Peaks project update: #9

[E-Balla]

Magic isn't the best post scorer ever, but he's the best post player ever imo, thanks to his ability to create opportunities for others from the post.

Claiming Magic is limited in the half court, especially in comparison to Curry of all players (a guy who's genuinely limited for ATG standards on the half court), is just utterly bizarre. Especially late in his career Magic had arguably more mastery over the pace of the game than anyone else ever.

That's a good point I didn't even think of while reading his post. Curry is extremely limited on ball in halfcourt sets, that's actually the main thrust of my argument against him. He can't consistently get to the rim, or create good looks on ball so defenses that can limit his ability to get shots off an make him pass can easily halt the offense. The 2016 Finals was full of plays where Curry was trapped and turned it over. Off ball he's amazing but if you're not Reggie Miller there's a limit to how much impact you can have without the ball.

I really don’t understand your viewpoint when Curry is significantly more impactful both on and off-ball in comparison to Reggie.

Curry’s limitations on-ball in 2016 were a direct result of his injury. He couldnt even iso Kyrie 1 vs 1 that series.

Btw I am very interested in anything you have that may suggest Magic is better in the post than Kareem

I don't think Curry is more impactful than Reggie offball. Remember Reggie by himself was leading those offenses to a +6.5 ORTG against top 5 defenses (+6.4 overall) in the playoffs through his whole career. 95% of that was work he was doing off ball. I don't think any player is anywhere near Reggie when it comes to impact without the ball, he was just so consistent while other guys always disappear in some games or for long stretches in game.

Again to some people Curry's inability to get a bucket had to do with a mild MCL sprain he sat out 3 weeks for (not to mention the time between him coming back and the Finals) and showed no signs of being limited by until the Finals. To others we think he wasn't any more banged up than the average player at that point in the season and he was actually just not playing well because Curry's never been great at taking PGs off the bounce and he's never been particularly great at the point part of being a point guard with below average vision and passing ability for a starting PG. He's not super athletic and he doesn't have super handles so he's limited in his ability to penetrate so he can't make up for his lack of vision.

Actually looking at the numbers now Curry doubled his isolations in the playoffs (probably because Curry mostly isos on big men and they mismatch hunt more in the playoffs) and was way more efficient on isolations than in the regular season in the 2016 playoffs. His scoring wasn't his biggest issue at all, his ability to play point guard and handle simple traps on the PNR against Cleveland was.

That said looking at the numbers now (I'd like to add I've been saying this since I saw those games live but I've never looked the numbers up) the real drop off in his scoring production came in the pick and roll. Curry in 2016 was the most efficient high volume PNR player in the league averaging 1.11 ppp. In the playoffs he averaged 0.7 ppp with a 28.3 TOV% in the pick and roll. That lends a lot of credence to my argument that what really messed him up was Cleveland having the options to trap him with their bigs and Curry just failing to do things most elite PGs in the league do easily.

Spoiler:

And here's a few old posts from me on this same topic, this one from Feb of 2016 while I was saying Curry was having the GOAT season:

Curry still doesn't play traps perfectly but like you said the offense is built to run around him being trapped so as long as his players are in their spots he makes the right plays. At times in the playoffs both Cleveland and Memphis were able to make sure people weren't hitting their places on the floor and it led to Delly and Conley looking like Curry Kryptonite for most of the series. He's kinda had this problem dating back to Davidson with his ability to tell where the defense is shifting and coming from while making a move and looking to score the ball on the perimeter. I mean when you're usually the best look you don't need to look anywhere else often. So far this season he's decided to shoot anyway like he did at Davidson and like he should've been doing prior to just now. When he's gunning he's practically breaking the game of basketball.

And I will say you are right that Mark didn't prepare him at all. At times he'd get trapped the same way on the same PNR he ran 3 other times and got trapped on and I'd think why did Mark not tell them either how to break the play (ie where the help was coming from) or tell them to not run the same sets and PNR looks.

From June 2016 after the Finals:

Where I'm at right now Curry is top 10 (unless we do multiple seasons per player). Curry is right with Kobe and Lebron but under Nash, Magic, Oscar, Bird, Jordan, Paul.

