2020-21 NBA Season Discussion

[therealbig3]

I don't really know what you're going with this. You said that there's a great argument for Curry being the 2nd best player of this decade behind Bron, which a good portion of posters here agree with.

As for the playoffs, Curry has had legitimately great years and others that were poorer. He's not Lebron (which anyone sensible agrees with) but who is? There is pretty much no one in history who has matched Bron's combination of consistency and extended greatness in the playoff crucible.

But let's also not forget that prior to basically mastering the game in 2016, Bron also faced many of the same questions about his playoff "fitness". He's basically completely squashed all of that since to the point that that has become a distant memory but there was a time when those criticisms were very loud, reaching a crescendo in 2011.

I see Curry and the Warriors back in 16 in much the same light. They were a young team that lit the entire basketball world on fire with their style of play and then lost an incredibly close series to the probable GOAT. Were they a team that had been "solved" or could they learn from that and come back even better? But instead of running it back and proving beyond doubt that their ways could dominate at the highest levels, they got Durant in the off-season. So those questions have not been definitively answered yet.

Where I'm going with this kind of just stems from a few frustrations prompted by what seemed like a "gotcha" moment after a dominant RS game, and then it led to a rant.

My thoughts:
-yeah, Curry has haters who are ridiculous
-Curry also has people called "haters" who aren't as ridiculous, and honestly are moreso just doubters that don't rank him as high as others do, but still acknowledge that he's great
-there's a big difference between the two, and they shouldn't be lumped together
-but there's a push here to make it seem like Curry is unfairly targeted and there's this underlying bias even among reasonable people, which I pretty strongly disagree with
-I think he's one of the most protected superstars of all time, and gets the benefit of the doubt more than anyone else playing today, so the victim complex from his fans is just weird to me

And I guess my overall feeling here is what you said in your post:

Were they a team that had been "solved" or could they learn from that and come back even better? But instead of running it back and proving beyond doubt that their ways could dominate at the highest levels, they got Durant in the off-season. So those questions have not been definitively answered yet.

100% agreed. But my impression is that people ARE giving them credit for something they didn't actually accomplish (ie, being an offensive dynasty that could dominate at the highest levels), based on success mostly obtained after acquiring Durant. And by extension, Curry is getting a lot of credit for something he didn't actually demonstrate yet (that he's the offensive GOAT, or in conversation for it). That's my gripe, in a nutshell. And I guess my impression is not of an unfairly targeted athlete because he's not the typical picture of someone who should be dominating the game, but that of an unfairly protected athlete who gets more excuses than anyone else and whose blemishes get swept under the rug BECAUSE he's not the typical picture of someone who should be dominating the game. So the narrative to the contrary just feels like a spin job, so I have to comment on it.

[bondom34]

Summed it up well.


The talk is wild. But at the same time I think there needs to be some acknowledgement its been far more insane, and in some cases by the same groups who stand up for Curry, toward other stars who've had any failings. Curry's pretty well avoided criticisms relative to other stars his entire career and there are some things that are honest critiques that at times can't be said. And from being here over the years a lot of folks couldn't be broached over it.

Every year we've heard about Harden's postseason failures. We've heard about Kawhi requiring teams with a very good cast. We've heard about Westbrook's misgivings. We've heard Paul George's playoff woes. Heck, we've even heard questions on Lebron and if you can work an offense with him or if its "Lebron ball". But there's an odd aura that can't be penetrated with Curry and (sometimes) the Warriors, as if they can do no wrong. His poor playoff games are injuries, etc. There can be legitimate problems/questions about him.

Edit: And if I may, not even on this topic but I haven't been posting here as much either and didn't really plan on it much. I've realized NBA discourse online is largely just bad. Its a little better here, but seeing this even in this thread is a little disappointing, basketball talk seems to have moved away from reason and toward having the fastest and loudest opinion with no real nuance. And no matter what Steph does or doesn't do this season it doesn't change what happened when he and Green were at their peaks. But the hot takey culture is just a turn off from it all, and its a bummer seeing it here.

But yeah the idea of "shutting up the haters" is strange in this instance when of most stars, Steph has been treated about as lightly as anyone (sans one exception I can think of maybe) among older stars.

[eminence]

.

Firstly - I rank Curry ~4th for offensive prime (top 6 - Magic/Nash/LeBron/Curry/Oscar/MJ in that order)

I wind up confused on what criteria people wind up excluding him from that category are using. His individual stats put him up there, team results are in the discussion offensively (unless you have Nash well ahead of the field as the clear #1 because you've completely decoupled offense and defense), and certainly overall team results, what is it exactly holding him back?

He has had poor games and series, and so has everyone else on that list. His averages line up well enough to paint him as an easy top 10 offensive player, and likely top 5.

[therealbig3]

Curry's play in '15 is only subpar if someone is championing it as a GOAT tier run. The Warriors won the title going away and Curry played well.

-it's not lumped in with their 5 year run as one of his titles when talking about his greatness?
-they won the title going away because of their defense and because the Cavs couldn't score...their offense left a lot to be desired...so did Curry individually

[therealbig3]

.

Firstly - I rank Curry ~4th for offensive prime (top 6 - Magic/Nash/LeBron/Curry/Oscar/MJ in that order)

I wind up confused on what criteria people wind up excluding him from that category are using. His individual stats put him up there, team results are in the discussion offensively (unless you have Nash well ahead of the field as the clear #1 because you've completely decoupled offense and defense), and certainly overall team results, what is it exactly holding him back?

He has had poor games and series, and so has everyone else on that list. His averages line up well enough to paint him as an easy top 10 offensive player, and likely top 5.

No, they're not.

