NBA Hall of Famer claims Stephen Curry wouldn’t have averaged 17 points per game in his era

In recent weeks, there has been much discussion about how certain players would perform if they played in different eras, such as Chicago Bulls legend Scottie Pippen, who named the player that could dominate in any NBA era. However, a Hall of Famer recently claimed that Golden State Warriors superstar Stephen Curry wouldn’t have averaged 17 points per game in his era.

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith broke the news on “First Take,” revealing that an NBA Hall of Famer approached him with this bold statement about Curry’s struggles in a more physical era.

“I had a Hall of Famer come up to me and say to me, quote, ‘Steph Curry would not have averaged more than 17 points a game,’” Smith said. “Now, obviously, I think that person should have been drug tested when he said that to me”.

However, Smith admitted that after hearing the reasoning, he understood where the Hall of Famer was coming from. “I quieted down—because he wasn’t talking about his skill set,” Smith continued. “He said, ‘In our era, we would have hurt him.’ He said, ‘We would have hurt him.’ He said, ‘He would have had to run through picks. He wouldn’t have been as protected by the officials’”.

Stephen Curry #30 of the Golden State Warriors reacts after making his 4000th career three-pointer against the Sacramento Kings. (Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images)

The Hall of Famer then pointed to Curry’s early career ankle injuries as a key factor in why he wouldn’t have been able to thrive in a more physical game. “Remember when he came into the league with the ankle injury? He had never recovered from that with us. We would have made sure that we tripped him every chance we got,” he added.

see also

Warriors’ Stephen Curry receives another vote as the most influential player in history

How the NBA has evolved over time

There’s no doubt that the NBA has changed drastically over the years—both in terms of rules and playing styles. The Hall of Famer’s argument was not about Curry’s skill, but rather how the game’s physicality in past decades would have made it harder for him to succeed.

“He wasn’t talking about basketball,” Smith clarified. “They were talking about—this is the elements that come with the game that we had to endure that these guys don’t have to even think about”.

Smith also acknowledged that today’s players are more talented than ever before, thanks to natural evolution and advancements in training and technology. “Now, of course, from a talent perspective, the talent is clearly superior now to what it once was. Evolution kicks in“.

However, he noted that older players feel their road to success was far more difficult due to how the game was played in their era. “The problem is, when they were playing, they were judged so harshly. And all of those things were taken into consideration,” he explained. “If they look at it now—rule changes, no hand-checking at all, the absence of physicality that exists now compared to what once was—the road traveled was far less arduous than it is now, in their eyes“.

NBA legends want more recognition from today’s stars

Smith also pointed out that many former players feel underappreciated by the current generation, believing that modern players don’t fully acknowledge how difficult the game was in the past.

“And they’re saying, if these brothers had to go through what we went through… So when they’re hearing these players talk, they expect to hear that level of appreciation,” Smith noted.

According to Smith, the easiest way to settle this debate would be for today’s stars to openly admit how tough it would have been to play in past decades. “If today’s players came out—and I’m not saying they should… if today’s players came out and said, ‘Man, I’m glad I wasn’t playing during y’all era. Hell, I would’ve gotten mugged. They would’ve beat the hell out of me’—if they said something like that, that ends the whole thing,” he added.