I was always high on Curry but strictly because of his shooting. I've been on here for the longest saying that while I thought Curry was the best in the league (now I think it's been Lebron - 2 times vastly outplaying him in the Finals cements that) with an average jumper he'd be worse than Jeff Teague. This season his performance was well above last year's but it was because he decided to be a SG instead of a PG (he just started shooting a ton a relegated on ball duties to Draymond). I didn't really see anywhere he personally improved but changing his play style to involve less of his weaknesses made sense. He's not a high IQ guy and he's not a good passer for a starting PG. His handles are very loose but work because his shot is scary so everyone plays him close and he's not good at getting to the rim when people play him at a regular distance (but no one does that because he'll pull from 25 and make it 45% of the time).

In the Finals we saw all of that front and center. His team had a 108.5 ORTG which isn't bad and he averaged 22.6 ppg on 58 TS% (again he can score at will) but he over dribbled constantly, made terrible decisions passing the ball, and valued being flashy over winning. When a PG ends a series with 3.7 apg, 4.2 topg, 3.6 fpg, and a 102 ORTG there's something wrong and just in game 7 alone (which was a 4 point game there was many baffling turnovers by Curry).

https://streamable.com/j4ny
https://streamable.com/o3cz
https://streamable.com/sbco
https://streamable.com/xuxh
https://streamable.com/mw98

I've had people dogging me on here the last 4 years because I've said Curry just isn't a smart player (even though I ranked him about as high as everyone else) but I think the Finals has made it obvious that he isn't. He's great but his playoff performances the last 2 years has shown he's not the brightest PG out there. I actually find it impressive someone playing PG with the vision and pass accuracy he has has managed to become a top 10 offensive player.

And for Magic over Kareem as a post scorer I'm thinking maybe my statement needs to be contextualized given how people are responding to it because it wasn't clear enough. Give Kareem and Magic the same defender and Kareem is better 10/10 times. Taking into account the fact Magic was usually guarded by guys that aren't bigs with great post defense Magic's scoring was more "automatic" than Kareem. He couldn't create a bucket on Nate Thurmond like Kareem could but Nate Thurmond wasn't guarding him, 6-4 185 pound Dennis Johnson was. That meant on most halfcourt possessions Magic was walking around as the greatest post mismatch ever next to maybe Shaq. Magic overall is probably "just" a top 10 post player all time, but when you add in the fact bigs didn't guard him and he had the post game of a great big man his mismatch potential was absurd. It's a large part of the reason why no one shutdown Magic or his offenses during his prime no matter how much the pace was slowed down.

[Morb]

It's time, goys.
1 - T-Mac 2003.
2 - Wade 2009.
3 - McAdoo 1975.
Larry over Magic, really?

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 87 Magic
Ballot #2 - 76 Dr. J
Ballot #3 - 64 Oscar

--------------------

Ballot #1 - 87 Magic

Magic was a unique and special player. Took his game to another level that season, especially when relied on more as a primary offensive option. He led the lakers to league best 67-15 record and ultimately the championship against the celtics.

RS - 23.9 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 12.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, .5 BPG, 60.2% TS, 124 ORTG, .263 WS/48

PS - 21.8 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 12.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, .4 BPG, 60.2% TS, 129 ORTG, .265 WS/48

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1987-nba-finals-celtics-vs-lakers.html

Watch on YouTube

Via NY Times from 12/6/87

Even then he flirted with a reputation as the game's greatest player. Now 28 - the start of what many feel are a player's peak years - and coming off his best season, he has a legitimate claim to it.

What a season it was! Playing brilliantly from November to June, Johnson led Los Angeles to its fifth world championship, ran away with the N.B.A.'s Most Valuable Player Award, led the league in assists (his 977 were 129 more than the runner-up) and finished in the top 10 in scoring.

He was also named the best player in the championship series against the Boston Celtics, his hook shot with two seconds left winning the pivotal fourth game and his all-out play breaking open a close final contest. His totals for that last game were 16 points (12 in the third quarter when the Lakers rallied), 19 assists, 8 rebounds and 3 steals.

''Can the game be played any better than Magic played it in the third period. . .?'' asked Sports Illustrated.