And sure, he can be top 10, maybe top 5...but there are clearly better players imo, and I don't see what makes him automatically better than say, Kobe.

BTW, you can apply exactly what you said to Kobe, and I don't see you having him up there. And never mind Kobe, you could also say the same things about Jordan, and you don't have him up there either. Bird, Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, etc., the list goes on. They have individual stats, they have team offensive results, they have overall team results, all comparable to or better than Curry, so what gives? Shaq and Kobe and Dirk for that matter have also led better playoff offenses btw.

[eminence]

Curry's play in '15 is only subpar if someone is championing it as a GOAT tier run. The Warriors won the title going away and Curry played well.

-it's not lumped in with their 5 year run as one of his titles when talking about his greatness?
-they won the title going away because of their defense and because the Cavs couldn't score...their offense left a lot to be desired...so did Curry individually

Not sure what your first line is referencing.

Curry was 26/6 on +5%, a lot to be desired is ridiculous hyperbole. What would be an above average series if that leaves a lot to be desired?

[therealbig3]

Curry's play in '15 is only subpar if someone is championing it as a GOAT tier run. The Warriors won the title going away and Curry played well.

-it's not lumped in with their 5 year run as one of his titles when talking about his greatness?
-they won the title going away because of their defense and because the Cavs couldn't score...their offense left a lot to be desired...so did Curry individually

Not sure what your first line is referencing.

Curry was 26/6 on +5%, a lot to be desired is ridiculous hyperbole. What would be an above average series if that leaves a lot to be desired?

The 3 titles and 5 Finals from 2015-2019 is the #1 pro-Curry argument thrown around. It's the most successful dynasty of the modern era. You mentioned his team success in your post. His team success has been a response to my criticisms in previous posts by reasonable posters, not even just by people that simply count rings.

The 2015 title is absolutely used as part of his offensive GOAT argument, just because it resulted in a title and he had decent counting stats.

As for your last line, I guess it depends who you're comparing it to. For a star, it was a very good run. For a top 10 player in the league, it was pretty good, but not earth-shattering. For an ATG offensive player? Yeah, it was underwhelming.

[eminence]

.

Firstly - I rank Curry ~4th for offensive prime (top 6 - Magic/Nash/LeBron/Curry/Oscar/MJ in that order)

I wind up confused on what criteria people wind up excluding him from that category are using. His individual stats put him up there, team results are in the discussion offensively (unless you have Nash well ahead of the field as the clear #1 because you've completely decoupled offense and defense), and certainly overall team results, what is it exactly holding him back?

He has had poor games and series, and so has everyone else on that list. His averages line up well enough to paint him as an easy top 10 offensive player, and likely top 5.

No, they're not.

And sure, he can be top 10, maybe top 5...but there are clearly better players imo, and I don't see what makes him automatically better than say, Kobe.

BTW, you can apply exactly what you said to Kobe, and I don't see you having him up there. And never mind Kobe, you could also say the same things about Jordan, and you don't have him up there either. Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, etc., the list goes on. They have individual stats, they have team offensive results, they have overall team results, all comparable to or better than Curry, so what gives? Shaq and Kobe and Dirk for that matter have also led better playoff offenses btw.

How so, Curry is approx a +7 rOrtg leader in the playoffs (he/LeBron/MJ are all within touching distance around +7, Magic around +8, Nash around +10). Don't know Oscars numbers off the top of my head, I imagine lower due to lower general playoff success. I did include MJ.

If you're talking literally one season, some of those other guys might compare, but no, for careers their results aren't within spitting distance of Curry or MJ/LeBron, let alone Magic/Nash.

[Doctor MJ]

Curry has a great argument to be the 2nd best player of the 2010s after LeBron (Durant and CP3 are in the conversation too, although I would take Curry), so most reasonable people know that he's great and can certainly explode the way he did against the Blazers, and he is good enough to take a bad team and make them somewhat respectable.

I think the next level doubts about Curry from people like myself is if he can play at an offensively elite level in the playoffs against focused and more talented defenses. Thus far, his career track record says "kinda, but not at GOAT-level". Maybe that's the disconnect? Because some people see him as offensive GOAT-level, and in relation to the PS, I don't see it. That doesn't mean he's not historically great in the RS though, and that doesn't mean he's still not one of the super elite players in the game. Of course he is.

I think there are two sides to the Curry "hate" btw. Of course, there are people with biases and prejudices that just hate. That's always going to happen.

But imo, I also think there is a push by quite a few people to crown Curry as this ideal offensive basketball player and elevate him to levels he hasn't exactly proven he deserves. A LOT of praise is given to his gravity and his shooting ability and the motion offense he's the engine of, as if this is the ideal way to play basketball, and yet, this ideal basketball has gotten stifled more often than not, and they didn't truly dominate until they brought in "ugly" ISO basketball. And any objective examination of the Warriors' offense during that 2015-2019 stretch gets called hating, or a lot of blame gets deflected to other people on his team, or it's swept under the rug of team success, without actually acknowledging that much of their team success was mainly because of outstanding defensive performance and a good enough but not dominant offensive run, which was frequently underwhelming in fact. Durant and Westbrook are two of the most criticized stars of the generation, and their ISO ball habits and ugly offensive system in OKC gets constantly brought up as the wrong way to play basketball in contrast to the beautiful offensive system of Curry and GS...and yet, OKC's playoff offense in 12 and 16 with Westbrook and Durant outperformed the 15 and 16 Warriors playoff offense...by a lot.

