ESPN’s star personality Stephen A. Smith has been on an absolute warpath since March. First, he took aim at LeBron James and his son Bronny James, stirring controversy with his sharp criticism.
Now, fresh off Stephen Curry’s incredible performance against the Memphis Grizzlies on April 1 in which Curry scored 52 points, Smith has turned his attention to the Warriors’ superstar. And this time, his latest revelation has sent shockwaves through the NBA world.
Stephen A. Smith Has a Message From a Hall of Famer
On a recent episode of “First Take”, Smith claimed that an anonymous Hall of Famer told him that Curry couldn’t have played in the past era and that if he had, he would have ended up getting hurt.
“I had a Hall of Famer come up to me and said to me, ‘Steph Curry would not have averaged more than 17 points a game. Now obviously, I think that that person should have been drug tested when he said that.”
“But then I quieted down, because he wasn’t talking about his skill set. He said, ‘In our era, we would’ve hurt him. He said, ‘He’d have had to run through picks, he wouldn’t have been as protected by the officials. The game is exponentially more physical now than it was then. Remember when he came into the league with the ankle injury? He’d have never recovered from that with us,” said Smith during the recent episode of his show.
“I had a Hall of Famer come up to me and said to me, ‘Steph Curry would not have averaged more than 17 points a game. … In our era, we would’ve hurt him.'”
– Stephen A. Smith
(🎥 @FirstTake )
— NBACentral (@TheDunkCentral) April 2, 2025
Smith is no stranger to dropping bombshells, but this one came with a shroud of secrecy. He refused to reveal which Hall of Famer made the shocking statement, fueling speculation across social media. However, the timing of this comment raised eyebrows. It surfaced just after Curry spoke about gaps in officiating during his game against Memphis.
The notion that Curry wouldn’t have been able to play well in a more physical era ignores one crucial reality—great players adapt.
Take Michael Jordan, for example. He entered the NBA in a bruising, hand-check-heavy league and still dominated. Similarly, James evolved his game as defenses changed over the years. There’s no reason to believe Curry wouldn’t have done the same.
In fact, he’s already done it. The “Chef” entered the league in 2009 and had to undergo ankle injuries in 2011 and 2012. Did it change anything for him? No! He was ultimately able to overcome the problems and see where he is now – a leader of three-pointers with 4029 three-pointers.
The claim that Curry would have been hurt in past eras sounds more like an old-school player’s way of holding onto their legacy rather than an objective assessment of basketball talent. And if history has shown us anything, it’s that legends find a way to shine, no matter the circumstances.
NBA on TNT Host Had a Problem With This Wild Take
While Smith didn’t fully agree with the anonymous Hall of Famer’s controversial statement about Curry, he also didn’t completely dismiss it. However, Adam Lefkoe, the host of NBA on TNT’s Tuesday coverage, took major issue with the remark, calling it out as a ridiculous take.
The anonymous Hall of Famer claimed that Curry wouldn’t survive in the older, more physical NBA era. While this type of statement isn’t new, Lefkoe made it clear in a tweet that he found it absurd that former players continue to critique the current generation based on physicality rather than actual basketball skill.
“Questioning Steph Curry’s ability to be great in any era is frustratingly absurd. Why is the most common reason today’s players wouldn’t survive in past eras not about skill or strategy – but ‘we’d beat them up’? Not better basketball. Just violence,” wrote Lefkoe in a tweet.
Despite being one of the smaller superstars in NBA history, Curry continues to dominate by averaging 24.4 PPG and 6.1 RPG. He has taken his team to the fifth position in the Western Conference with a 44-31 record, thus keeping alive the chances of playoff contention. His success further debunks the narrative that modern players aren’t tough enough to compete with past eras.