Via Sports Illustrated from 6/29/87

This year the Lakers finally were Magic's team: Speed is power, power is speed. Slowly the cast had changed. Michael Cooper had emerged; A.C. Green and James Worthy had been added. Even Mychal Thompson, the most important pickup by either team this year, once was strong enough to play center yet was fast enough to play small forward at times. One had, at certain moments, a sense of watching a prototype of a different breed of athlete -- strong, fast, disciplined -- playing at a level of stunning intensity, with surprisingly few turnovers.

If the Knicks of the late '60s could be described as four guards and one forward (Willis Reed), then this was often a team of four forwards led by a point guard who could, in a very recent era, have played power forward. What made the series so special was the sharp contrast in the styles of Los Angeles and Boston and the knowledge that these two teams, with cameo appearances by Philadelphia and Houston, have essentially dominated the championships since Bird and Johnson entered the league in 1979. That and, of course, the fact that both teams have gradually been shaped to the styles and contours of their superstars, one white and one black.

The Celtics, this year's defending champions, play half-court basketball, and they play it better than any team in the league. That they had even made it to the finals was remarkable, given the death of Len Bias, the infirmities of Bill Walton and the fact that Kevin McHale and Robert Parish were both playing with injuries. But Boston finally lacked the bench mandatory for a tough playoff final and the speed to stay with L.A. in a running game. The Celtic front line, after all, was composed of three exceptional basketball players, while the first seven players for the Lakers seemed to be both exceptional basketball players and exceptional athletes.

One had to look no further than the contrast between McHale and Worthy to understand the classic matchup displayed in this series. If the Lakers controlled the tempo, it would mean that Worthy -- possibly the fastest big man going to the basket in the league -- would be a dominant player; if the Celtics controlled the pace, it meant they would be able to get the ball to McHale, surprisingly nimble and deft, uncommonly skilled at using his body and arms for maximum leverage. Each was an extension of the best of his team. For Worthy to be Worthy, Magic had to be Magic; for McHale to get the ball where he wanted it, Larry Bird and the Celtic offense had to move in proper mesh. If one was having a good game, the other probably was not.

Ballot #2 - 76 Dr. J

Watch on YouTube

I get it. It's a 5 minute clip, but I still think you can tell just how talented this guy was that year. An unstoppable offensive force leading his team to the championship. Nets also ranked 1st in defense that season.

For those who doubt the ABA, check out his per 100 #s in 76 vs. 80:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ervinju01.html#per_poss::none

They’re nearly identical including efficiency. This is when he was given a bigger role in the offense after Cunningham came aboard as coach.

It’s possible his ball handling is being underrated here due aesthetics. He kinda slapped the ball down as he dribbled, especially on the fast break. Similar to the way Barkley dribbled in his Sixers days. While it may have looked a little sloppy, I think it was just as effective given his big hands and long strides once he went to make his moves.

Also, his ability to get off shots at the rim in tight spaces was pretty incredible. This also had a lot to do with his body control.

The below footage is from 74, but it's pretty similar to the way he was playing in 76.

Watch on YouTube

Ballot #3 - 64 Oscar

Oscar's 64 season was very impressive on a number of levels:

RS: 31.4 PPG, 9.9 RPG, 11 APG, 48.3% FG, 85.3% FT (league leading on 11.9 FTAs per game), 57.6% TS (+9.1% vs. league avg), .278 WS/48

PS: 29.3 PPG, 8.9 RPG, 8.4 APG, 45.5% FG, 85.8% FT (12.7 FTAs per game), 56.8% TS, .245 WS/48

The royals ranked 2nd in SRS that season, losing in the playoffs to the #1 ranked SRS and eventual champion celtics. While his raw averages can certainly be attributed to the fast paced play during that era, his overall efficiency and ability to get to the line at will is pretty staggering.

Oscar's playoff #s do drop slightly across the board, but there's nothing there to suggest that he struggled. His best teammate Jerry Lucas had a serious drop off in scoring and efficiency come playoff time (17.7 PPG on 57.8% TS in RS vs. 12.2 PPG on 43.8% TS in PS). That very well could've been the difference in the series.

63-64 was his 4th season, so the below footage should be able to capture his style of play at the time:

Watch on YouTube

[Yeah... I could do without the music]

What stands out to me is his precision when he makes his moves as well as his strength when he gets inside. Reminds me of west, too, although he wasn't quite as powerful.