So yeah, I think most objective people know that Curry is a dominant RS player and a very, very good playoff performer. And yeah, there are haters out there. But I think Curry homerism is just as big of an issue (on this board at least) as Curry hate is. Because LeBron, Kobe, Nash, Dirk, Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, etc have ALL had their team successes (and failures) micro-analyzed and broken down and the best efforts were made to objectively assign "credit" to the appropriate people in order to truly evaluate the player's performance...but there's resistance to this for Curry, idk why.

So AND1'ed and you had me until this last part.

Dude, Curry just got voted in way lower in the Top 100 here than over at ESPN. Think about what that says.

You're seeing resistance to nuance analysis, but from my perspective y'all got swept in a distinct direction that clearly not everyone is getting swept in.

For example, any other superstar would have been eviscerated for milking an injury to last an entire season so that their team could tank and he could avoid the negative attention of not being able to "carry" a team to the playoffs.

Okay, I really have to stop here.

What on earth are you doing alleging that a player milked an injury an entire season specifically to avoid looking bad?

And seriously, that's what you wanted to lead with to show how other people are afraid of rational critique? A conspiracy theory that doesn't make any sense when you actually break down what that would mean to the Golden State Warriors franchise in their first year in their ultra-expensive San Francisco arena? That's how you're thinking about this player?

Also, you do realize that what you're doing here is giving "negative attention"? If this was a scheme of Curry's, it wasn't just highly unethical and a betrayal of everyone around him, it was utterly foolish and he should have known better. Any time you miss a large amount of time and your team endures a lot of losing, those who lose sympathy will be prone to blame.

realbig, you've had many, many, many insightful posts and I appreciate your work. I respect you a good deal, but dude, I think you've lost the thread on this one.

[therealbig3]

Firstly - I rank Curry ~4th for offensive prime (top 6 - Magic/Nash/LeBron/Curry/Oscar/MJ in that order)

I wind up confused on what criteria people wind up excluding him from that category are using. His individual stats put him up there, team results are in the discussion offensively (unless you have Nash well ahead of the field as the clear #1 because you've completely decoupled offense and defense), and certainly overall team results, what is it exactly holding him back?

He has had poor games and series, and so has everyone else on that list. His averages line up well enough to paint him as an easy top 10 offensive player, and likely top 5.

No, they're not.

And sure, he can be top 10, maybe top 5...but there are clearly better players imo, and I don't see what makes him automatically better than say, Kobe.

BTW, you can apply exactly what you said to Kobe, and I don't see you having him up there. And never mind Kobe, you could also say the same things about Jordan, and you don't have him up there either. Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, etc., the list goes on. They have individual stats, they have team offensive results, they have overall team results, all comparable to or better than Curry, so what gives? Shaq and Kobe and Dirk for that matter have also led better playoff offenses btw.

How so, Curry is approx a +7 rOrtg leader in the playoffs (he/LeBron/MJ are all within touching distance around +7, Magic around +8, Nash around +10). Don't know Oscars numbers off the top of my head, I imagine lower due to lower general playoff success. I did include MJ.

If you're talking literally one season, some of those other guys might compare, but no, for careers their results aren't within spitting distance of Curry or MJ/LeBron, let alone Magic/Nash.

I mean, much of that might be due to Curry having a better bench than most stars. Also because the 2017 Warriors blew the doors off everyone offensively by a massive margin, but never experienced close to that kind of success again under Steph. Because Warriors with Curry on the court in 2015 playoffs were a +3 offense. They were a +5 offense in 2016. +18 in 2017, +7 in 2018, +8 in 2019.

FWIW, the 17 Warriors were +17 and still the greatest playoff offense of the modern era with Durant on the court, so this wasn't a Curry-exclusive experience.

Lakers with Kobe on the court from 2008-2010 were a +8 offense every year. Mavs with Dirk on the court in 03, 06, and 11 ranged from +7 to +11 offensively. Lakers with Shaq on the court in 01 and 02 were +11 and +9 respectively. Thunder with Durant on the court were +8 and +9 in 2012 and 2016 respectively.

The team results aren't there offensively when you look at him compared to other top tier offensive superstars in the modern era, let alone LeBron/Nash.

[therealbig3]

Curry has a great argument to be the 2nd best player of the 2010s after LeBron (Durant and CP3 are in the conversation too, although I would take Curry), so most reasonable people know that he's great and can certainly explode the way he did against the Blazers, and he is good enough to take a bad team and make them somewhat respectable.

I think the next level doubts about Curry from people like myself is if he can play at an offensively elite level in the playoffs against focused and more talented defenses. Thus far, his career track record says "kinda, but not at GOAT-level". Maybe that's the disconnect? Because some people see him as offensive GOAT-level, and in relation to the PS, I don't see it. That doesn't mean he's not historically great in the RS though, and that doesn't mean he's still not one of the super elite players in the game. Of course he is.

I think there are two sides to the Curry "hate" btw. Of course, there are people with biases and prejudices that just hate. That's always going to happen.

But imo, I also think there is a push by quite a few people to crown Curry as this ideal offensive basketball player and elevate him to levels he hasn't exactly proven he deserves. A LOT of praise is given to his gravity and his shooting ability and the motion offense he's the engine of, as if this is the ideal way to play basketball, and yet, this ideal basketball has gotten stifled more often than not, and they didn't truly dominate until they brought in "ugly" ISO basketball. And any objective examination of the Warriors' offense during that 2015-2019 stretch gets called hating, or a lot of blame gets deflected to other people on his team, or it's swept under the rug of team success, without actually acknowledging that much of their team success was mainly because of outstanding defensive performance and a good enough but not dominant offensive run, which was frequently underwhelming in fact. Durant and Westbrook are two of the most criticized stars of the generation, and their ISO ball habits and ugly offensive system in OKC gets constantly brought up as the wrong way to play basketball in contrast to the beautiful offensive system of Curry and GS...and yet, OKC's playoff offense in 12 and 16 with Westbrook and Durant outperformed the 15 and 16 Warriors playoff offense...by a lot.

