get a disagreement from me on that. You made a foolish comment and you are one of a handful here who cannot own up to it when you are called out on an absurd comment. You were given rational reasons why you might be off base (like Price and BJ flourishing in the 90s) and still not enough for you to admit the idea a great player like Curry would be reduced to a bench guy might be off base.

I need to back down quicker with those like you who cannot own their irrational. No disagreement. But sometimes I enjoy the free comedy they might provide.

 

[flyerhawk]

I can be an ass. wont get a disagreement from me on that. You made a foolish comment and you are one of a handful here who cannot own up to it when you are called out on an absurd comment. You were given rational reasons why you might be off base (like Price and BJ flourishing in the 90s) and still not enough for you to admit the idea a great player like Curry would be reduced to a bench guy might be off base.

I need to back down quicker with those like you who cannot own their irrational. No disagreement. But sometimes I enjoy the free comedy they might provide.

I get annoyed when people grab a specific sentence and try to argue about the semantics of it rather than the general point that was being made.

I wasn't saying he would be a bench player. I was saying that he would be constantly injured because he would get beaten up.

But I would also say that there is a legitimate possibility that he would be treated the same as someone like Steve Kerr was. A role player who would be a defensive liability.

Different rules and different refs would enable some players to excel in some eras and not in others.

Steph Curry is one of my favorite players. But I can also see that he is a product of the era.

 

[tlance]

I get annoyed when people grab a specific sentence and try to argue about the semantics of it rather than the general point that was being made.

I wasn't saying he would be a bench player. I was saying that he would be constantly injured because he would get beaten up.

But I would also say that there is a legitimate possibility that he would be treated the same as someone like Steve Kerr was. A role player who would be a defensive liability.

Different rules and different refs would enable some players to excel in some eras and not in others.

Steph Curry is one of my favorite players. But I can also see that he is a product of the era.

I agree with your premise for the most part. In general, there aren’t many stars from the modern era who would have difficulty in the past eras, IMO, but Curry, Young, players like that would certainly be examples of guys who could struggle in the 90s.

But I still think with Curry’s skill set there would still be a pathway to stardom if used correctly. Just would have been a lot less likely that pathway would have been the one taken.

And you hit the nail on the head with @dtgold88. He is tedious as hell to deal with because he won’t argue your point, he picks at minute details that make up your point and relentless hammers on those which often ends up changing the argument to something completely different.

I don’t think it is fun at all to argue semantics.

 

[flyerhawk]

I agree with your premise for the most part. In general, there aren’t many stars from the modern era who would have difficulty in the past eras, IMO, but Curry, Young, players like that would certainly be examples of guys who could struggle in the 90s.

But I still think with Curry’s skill set there would still be a pathway to stardom if used correctly. Just would have been a lot less likely that pathway would have been the one taken.

And you hit the nail on the head with @dtgold88. He is tedious as hell to deal with because he won’t argue your point, he picks at minute details that make up your point and relentless hammers on those which often ends up changing the argument to something completely different.

I don’t think it is fun at all to argue semantics.

The big problem for Curry would be to get a coach to actually buy in to using him effectively. The 3 point shot was viewed very differently in the 90s than it is today. And that change in attitude was driven, to a large degree, by a bunch of math nerds determining that the 3 point shot was a statistically better shot to take than a mid-range jumper.

So if Steph Curry were to walk onto the 92 Celtics they would see a guy who would struggle to defend against bigger guards like Mark Jackson, who was a lethal outside shooter and could make his own shot but got pummeled frequently when he drove to the hoop. Furthermore, he would likely struggle with the hand check defense and getting his shot off cleanly.

Now if you took the 2017 Warriors and transplanted the entire team to 1992, that would be an interesting thought experiment. They would really struggle in the paint but teams would be just baffled with their perimeter shooting success especially on pick and rolls. Of course, there is no way to know how that would have really worked out but it is fun to speculate.

As for @dtgold88 I generally don't mind him but I do dislike when he pitbulls some tangential point so he can "win" an argument and then starts spiking the football over and over again about that point.

 

[tlance]

The big problem for Curry would be to get a coach to actually buy in to using him effectively. The 3 point shot was viewed very differently in the 90s than it is today. And that change in attitude was driven, to a large degree, by a bunch of math nerds determining that the 3 point shot was a statistically better shot to take than a mid-range jumper.

So if Steph Curry were to walk onto the 92 Celtics they would see a guy who would struggle to defend against bigger guards like Mark Jackson, who was a lethal outside shooter and could make his own shot but got pummeled frequently when he drove to the hoop. Furthermore, he would likely struggle with the hand check defense and getting his shot off cleanly.

Now if you took the 2017 Warriors and transplanted the entire team to 1992, that would be an interesting thought experiment. They would really struggle in the paint but teams would be just baffled with their perimeter shooting success especially on pick and rolls. Of course, there is no way to know how that would have really worked out but it is fun to speculate.

As for @dtgold88 I generally don't mind him but I do dislike when he pitbulls some tangential point so he can "win" an argument and then starts spiking the football over and over again about that point.

I agree.

All about system and usage.

I am obviously nowhere near the player Curry is, but I came up in the 90s and I could really shoot. My high school coach was old school. He benched me every time I took a shot he didn’t like whether it went in or not.

Since He believed in layups and post touches, our entire offense ran through our 6’3 center. And guards had lots of restrictions on when we were allowed to shoot. You can probably guess how well that worked.

 

[flyerhawk]

I agree.

All about system and usage.