Oscar would win also win MVP that season in dominating fashion. Via NY Times:

Oscar Robertson, the Cincin­nati Royals' talented back‐court man, yesterday was voted the President's Trophy, the Na­tional Basketball Association's most valuable player award, by the biggest margin on record.

The voting is by N.B.A. play­ers, with the restriction that they cannot vote for members of their own teams. Robertson received 60 of a possible 85 first‐place votes. In the point scoring on a 5, 3, 1 basis, Robertson received a total of 362 points, a record.

Wilt Chamberlain of San Francisco, who won the trophy as a rookie in 1960, placed see­ond in the voting with 19 first­place votes and 215 points. Bill Russell of Boston, the winner for the last three years, was third with 11 firsts and 167 points.

[cecilthesheep]

1. '94 Hakeem - I value playoff dominance a fair bit and this was his best RS + playoffs combo year
2. '93 Hakeem - arguably his best regular season, absolutely insane defense, probably the best since Russell
3. '87 Magic. This was very, very close with Garnett, and I was tempted to vote against Magic just because he's now getting called the "best post scorer in league history" lol, but I just would never take Garnett over Magic to win a title with. Magic may not be the best post scorer ever but he is arguably the greatest offensive force in league history. Certain impact stats of his are _insane_.

[Colbinii]

I'll be active tomorrow afternoon and evening. Busy evening/night and then helping father and a friend move tomorrow morning.

I guess I will be the one roaring with the Pro-KG argument at this point.

[Bel]

1. 87 Magic
2. 91 Magic
3. 94 Hakeem

I was very impressed by Magic's performance in the 91 WCF. The regular season was clearly worse than 87 and he become a bigger liability against teams with fast PG's (hence losing to Phoenix in 90), but his half court play showed both an exceptional floor and ceiling depending on his team's health. I actually think he might be better offensively in 91 than in 87, accounting for the drop in personnel, but the defensive decline is too big to ignore. Some of this difference may just be a combination of personnel and quality of opponents though: he only faced 1 real playoff opponent in 87 after 3 cakewalks compared to 2 elite teams in 91 and two non-terrible ones in the earlier rounds. By SRS the 91 Blazers were the best non-Bulls team of the decade.

I actually like Hakeem's 95 playoffs more than the 94 one and would consider 95. The 95 Spurs series is the defining moment of his career, and it doesn't hurt that they swept the Magic. The 94 Rockets went to a nail-biter 7 games against the Suns despite Barkley playing through a severe injury (taking painkillers before the game and at halftime) and had another 7 games against the Knicks. The main question is that 95 RS which was quite lacking individually and for the team. But I don't know a lot about the Rocket's inner workings, so I'd be curious how things looked for Hakeem season by season from a leadership and team chemistry standpoint if anyone knows.

[DatAsh]

My candidates are 93 Hakeem, 94 Hakeem, and 04 Garnett. Not sure which order I want yet.

[euroleague]

Curry's injury being glossed over so heavily, it's laughable - he looked like a shell of himself when he came back, and was struggling hard to just get the shots he typically got without even stretching for. Forget the flair and the ridiculous stuff he pulled in the regular season, he couldn't even hit screens hard or use lateral quickness to separate himself from Kevin Love level defenders.

The only mark people have against Curry is his post-injury play, which they then claim wasn't affected by his injury because 'he had some good games'. That alone should prove Curry belongs in this conversation....

As for my rankings, it's Hakeem time.

1. Hakeem 93
2. Curry 16
3. Hakeem 94


HM: Magic, Walton, KG

[Joey Wheeler]

1-Magic Johnson 1987
2-Magic Johnson 1990
3-Magic Johnson 1991

Already explained in previous thread.

[Sublime187]

Curry's injury being glossed over so heavily, it's laughable - he looked like a shell of himself when he came back, and was struggling hard to just get the shots he typically got without even stretching for. Forget the flair and the ridiculous stuff he pulled in the regular season, he couldn't even hit screens hard or use lateral quickness to separate himself from Kevin Love level defenders.

The only mark people have against Curry is his post-injury play, which they then claim wasn't affected by his injury because 'he had some good games'. That alone should prove Curry belongs in this conversation....

As for my rankings, it's Hakeem time.

1. Hakeem 93
2. Curry 16
3. Hakeem 94


HM: Magic, Walton, KG

No excuses. Injuries are part of the game and all players have injuries at that point. Lebron was playing with a fractured hand and no one gave him a break. Curry was playing so no injury excuses.