So yeah, I think most objective people know that Curry is a dominant RS player and a very, very good playoff performer. And yeah, there are haters out there. But I think Curry homerism is just as big of an issue (on this board at least) as Curry hate is. Because LeBron, Kobe, Nash, Dirk, Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, etc have ALL had their team successes (and failures) micro-analyzed and broken down and the best efforts were made to objectively assign "credit" to the appropriate people in order to truly evaluate the player's performance...but there's resistance to this for Curry, idk why.

So AND1'ed and you had me until this last part.

Dude, Curry just got voted in way lower in the Top 100 here than over at ESPN. Think about what that says.

You're seeing resistance to nuance analysis, but from my perspective y'all got swept in a distinct direction that clearly not everyone is getting swept in.

For example, any other superstar would have been eviscerated for milking an injury to last an entire season so that their team could tank and he could avoid the negative attention of not being able to "carry" a team to the playoffs.

Okay, I really have to stop here.

What on earth are you doing alleging that a player milked an injury an entire season specifically to avoid looking bad?

And seriously, that's what you wanted to lead with to show how other people are afraid of rational critique? A conspiracy theory that doesn't make any sense when you actually break down what that would mean to the Golden State Warriors franchise in their first year in their ultra-expensive San Francisco arena? That's how you're thinking about this player?

Also, you do realize that what you're doing here is giving "negative attention"? If this was a scheme of Curry's, it wasn't just highly unethical and a betrayal of everyone around him, it was utterly foolish and he should have known better. Any time you miss a large amount of time and your team endures a lot of losing, those who lose sympathy will be prone to blame.

realbig, you've had many, many, many insightful posts and I appreciate your work. I respect you a good deal, but dude, I think you've lost the thread on this one.

I think if you're going to be so incredulous about the idea that Curry's injury wasn't bad enough to miss an entire season but he did anyway because it helped the team at the end of the day (they got James Wiseman out of a season in which they wouldn't have accomplished much if Curry had played anyway), then I don't think you're evaluating any of this objectively. His injury was projected to take 3 months to heal from. There were videos of him looking perfectly fine in drills and warmups and practice. If the Warriors were competing for a title, he would have been back, which kind of proves my point.

I'm pointing out a double-standard, not even saying that what Curry did was so wrong...honestly, it was in the best interest of the team, and I'm like 99.999% sure it was a mutual decision between him and the team to just sit out the year, "all things considered". But if this were LeBron or Kobe back in the day, nobody can tell me they wouldn't have gotten rocked for this. Heck, people bring up the Spurs tanking when Robinson got hurt in order to get Duncan, and you're saying that Curry possibly doing this is a crazy conspiracy theory? Especially with an injury that doesn't take an entire season to heal from?

And ESPN gets caught up in narrative and ring counting all the time. The fact that they ranked a 2 time MVP and a 3 time champion higher than a forum that is known to reject those things as actual analysis doesn't change the fact that Curry is relatively protected, not overly criticized, in relation to other superstars.

And what I will say is that his overall team success has been used as more of a defense for any sort of criticism of him than has ever been the case for anyone else, except maybe Jordan.

[eminence]

No, they're not.

And sure, he can be top 10, maybe top 5...but there are clearly better players imo, and I don't see what makes him automatically better than say, Kobe.

BTW, you can apply exactly what you said to Kobe, and I don't see you having him up there. And never mind Kobe, you could also say the same things about Jordan, and you don't have him up there either. Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, etc., the list goes on. They have individual stats, they have team offensive results, they have overall team results, all comparable to or better than Curry, so what gives? Shaq and Kobe and Dirk for that matter have also led better playoff offenses btw.

How so, Curry is approx a +7 rOrtg leader in the playoffs (he/LeBron/MJ are all within touching distance around +7, Magic around +8, Nash around +10). Don't know Oscars numbers off the top of my head, I imagine lower due to lower general playoff success. I did include MJ.

If you're talking literally one season, some of those other guys might compare, but no, for careers their results aren't within spitting distance of Curry or MJ/LeBron, let alone Magic/Nash.

I mean, much of that might be due to Curry having a better bench than most stars. Also because the 2017 Warriors blew the doors off everyone offensively by a massive margin, but never experienced close to that kind of success again under Steph. Because Warriors with Curry on the court in 2015 playoffs were a +3 offense. They were a +5 offense in 2016. +18 in 2017, +7 in 2018, +8 in 2019.

FWIW, the 17 Warriors were +17 and still the greatest playoff offense of the modern era with Durant on the court, so this wasn't a Curry-exclusive experience.

Lakers with Kobe on the court from 2008-2010 were a +8 offense every year. Mavs with Dirk on the court in 03, 06, and 11 ranged from +7 to +11 offensively. Lakers with Shaq on the court in 01 and 02 were +11 and +9 respectively. Thunder with Durant on the court were +8 and +9 in 2012 and 2016 respectively.

The team results aren't there offensively when you look at him compared to other top tier offensive superstars in the modern era, let alone LeBron/Nash.

Combining two replies here, this first bit more directly talking about '15:

Sure, '15 is used to support Curry being a great player, it's approximately 20% of his playoff sample. I make a point of looking at all of a players runs/series (series probably the more notable divisor in my mind). And he played pretty well over the run, was it his best ('17), no, was it his worst ('16 or '18), no, it's probably his most average deep run overall. And it's a dang good average. Magic/MJ/LeBron the only 3 averages I'd put over it off the top of my head (offensively obviously), and I'm not 100% sold on MJ.

