This is how misinformed you are:
Actual handchecking was outlawed by 1980, and defenders prior to that season didn't have much framework on how to defend because the game was really in its infancy, in a professional capacity. The defenders and defensive schemes that Steph has come up against since his rookie year are light years ahead, in every single possible way imaginable.
He's the most guarded off-ball player in history, he's the most grabbed, pulled and held off-ball player in history, purely because teams are too scared of him getting a clear look at the basket the moment he enters the halfcourt. He's absolutely no beneficiary of freedom of movement, and truthfully nobody is or was, not by any notable margin in relation to players that have existed in the modern era. Ever since star calls became a thing, it doesn't matter the era, because they've all benefitted by favourable officiating more than your typical role player.
You couldn't breathe on MJ once he became a superstar.
Well, given that the 1993 season (96.8 possession average) was considerably more fast-paced compared to 2009 (92.7 possession average), where he'd be up against weaker defenders and less advanced defensive schemes, and dependent on what team he was drafted to, he'd eclipse his rookie average.
What the hell does Kobe averaging 8 ppg in 1996 have to do with anything? How is it even remotely relavant?
Steph was 21 when he entered the league; Kobe was 18. Steph had already played three years of college ball; Kobe was the first guard ever to be drafted straight out of high school.
Kobe's lack of minutes and limited role were partly due to his age/inexperience, and partly because Van Exel and Eddie Jones were already the established starting guards on the Lakers. Del Harris [foolishly] didn't think he was ready, despite the fact he showed his prowess during the Summer League, and was by far the most dominant player, despite still being a teenager.
He didn't have to get stronger to have a greater role than he did. I don't know where you're getting that nonsense from. He had already proven he was more than capable enough to handle the physicality on both ends of the floor. He was purely a victim of circumstance during his rookie season. This is the same cat who when he was 15/16, used to scrimmage against NBA talent and dominate them. He was more than ready, it's just the league was different back then and were reluctant to give teenagers the benefit of the doubt; there was a lot of pushback to players coming straight out of HS and into the league.
What the hell are you even talking about? Who are they? And how are their opinions reflective of reality?
Why would cats who played in that era and fans alike say they'd average less today? They would only be undermining their own abilities, and for the fans of that era, their own cognitive bias through rosy retrospection means they're hardly going to downplay their childhood heroes. Or do you seem to think that their opinions are entirely objective and not clouded by any sort of bias?