[cecilthesheep]

Curry's injury being glossed over so heavily, it's laughable - he looked like a shell of himself when he came back, and was struggling hard to just get the shots he typically got without even stretching for. Forget the flair and the ridiculous stuff he pulled in the regular season, he couldn't even hit screens hard or use lateral quickness to separate himself from Kevin Love level defenders.

The only mark people have against Curry is his post-injury play, which they then claim wasn't affected by his injury because 'he had some good games'. That alone should prove Curry belongs in this conversation....

As for my rankings, it's Hakeem time.

1. Hakeem 93
2. Curry 16
3. Hakeem 94


HM: Magic, Walton, KG

If we're basing this on individual seasons, shouldn't the injury count against him somewhat? It may not have been his fault, but he did get hurt and didn't play as well as he had been. I think his poor performance is somewhat exaggerated, but I don't think it matters all that much how banged up he was.

[Samurai]

1. 93 Hakeem Olajuwon
2. 76 Julius Erving
3. 87 Magic Johnson

[E-Balla]

1. 93 Hakeem Olajuwon
2. 76 Julius Erving
3. 87 Magic Johnson

Ah close. Wrong Hakeem year.

[Samurai]

1. 93 Hakeem Olajuwon
2. 76 Julius Erving
3. 87 Magic Johnson

Ah close. Wrong Hakeem year.

I know a lot of people like 94, but for me I think 93 is better. While per 100 scoring is almost identical, in 93 he averaged 16.7 rebounds to 14.7 the next year as well as being slightly better in assists, steals and blocks. In the playoffs per 100, he averaged 17.1 rebounds to only 13.7 the next year, again with being slightly better in assists and blocks. Also his WS/48 are better in 93 for both RS and Playoffs.

If you picked 94, that's fine. It's just the wrong year.

[Odinn21]

...

[euroleague]

Curry's injury being glossed over so heavily, it's laughable - he looked like a shell of himself when he came back, and was struggling hard to just get the shots he typically got without even stretching for. Forget the flair and the ridiculous stuff he pulled in the regular season, he couldn't even hit screens hard or use lateral quickness to separate himself from Kevin Love level defenders.

The only mark people have against Curry is his post-injury play, which they then claim wasn't affected by his injury because 'he had some good games'. That alone should prove Curry belongs in this conversation....

As for my rankings, it's Hakeem time.

1. Hakeem 93
2. Curry 16
3. Hakeem 94


HM: Magic, Walton, KG

If we're basing this on individual seasons, shouldn't the injury count against him somewhat? It may not have been his fault, but he did get hurt and didn't play as well as he had been. I think his poor performance is somewhat exaggerated, but I don't think it matters all that much how banged up he was.

I’ve answered this question before - if he maintained his level of play, I’d have him top 3. Not here. He likely would’ve won a title in dominant fashion

He already won the only unanimous mvp, broke the nba W/L record, redefined the way offenses are built, forced the entire nba to change the way bigs defend and made shooting/3D players into the commodity they are today.

Curry was being compared to Michael Jordan during the year - people passed directly over Lebron. If he had gone around 16-1 in the playoffs, he could be 2nd behind Wilt.

His injuries definitely dock him, but what he did in 16 is basically unprecedented in the modern nba

[liamliam1234]

Long-time observer (as a non-member), first-time poster.

1. 1994 Hakeem
I understand the arguments that Hakeem was probably “better” in 1993. And maybe if we wanted to remove all postseason narrative, I would consider that season more. But I think this forum has generally weighed postseason results very heavily, e.g. 2013 Lebron, arguably 1991 Jordan, arguably 1964 Russell (although support posts generally never seemed clear why that year was a true tier above), presumably 1987 Magic... Kareem being a notable exception I guess because of how indisputably better he was in the 1977 playoffs compared to any other year (not that the same logic apparently applied to Lebron). Also, this early on, even if it makes sense to a point (what with the frequent reliance on team success narratives), I would not want to select as his peak a year Hakeem was not even widely considered a top two player (oh, look, another reason 1964 was a bad pick for Russell).

The actual reasons for Hakeem at this point have been covered extensively, to the point I think we already have passed the disrespect marker.