If you want me to convince you Curry's '15 Finals was the best series of all time, well it wasn't. It was probably his 3rd best series of those playoffs and in his bottom half overall.

I was originally referring to his entire run when I said he played well, which would be 28/6 on +7%. His finals play would probably be best described as fine overall, subpar doesn't upset me as a descriptor in this context, 'a lot to be desired' ehh, to each his own, but I'm not sure about it. A notable stinker in game 2. Moderate turnover struggles throughout.

Back to this post:

What I see here is comparing all of Curry's years to the best of everyone else. Any particular reason to do that? I care about '04 Kobe, '04 Nash, '07 Dirk, etc when evaluating a players talent level. Do you exclude those seasons in your evaluations? Why so?

[therealbig3]

How so, Curry is approx a +7 rOrtg leader in the playoffs (he/LeBron/MJ are all within touching distance around +7, Magic around +8, Nash around +10). Don't know Oscars numbers off the top of my head, I imagine lower due to lower general playoff success. I did include MJ.

If you're talking literally one season, some of those other guys might compare, but no, for careers their results aren't within spitting distance of Curry or MJ/LeBron, let alone Magic/Nash.

I mean, much of that might be due to Curry having a better bench than most stars. Also because the 2017 Warriors blew the doors off everyone offensively by a massive margin, but never experienced close to that kind of success again under Steph. Because Warriors with Curry on the court in 2015 playoffs were a +3 offense. They were a +5 offense in 2016. +18 in 2017, +7 in 2018, +8 in 2019.

FWIW, the 17 Warriors were +17 and still the greatest playoff offense of the modern era with Durant on the court, so this wasn't a Curry-exclusive experience.

Lakers with Kobe on the court from 2008-2010 were a +8 offense every year. Mavs with Dirk on the court in 03, 06, and 11 ranged from +7 to +11 offensively. Lakers with Shaq on the court in 01 and 02 were +11 and +9 respectively. Thunder with Durant on the court were +8 and +9 in 2012 and 2016 respectively.

The team results aren't there offensively when you look at him compared to other top tier offensive superstars in the modern era, let alone LeBron/Nash.

Combining two replies here, this first bit more directly talking about '15:

Sure, '15 is used to support Curry being a great player, it's approximately 20% of his playoff sample. I make a point of looking at all of a players runs/series (series probably the more notable divisor in my mind). And he played pretty well over the run, was it his best ('17), no, was it his worst ('16 or '18), no, it's probably his most average deep run overall. And it's a dang good average. Magic/MJ/LeBron the only 3 averages I'd put over it off the top of my head (offensively obviously), and I'm not 100% sold on MJ.

If you want me to convince you Curry's '15 Finals was the best series of all time, well it wasn't. It was probably his 3rd best series of those playoffs and in his bottom half overall.

I was originally referring to his entire run when I said he played well, which would be 28/6 on +7%. His finals play would probably be best described as fine overall, subpar doesn't upset me as a descriptor in this context, 'a lot to be desired' ehh, to each his own, but I'm not sure about it. A notable stinker in game 2. Moderate turnover struggles throughout.

Back to this post:

What I see here is comparing all of Curry's years to the best of everyone else. Any particular reason to do that? I care about '04 Kobe, '04 Nash, '07 Dirk, etc when evaluating a players talent level. Do you exclude those seasons in your evaluations? Why so?

Of course I take those seasons into account. I'm really not comparing best vs all like you're saying. It's mainly looking at top tier offensive players in any sort of deep playoff run over their careers, and how much they can elevate their team offensively. Curry has been in an optimal situation for 5 straight years, and only elevated them to ATG status in the PS in 1 run, it's only fair to look at that. If his optimal situation is when he has the deepest AND most talented team in the league with another MVP level player that is arguably just as responsible for how unstoppable they were offensively during that one season, then I take that with a grain of salt. I'm not cherry-picking one season here and there either, the players I mentioned had multiple playoff runs better than Curry's pre-KD runs and certainly better than 2015.

Also, relative TS% isn't the only way to look at efficiency either. Because of his TO issues, his Orating for that run was 114, vs an average Drating of 105 (+9). Using Kobe as an example, his Orating for his ENTIRE playoff prime (01-10) was 111, vs an average Drating of 102 (+9), while averaging 29/5/5, with peak levels definitely above that.

So I'm really failing to see how 2015 Curry is offensively above MJ's average playoff run, when it's not clearly better than Kobe's average playoff run for his entire prime, by the numbers.

And that's Kobe, who was notoriously less efficient than he could have been due to his shot selection. Dirk had a similar playoff prime to Kobe (01-11), and his Orating comes out to 119 over that stretch, while averaging 26 ppg. Again, not seeing how Curry's 2015 playoff run is clearly better than an average Dirk playoff run.

I get it, 2017 is the "drool" season. Everything went perfect, they destroyed their competition, they were imo the greatest team of all time, clearly. And they are clearly the best offensive team in the modern era. I just struggle with the notion that what happened in 2017 is who Curry truly is, and that he's mainly responsible for that performance with very little credit being given to KD, when he didn't demonstrate anything close to that in any other PS run. And more importantly, he didn't demonstrate it without KD, if we're being fair to other superstars that didn't have a top 3-5 level player next to them when they were leading their teams on deep PS runs. But what's happening is that 2017 is getting conflated with the other 4 years in their run as if that's who they were throughout, and that's who Curry was throughout, when everything says that it was actually a fluke year due to an unreal stacking of talent.

