Exactly. It was a crappy plan. It’s revisionist history to act like the FO didn’t want that
If you were to put Steph Curry on the 2001 Sixers would they still make the finals?
- Thread starter Take It In Blood
- Start date
Yeah.
One thing though: Bazemore is technically better than most of them offensively (from what I know, someone else who watched can say otherwise), but it's important to note two things:
1) The average role player now usually has a better skillset/talent than the average player back then. A backup guard like Jordan Clarkson would be that typical starting iso guard number 1 player on an eastern conference team back then.
2) That Philly team was built to be defensive, to support A.I. This Warriors team with Draymond, Wiggins, Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman, etc. was supposed to be a somewhat modern version of that. Like I implied before, modern day defensive stars can't get away with being 1-way players - you're expected to score. So like I said before, it's relative.
So yes, Bazemore is better than most of AI's supporting cast offensively in a vacuum. But relative? Not quite. Overall, relatively speaking, his supporting cast this year could be considered worse than AI's: The Warriors actually started playing better Wiseman and Oubre got hurt and stopped playing for them. The Warriors offensive rating with Curry on the bench was one of the worst ever, actually. With him on, they were above average this year. (This is also why he got MVP votes).
Looking at it from a pure skill standpoint, we forget at AI and Curry were more similar than we remember: AI moved off-ball and slashed a lot, just like Curry. Both have great handles (AI has GOAT level handles, but Curry's handles have always been underrated and is probably just behind Kyrie on that front). AI was crafty at finishing at the rim.. and so is Curry.
I think Curry with his skills and gravity gets the 76ers to the Finals.
I think Curry with his skills and gravity gets the 76ers to the Finals.
Is there anyone here who thinks that Ray Allen, Lindsay Hunter, and 31yo Sam Cassell are shutting Steph down on defense? Scott Williams and 33yo Ervin Johnson protecting the rim? Bucks were a really bad defensive team across the board that year.
Iverson shot just 34% against the Bucks, making 12 threes in 7 games. In the four wins he shot 10-32, 13-35, 5-27, and 17-33.
If you don't think current Steph could surpass that you don't watch basketball. Steph has never shot less than 40% and never made fewer than 3 threes/game in any series in his NBA career, and most of his opponents had better defenses than that. Plus it was 2001 so the Bucks wouldn't even be allowed to zone, WTF they gonna do when Steph can shoot 30 feet from the rim and their only options are to send a hard double or let him cook Sam or Lindsay out of their shoes one-on-one?
Against that lineup with that many shot attempts Steph gonna do them like the 2015 Pelicans or 2016 Blazers, probably scoring about 35ppg on decent shooting with 5+ threes/game. He's get the same or more points on better efficiency and open up shyt for his teammates that much more too.
Iverson shot just 34% against the Bucks, making 12 threes in 7 games. In the four wins he shot 10-32, 13-35, 5-27, and 17-33.
If you don't think current Steph could surpass that you don't watch basketball. Steph has never shot less than 40% and never made fewer than 3 threes/game in any series in his NBA career, and most of his opponents had better defenses than that. Plus it was 2001 so the Bucks wouldn't even be allowed to zone, WTF they gonna do when Steph can shoot 30 feet from the rim and their only options are to send a hard double or let him cook Sam or Lindsay out of their shoes one-on-one?
Against that lineup with that many shot attempts Steph gonna do them like the 2015 Pelicans or 2016 Blazers, probably scoring about 35ppg on decent shooting with 5+ threes/game. He's get the same or more points on better efficiency and open up shyt for his teammates that much more too.
I'd agree, biggest differences being AI is faster but Steph is a faaaaar better shooter. I'd say Steph has better court vision too but Iverson sometimes got a worse rep than he deserved on that one.
They're also pretty similar defensively, small and quick and get more than their share of steals but get cooked one-on-one.
Yup.
At this point, the question isn't whether Steph could lead that team to the finals. He obviously would (the 2000s weren't that physical, modern players would adjust ffs. Even Harden would.).
The question is would he beat the Lakers? That one is tougher. Steph's gravity could open things up offensively. But I'm not sure what would change defensively. The series would definitely go 7 though, as the Lakers low key didn't blow out Philly until game 4. More importantly the Lakers shot the 3 ball really well later in that series. Curry's 3 ball shooting would help.
I think Sixers still lose and it isn't close. Iverson shot better that series and still only barely won one game when he went crazy. And everyone else on the Sixers shot like crap. Plus young Kobe got cooked by Iverson but Steph should actually be a better matchup for him, he'd still get scored on but would make Steph work. I think Curry might outperform Iverson just cause of the threes but I don't see him getting more than 2 games against those Lakers without more help.
its crazy people expect Steph to go far with a historically bad team. The same exact team that won 15 games last season out of 65.
And despite that, he was 37-26 as a starter with them. They were hovering that 4th-6th spot with them when healthy before getting hurt. Then he got hurt and they fell to 11.
And even then, in any other year, they are the 8th seed officially, but had to play a play-in game against the 7th seed Lakers and 9th seed Grizzlies. And even then, he still played well. All Draymond had to do was get in probably the most easiest look in NBA history and they are in the playoffs:
That still pisses me off. Even with Draymond and Steph committing over 20 turnovers in 2 games between them, they win if draymond has a midrange shot.
Doesn't even need a real midrange shot, he just needed to get in that floaterThat still pisses me off. Even with Draymond and Steph committing over 20 turnovers in 2 games between them, they win if draymond has a midrange shot.
This dude averaged 7 points a game this season
Curry is gonna be responsible for putting this nikka in the hall of fame
His HOF speech gotta have a separate segment of Steph slurping tbhDoesn't even need a real midrange shot, he just needed to get in that floater
This dude averaged 7 points a game this season
Curry is gonna be responsible for putting this nikka in the hall of fame
people posting FG% that steph was able to rack up while playing with other high-powered scorers.
those numbers arent gonna be as high when youre not taking a bunch of wide-open shots and youre the sole focus of the defense.
those numbers arent gonna be as high when youre not taking a bunch of wide-open shots and youre the sole focus of the defense.
MooseMouthMthafuga
Veteran
Those were some muddled up, slow grind games back then.The whole energy was different than it is now.Would be interesting to see how Steph would adapt.AI was more of a relentless slasher.Steph's more finesse.He'd rather snipe & pick you apart from a distance.His next best offensive player would be who? 6th Man Aaron McKie? Wish we could see it.That would be some interesting shyt.
So you going to Act like Steph wasn’t doing it by himself this past season with no one on the roster worth a damn?