2. 2004 Kevin Garnett
Very similar case as 2003 Duncan, minus the playoff success. And Garnett was not as good in the playoffs as Duncan, either as a player or comparing 2004 with 2003, but hey, that is why Duncan is several spots higher. This was a championship level peak, this all-time season was unjustly marred by team injury (much like people who say 1968 Wilt “choked” in part because he “stat-padded”), and this was very much a clear individual year peak. Oh, I know 2005 Garnett was nearly as effective, but what I mean is that unlike some other players (*cough*), this peak is clear. And Garnett is hardly a person on whom this board requires further “education”. One of the all-time team impact seasons, an all-time defensive season, and a supremely impactful (and his personal best) offensive season. Unlike the all-time rankings, marking him this high does not disrespect those who put together better overall groups of seasons. It is a top ten peak, because at his absolute best, Garnett was that type of player.

3. 1964 Oscar Robertson
Yes, the deserving MVP of the 1964 season is in my eyes probably the single greatest point guard season thus far, relative to his era (because getting into how swapping 1964 Oscar and 1987 Magic would yield different results is an ugly and maybe impossible hypothetical). If we are talking any period more than a single year, I would give it to Magic. But we are not, and I cannot help but dispute the 1987 Magic supporters for focusing so much on the team success when he was almost definitively better as a player two or three years later. Unlike 1993 Hakeem or 1964 Russell, both those years he still effectively maintained his reputation as the best player in the game (although of course Jordan raised a similarly strong challenge). Nor is this Hakeem losing in the semifinals to a .500 team – after 1987, Magic clearly led his ever declining team to three more Finals. I know the strategy here is often to just spam vote multiple seasons, but I feel like that dilutes the point. We are not covering multi-year peaks. If different years cannibalise the others, that means the peak is disputable. And I do not personally buy the premise that Magic’s third best year is better than Robertson’s 1964, which is pretty much what many people here are suggesting. So what, if we opened this up to repeats, with a blanket “best seasons ever”, the top twenty-five slots would be preoccupied by eight guys? Nah, I do not buy that. Robertson’s numbers speak for themselves. This is a peak point guard season, and the reason Robertson is ranked where he is in the all-time ranks is because he never really quite replicated this season the way the other top ten guys could replicate their best seasons. Also, in a meta sense, if 1964 Russell gets the nod (again, wrongly), then the guy who outplayed him for most of that year should hardly fall far behind.

Honourable mention to one of those Magic years; if Hakeem wins, I will probably back 1987 by default (but I do think we need more discussion on 1989 and 1990 so it stops being a vote by default).

[E-Balla]

Hakeem 93 vs 94:

So I'm not a big fan of per 100 numbers, mainly because players don't always have the same PT. 1.5 mpg is a small enough gap for per 100 to not be necessary.

At the end of the day the biggest gap in both years is the Knicks series vs the Sonic series. I think Hakeem again a better defense in 94, played better than he did against Seattle. He played better defense but he wasn't as aggressive with his scoring game, while in 94 he was aggressive as hell and forcing shots up (making them too). Against Seattle he was a little too willing to pass. They are very close years though, I was mostly laughing because outside of that we have the same top 3.

[E-Balla]

You really don't understand how impact #'s work do you?

This is the part where you say something either dumb, or that doesn't make sense at all in context.

Impact #'s are far less circumstance based than the "raw numbers" you like using. Some impact #'s penalize players who play on better teams(like rpm) and some don't like pipm. Numbers like bpm hurt people who play on worse teams.

Ah, doesn't make sense at all is where we went with this. So Kobe's +/- didn't vastly change from his seasons with Shaq to his seasons without? Nash's +/- didn't explode in Phoenix? We didn't just see Jimmy Butler and Ben Simmons go from high impact to mid level impact (in Jimmy's case top 5ish impact to top 50ish)? We didn't see Melo's impact skyrocket when he started playing with Chauncey while in Denver? There's a long list of players losing impact or gaining impact when adding another player that clashes with their skillset or when they switch teams or when they switch roles.

Everyone could see KD ate into Dray's impact on the team.

Curry led the league in rpm, a stat that rates people based on impact compared to a league average player. Because it is harder to impact better teams, Curry's rpm would be lower than if he was on a team with a lacking supporting cast. He's also led the league in pipm which, hybridizes impact with effiency so that it neither penalizes a player for being on a bad team or a good team. So no, him being on a historiclaly stacked team isn't inflating his impact stats. You know what being on a historically stacked team is messing with?