I am obviously nowhere near the player Curry is, but I came up in the 90s and I could really shoot. My high school coach was old school. He benched me every time I took a shot he didn’t like whether it went in or not.

Since He believed in layups and post touches, our entire offense ran through our 6’3 center. And guards had lots of restrictions on when we were allowed to shoot. You can probably guess how well that worked.

Feed the big man was basically default basketball strategy from Wilt Chamberlain until MJ. After MJ the feed the big man strategy was also mixed in with hero ball isolation to make, IMO, the less appealing brand of basketball in the last 40 years.

Pretty happy that era of basketball is over although the NBA does need to fix a few things with today's game, specifically the foul hunting crap. IMO, if a player leans forward and makes contact in his shot it should either be a no call or a charge. I know that the rule already says that but the league needs to instruct the refs to actually call it that way.

 

[trojanfan12]

I agree.

All about system and usage.

I am obviously nowhere near the player Curry is, but I came up in the 90s and I could really shoot. My high school coach was old school. He benched me every time I took a shot he didn’t like whether it went in or not.
Since He believed in layups and post touches, our entire offense ran through our 6’3 center. And guards had lots of restrictions on when we were allowed to shoot. You can probably guess how well that worked.

That's interesting. Definitely all about the system and also, how willing a coach is to adjust his.

I was coaching high school basketball in the 90's. I was head coach for the JV and assistant coach for the varsity.

The varsity coach was as old school as it gets when it came to yelling at players, running an old school system (wanted 4 passes before any shot type stuff). The day he hired me and talked about the players he said "When you have racehorses you race. When you have plow horses, you plow. We're gonna plow." lol

But, he was smart enough to tweak his system to fit his players.

My first season coaching with him, we ran his offense to the T on both JV and Varsity and we didn't win a lot at either level.

The 2nd season was different. A kid who had been a junior that first season, went to a couple of basketball camps, did some work with a shooting coach and came back his senior year as really good 3 point shooter. We ran the same system, but he tweaked it to feature that kid. Kid ended up leading the county in 3 point shooting and we made the playoffs for the first time in almost a decade.

On the JV, I figured out that I had kids who were actually more athletic than the kids on the varsity, so I kept the same offense, but sped it up to fit them. The varsity coach came up to me after the 3rd game where we ran the sped up version and said "Next year, we're gonna race". lol

 

[Wamu]

That's interesting. Definitely all about the system and also, how willing a coach is to adjust his.

I was coaching high school basketball in the 90's. I was head coach for the JV and assistant coach for the varsity.

The varsity coach was as old school as it gets when it came to yelling at players, running an old school system (wanted 4 passes before any shot type stuff). The day he hired me and talked about the players he said "When you have racehorses you race. When you have plow horses, you plow. We're gonna plow." lol

But, he was smart enough to tweak his system to fit his players.

My first season coaching with him, we ran his offense to the T on both JV and Varsity and we didn't win a lot at either level.

The 2nd season was different. A kid who had been a junior that first season, went to a couple of basketball camps, did some work with a shooting coach and came back his senior year as really good 3 point shooter. We ran the same system, but he tweaked it to feature that kid. Kid ended up leading the county in 3 point shooting and we made the playoffs for the first time in almost a decade.

On the JV, I figured out that I had kids who were actually more athletic than the kids on the varsity, so I kept the same offense, but sped it up to fit them. The varsity coach came up to me after the 3rd game where we ran the sped up version and said "Next year, we're gonna race". lol

When you were a JV coach did you actually win any games? I mean how you doing?

 

[trojanfan12]

When you were a JV coach did you actually win any games? I mean how you doing?

lol

A couple.

 

[tlance]

That's interesting. Definitely all about the system and also, how willing a coach is to adjust his.

I was coaching high school basketball in the 90's. I was head coach for the JV and assistant coach for the varsity.

The varsity coach was as old school as it gets when it came to yelling at players, running an old school system (wanted 4 passes before any shot type stuff). The day he hired me and talked about the players he said "When you have racehorses you race. When you have plow horses, you plow. We're gonna plow." lol

But, he was smart enough to tweak his system to fit his players.

My first season coaching with him, we ran his offense to the T on both JV and Varsity and we didn't win a lot at either level.

The 2nd season was different. A kid who had been a junior that first season, went to a couple of basketball camps, did some work with a shooting coach and came back his senior year as really good 3 point shooter. We ran the same system, but he tweaked it to feature that kid. Kid ended up leading the county in 3 point shooting and we made the playoffs for the first time in almost a decade.

On the JV, I figured out that I had kids who were actually more athletic than the kids on the varsity, so I kept the same offense, but sped it up to fit them. The varsity coach came up to me after the 3rd game where we ran the sped up version and said "Next year, we're gonna race". lol

Yeah. Sounds like a good coach.

My high school coach was not.

We didn’t have a ton of talent, so we probably would have been average at best. But we had a couple shooters and a couple guards who could get in the lane and create. Would have been fun to play a pace and space style.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah. Sounds like a good coach.

My high school coach was not.

We didn’t have a ton of talent, so we probably would have been average at best. But we had a couple shooters and a couple guards who could get in the lane and create. Would have been fun to play a pace and space style.

He was a bit of an enigma.

He wasn't Bob Knight level when it came to yelling, etc. but he definitely bruised a few egos. He told me that part of my job was to help keep him check. lol

Every once in a while I'd have to pull a kid aside and basically tell him..."Listen to what he says, not how he says it" and "You only need to worry if he stops yelling at you, because if that happens, he's given up on you".