[freethedevil]

Curry has a great argument to be the 2nd best player of the 2010s after LeBron (Durant and CP3 are in the conversation too, although I would take Curry), so most reasonable people know that he's great and can certainly explode the way he did against the Blazers, and he is good enough to take a bad team and make them somewhat respectable.

Its one thing to question curry vs magic, its another thing to be putting curry vs kd and cp3

What exactly puts kd or cp3 above 13 curry? how about banged up 2016 curry in the playoffs? Curry's--floor-- is as good as these players at their absolute best.

He's good enough to take a bad team(the 13 warriors) and beat a 55 win team and then take a title level team(as in a ray allen miracle away from the title) to 6. That's as if not more impressive than like anything durant or cp3 managed in their entire postseason career. Saying curry isn't jordan is one thing, saying curr is in the same tier as players who can't even match curry at his weakest is another. Curry's argument is not "good" its far better than anyone else whose played in the 2010's. Durant's crowning achivement as the guy was geeting murdered by the heat(a team that got taken to 6 and 7 in the previous rounds). CP3's was matching a injured curry in the 18 wcf. Curry's weakest prime postseasons wouldhave a storng argument as either's best.

Curry's postseason offenses are as good as bird despite worse offensive help, his numbers don't drop off as badly as bird does, He has pre-draymond series that stack up against bird's best both from a box score perespectiev AND a teamsuccess/supporting cast context, and he has a signature carrying performance bird doesn't really have an answer for in the 19 finals.

Would you campre larry brd to durant or cp3? Why curry? Curry sin't jordan or magic is fine, but the next step down form jordan is not chris paul.

Like you keep brining up 17 and 18, but we dont' even need those years.. Curry from 13-15 posts far better induvdiual playoff impact than durant or cp3 or kobe. And those are teams good enough to challenge title challengers. His regular season impact in the weaker two seasons in that sample narrowly trails that o cp3 and durant's best regular seasons.. He achieved simialr/better success in the postseason without as much help. And if that wasn't enough, in 16, with his injury in what's the second worst postseason run of his prime, he took kevin durant, a player arguably outplaying durant that postseaosn in westbrook, locked them in a closet, and swallowed the key while on a bum-ass ankle.

Saying curry is worse than magic is one thing, comparing him to players who he's outclassed and outimapcted on every imaginable context doesn't make any sense.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Curry has a great argument to be the 2nd best player of the 2010s after LeBron (Durant and CP3 are in the conversation too, although I would take Curry), so most reasonable people know that he's great and can certainly explode the way he did against the Blazers, and he is good enough to take a bad team and make them somewhat respectable.

Its one thing to question curry vs magic, its another thing to be putting curry vs kd and cp3

What exactly puts kd or cp3 above 13 curry? how about banged up 2016 curry in the playoffs? Curry's--floor-- is as good as these players at their absolute best.

He's good enough to take a bad team(the 13 warriors) and beat a 55 win team and then take a title level team(as in a ray allen miracle away from the title) to 6. That's as if not more impressive than like anything durant or cp3 managed in their entire postseason career. Saying curry isn't jordan is one thing, saying curr is in the same tier as players who can't even match curry at his weakest is another. Curry's argument is not "good" its far better than anyone else whose played in the 2010's. Durant's crowning achivement as the guy was geeting murdered by the heat(a team that got taken to 6 and 7 in the previous rounds). CP3's was matching a injured curry in the 18 wcf. Curry's weakest prime postseasons wouldhave a storng argument as either's best.

Curry's postseason offenses are as good as bird despite worse offensive help, his numbers don't drop off as badly as bird does, He has pre-draymond series that stack up against bird's best both from a box score perespectiev AND a teamsuccess/supporting cast context, and he has a signature carrying performance bird doesn't really have an answer for in the 19 finals.

Would you campre larry brd to durant or cp3? Why curry? Curry sin't jordan or magic is fine, but the next step down form jordan is not chris paul.

Wait I’m pretty sure curry was doodoo vs the Spurs lol, it’s not as if he was deployed in a way where he was doing a lot of off ball stuff too

[freethedevil]

Curry has a great argument to be the 2nd best player of the 2010s after LeBron (Durant and CP3 are in the conversation too, although I would take Curry), so most reasonable people know that he's great and can certainly explode the way he did against the Blazers, and he is good enough to take a bad team and make them somewhat respectable.

Its one thing to question curry vs magic, its another thing to be putting curry vs kd and cp3

What exactly puts kd or cp3 above 13 curry? how about banged up 2016 curry in the playoffs? Curry's--floor-- is as good as these players at their absolute best.

He's good enough to take a bad team(the 13 warriors) and beat a 55 win team and then take a title level team(as in a ray allen miracle away from the title) to 6. That's as if not more impressive than like anything durant or cp3 managed in their entire postseason career. Saying curry isn't jordan is one thing, saying curr is in the same tier as players who can't even match curry at his weakest is another. Curry's argument is not "good" its far better than anyone else whose played in the 2010's. Durant's crowning achivement as the guy was geeting murdered by the heat(a team that got taken to 6 and 7 in the previous rounds). CP3's was matching a injured curry in the 18 wcf. Curry's weakest prime postseasons wouldhave a storng argument as either's best.

Curry's postseason offenses are as good as bird despite worse offensive help, his numbers don't drop off as badly as bird does, He has pre-draymond series that stack up against bird's best both from a box score perespectiev AND a teamsuccess/supporting cast context, and he has a signature carrying performance bird doesn't really have an answer for in the 19 finals.

Would you campre larry brd to durant or cp3? Why curry? Curry sin't jordan or magic is fine, but the next step down form jordan is not chris paul.