Umm... Curry only led the league in RPM in 2015 (the year you're trying to tell me isn't his peak). He was under Draymond, CP3, and LeBron in 2016 and in 2017 he was 3rd under LeBron and CP3 (Dray was 4th).

Also PIPM has been a thing for 2 seasons, both years where no one is voting for Curry (unless you're going to argue 2018 or 2019 Curry is his peak).

His box stats.

While you keep repeating curry is on a "stacked team" and using stats that are more teammate dependent is beyond me. The graph you ignored shows that as teams change, box stats as ppg become worse and worse at predicting how those teams will fare, because they're extremely dependent on who a player's teammates are.


Why 2017 curry would be better than 2015 curry has been explained to you. Your response, "no kerr and draymond changed, curry didn't" requires proof, because all data says curry improved from 2015, and data also says his scoring and playmaking improved.

Umm... This is pretty freaking simple. Anyone with eyes can see Kerr moved Curry off ball and Draymond became the PG. It's as easy as looking at their assist numbers. Hell we can look at a number YOU cited earlier and go to RPM, where Draymond was 8th in 2015, 2nd in 2016, and 4th in 2017 going from being clearly under Curry to being on the same level as him.

As far as data saying Curry improved, it doesn't. What changed was his PPG. Those +/- numbers YOU are swearing by are better in 2015 than 2016 and 2017. And how'd his playmaking improve going from 7.7 apg to 6.7 apg while having more turnovers? How'd his playmaking improve with no improvement in offensive +/- numbers?

[Timmyyy]

While you keep repeating curry is on a "stacked team" and using stats that are more teammate dependent is beyond me. The graph you ignored shows that as teams change, box stats as ppg become worse and worse at predicting how those teams will fare, because they're extremely dependent on who a player's teammates are.


Why 2017 curry would be better than 2015 curry has been explained to you. Your response, "no kerr and draymond changed, curry didn't" requires proof, because all data says curry improved from 2015, and data also says his scoring and playmaking improved.

Umm... This is pretty freaking simple. Anyone with eyes can see Kerr moved Curry off ball and Draymond became the PG. It's as easy as looking at their assist numbers. Hell we can look at a number YOU cited earlier and go to RPM, where Draymond was 8th in 2015, 2nd in 2016, and 4th in 2017 going from being clearly under Curry to being on the same level as him.

As far as data saying Curry improved, it doesn't. What changed was his PPG. Those +/- numbers YOU are swearing by are better in 2015 than 2016 and 2017. And how'd his playmaking improve going from 7.7 apg to 6.7 apg while having more turnovers? How'd his playmaking improve with no improvement in offensive +/- numbers?

Interesting debate in my opinion.

I don't necessarily consider your first paragraph as proof that Curry didn't improve but agree with you that it should be rather clear that Curry moved more off ball from 15 to 16 and with that Kerr tried to get the best out of him.

With the RPM numbers, I have to say I don't like comparing the value of them between different years when they are rather close but it's true that his RPM that year is higher than in 17, but on the other hand his NPI RAPM is higher in 17 than in 15 (where I again don't like comparing them between years when they are close). The RPM rank is also a little shaky for me as an explanation. Lebron was worse in 15 than in 16 and 17 in my eyes (Lebron had a higher RPM in 15 than in 17 which shows me again that comparing values between different years can be shaky). Draymond was an impact monster in 16 and 17 and a clear step below in 15. So I would say competition also played a big part in Currys ranking these years (in 15 we had a lot of great players at the top but no (near) peak Lebron and no peak Draymond, although I have CP3 up there in 15 even if he didn't look all that good according to RPM).

So while everything you observed is right I wouldn't come to the same conclusion and say it isn't sufficiently clear that Curry was superior in the +/- category in any of these years. RAPM shows 17 as better, RPM says 15, but overall it seems his impact was fairly close over all 3 years. Funny enough the one that oftentimes gets hyped the most seems like the least impactful (16).

Since I think impact wise all 3 years are pretty close I tend to go with 17 since I see his playoff run as the best with a solid margin.

But I definitely can see your points.