Wait I’m pretty sure curry was doodoo vs the Spurs lol, it’s not as if he was deployed in a way where he was doing a lot of off ball stuff too

Ah ****, I think I conflated curry's numbers vs the nuggets with his numbers vs the spurs.

[MyUniBroDavis]

My main criticism with using rts comes down to deployment which is much more complex than just how many shots they are assisted on but more so the actions they partake in


But the majority of currys threes in the 2015 finals especially were mostly on ball iso or screen situations, vs off ball stuff (that still obv has value, although I wouldn’t give a spot up the same value as coming off of an action, but more of currys there’s are coming off of action anyway).

I don’t really think it makes sense to use relative offensive rtg to compare curry to other guys given the circumstances surrounding more than half of the playoff games hes played in his prime lol.

I do think there’s justification that if curry is in a team that doesn’t fit his talents, he isn’t gonna be as big of a floor raiser as some others are, and that certain strengths of the Kerr warriors offense pre Durant were less effective in playoff situations.

Sample sizes for net rtg in playoffs, even across multiple runs, are kind of crazy small so I don’t know how much stock should be put into them

That being said the fact that currys offensive rtg in 2015 and 2016, when the was essentially a neutral in terms of net rtg

(2015, 107.1 to 106.4)
(2016, 109.7 to 110.0)

Vs how it was in the next few years, whereas there was a huge gap in offensive rtg between Durant and curry in the RS, Durant has a slight edge in the PS on aggregate (although there are obvious factors coming into play, the clearest one being Durant didn’t play vs the raptors, although tbf curry didn’t play against the Spurs whose def rtg was pretty high, but def the raptors one effected it more because of overall circumstance prolly)

I don’t remember closely enough but there are tangible reasons why you’d expect currys playoff impact to be a bit lower than his RS impact, with a bit of a bigger drop off than a typical guy, not on the basis of his numbers which do go down a bit, but more so on the basis of the way teams approach it

Comparing Relative offensive rtg doesn’t seem all too fair too

That being said, obviously curry has shown to have success in the playoffs, and I while his net rating numbers weren’t great in 2015 or 2016, small sample raw net rtg aren’t really a great argument for much, and I def wouldn’t say he had a bad run in 2015 by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t have much reason to believe his scoring was inflated in any way either, and while certain aspects of his impact might be diminished they still fully exist.


I think people acting as if curry gets undue hate are kind of being absurd cuz my everyone loves curry, but some people do think he can’t carry an offense on his own or something which is pretty dumb. You can argue that in the absence of certain things a lot of what curry does is diminished, such as having a competent roll man playmaker (an incredible one in his case) so they can’t just blitz or do a catch hedge sort of (Soft drop? Idr the name) and chill, but that’s the same argument that bron needs some spacing, AD needs a p and r playmaker, etc etc, I don’t think the fact a guy isn’t as good if you deliberately put him in a team that doesn’t help him matters since a team is gonna be dumb as hell if they do that in the first place

At the same time idt it’s fair to have curry’s playoff offense so high based on the high relative on court offensive rtg he’s had, but obviously there are more arguments that allow him to be highly regarded. I just don’t think that should be a fallback argument comparing him to others because of how small a sample playoff net rtg is, we see cases where a reasonably deep run that has 20-30+ Raw impact drops down to neutral by taking out one series. This isn’t a curry specific thing, I don’t think using playoff net rtg makes much sense in general as an end all be all argument unless you back it up with other data

That being said using 2015 and 2016 to discredit what currys does in general is kind of odd. I think certain switch everything defenses that are simultenously defenses that communicate well are better handled to defend curry vs some other types of defenses, but the fact that curry has defenses he doesn’t like to face more than other types of defenses isn’t unique and can be said for almost any top offensive guy ever.

[therealbig3]

Curry has a great argument to be the 2nd best player of the 2010s after LeBron (Durant and CP3 are in the conversation too, although I would take Curry), so most reasonable people know that he's great and can certainly explode the way he did against the Blazers, and he is good enough to take a bad team and make them somewhat respectable.

Its one thing to question curry vs magic, its another thing to be putting curry vs kd and cp3

What exactly puts kd or cp3 above 13 curry? how about banged up 2016 curry in the playoffs? Curry's--floor-- is as good as these players at their absolute best.

He's good enough to take a bad team(the 13 warriors) and beat a 55 win team and then take a title level team(as in a ray allen miracle away from the title) to 6. That's as if not more impressive than like anything durant or cp3 managed in their entire postseason career. Saying curry isn't jordan is one thing, saying curr is in the same tier as players who can't even match curry at his weakest is another. Curry's argument is not "good" its far better than anyone else whose played in the 2010's. Durant's crowning achivement as the guy was geeting murdered by the heat(a team that got taken to 6 and 7 in the previous rounds). CP3's was matching a injured curry in the 18 wcf. Curry's weakest prime postseasons wouldhave a storng argument as either's best.

Curry's postseason offenses are as good as bird despite worse offensive help, his numbers don't drop off as badly as bird does, He has pre-draymond series that stack up against bird's best both from a box score perespectiev AND a teamsuccess/supporting cast context, and he has a signature carrying performance bird doesn't really have an answer for in the 19 finals.

Would you campre larry brd to durant or cp3? Why curry? Curry sin't jordan or magic is fine, but the next step down form jordan is not chris paul.

Like you keep brining up 17 and 18, but we dont' even need those years.. Curry from 13-15 posts far better induvdiual playoff impact than durant or cp3 or kobe. And those are teams good enough to challenge title challengers. His regular season impact in the weaker two seasons in that sample narrowly trails that o cp3 and durant's best regular seasons.. He achieved simialr/better success in the postseason without as much help. And if that wasn't enough, in 16, with his injury in what's the second worst postseason run of his prime, he took kevin durant, a player arguably outplaying durant that postseaosn in westbrook, locked them in a closet, and swallowed the key while on a bum-ass ankle.

Saying curry is worse than magic is one thing, comparing him to players who he's outclassed and outimapcted on every imaginable context doesn't make any sense.

I think Curry peaked higher than CP3 and Durant, but I think you're using a lot of narrative here to build a case against them, which I don't really buy. I think based on longevity, CP3 and Durant have valid cases against Curry, although like I said, I would still take Curry. But I don't think the difference in peak is the chasm you're making it seem.

I also disagree about Kobe. I understand there's AUPM from 13-15, but that's one metric, and I don't think it captures the fact that I think Kobe is a more resilient offensive performer against tough defenses, and was able to anchor consistently strong playoff offenses that measure out as superior to the 15 or 16 Warriors. And I just posted how using Orating, Kobe over his entire playoff prime grades out as similar to Curry in 2015. Dirk looks better over the course of his playoff prime.

Bird is an interesting case. I think a healthy, peak Bird is in offensive GOAT conversation, but much of my reason why is not captured by the box (creation, spacing, passing, decision-making, etc...I think he's a notably superior passer and overall decision-maker than Curry, for example). And healthy Bird wasn't a common occurrence.

And again, when trying to isolate Curry's offensive impact in the playoffs, from the overall team success, I'm not impressed, in the context of being an ATG offensive anchor. Even in terms of individual numbers, 15 and 16 Curry (pre-KD, on a championship contender) averaged 27/6/5 on 61% TS and 112 Orating in the playoffs. 08-10 Kobe (championship contender, no other MVP-level player on his team) averaged 30/6/6 on 57% TS and 115 Orating in the playoffs. Kobe led the better playoff offenses. Kobe faced the better defenses too.

[therealbig3]

My main criticism with using rts comes down to deployment which is much more complex than just how many shots they are assisted on but more so the actions they partake in


But the majority of currys threes in the 2015 finals especially were mostly on ball iso or screen situations, vs off ball stuff (that still obv has value, although I wouldn’t give a spot up the same value as coming off of an action, but more of currys there’s are coming off of action anyway).

I don’t really think it makes sense to use relative offensive rtg to compare curry to other guys given the circumstances surrounding more than half of the playoff games hes played in his prime lol.

I do think there’s justification that if curry is in a team that doesn’t fit his talents, he isn’t gonna be as big of a floor raiser as some others are, and that certain strengths of the Kerr warriors offense pre Durant were less effective in playoff situations.

Sample sizes for net rtg in playoffs, even across multiple runs, are kind of crazy small so I don’t know how much stock should be put into them

That being said the fact that currys offensive rtg in 2015 and 2016, when the was essentially a neutral in terms of net rtg

(2015, 107.1 to 106.4)
(2016, 109.7 to 110.0)

Vs how it was in the next few years, whereas there was a huge gap in offensive rtg between Durant and curry in the RS, Durant has a slight edge in the PS on aggregate (although there are obvious factors coming into play, the clearest one being Durant didn’t play vs the raptors, although tbf curry didn’t play against the Spurs whose def rtg was pretty high, but def the raptors one effected it more because of overall circumstance prolly)

I don’t remember closely enough but there are tangible reasons why you’d expect currys playoff impact to be a bit lower than his RS impact, with a bit of a bigger drop off than a typical guy, not on the basis of his numbers which do go down a bit, but more so on the basis of the way teams approach it

Comparing Relative offensive rtg doesn’t seem all too fair too

That being said, obviously curry has shown to have success in the playoffs, and I while his net rating numbers weren’t great in 2015 or 2016, small sample raw net rtg aren’t really a great argument for much, and I def wouldn’t say he had a bad run in 2015 by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t have much reason to believe his scoring was inflated in any way either, and while certain aspects of his impact might be diminished they still fully exist.


I think people acting as if curry gets undue hate are kind of being absurd cuz my everyone loves curry, but some people do think he can’t carry an offense on his own or something which is pretty dumb. You can argue that in the absence of certain things a lot of what curry does is diminished, such as having a competent roll man playmaker (an incredible one in his case) so they can’t just blitz or do a catch hedge sort of (Soft drop? Idr the name) and chill, but that’s the same argument that bron needs some spacing, AD needs a p and r playmaker, etc etc, I don’t think the fact a guy isn’t as good if you deliberately put him in a team that doesn’t help him matters since a team is gonna be dumb as hell if they do that in the first place

At the same time idt it’s fair to have curry’s playoff offense so high based on the high relative on court offensive rtg he’s had, but obviously there are more arguments that allow him to be highly regarded. I just don’t think that should be a fallback argument comparing him to others because of how small a sample playoff net rtg is, we see cases where a reasonably deep run that has 20-30+ Raw impact drops down to neutral by taking out one series. This isn’t a curry specific thing, I don’t think using playoff net rtg makes much sense in general as an end all be all argument unless you back it up with other data

That being said using 2015 and 2016 to discredit what currys does in general is kind of odd. I think certain switch everything defenses that are simultenously defenses that communicate well are better handled to defend curry vs some other types of defenses, but the fact that curry has defenses he doesn’t like to face more than other types of defenses isn’t unique and can be said for almost any top offensive guy ever.

I don't think it's an end-all, be-all argument either, but I do think that if you're going to be in the offensive GOAT discussion, you shouldn't be leading an average offense relative to other title contenders when you don't have Kevin Durant. I mean, he DID have ideal personnel, in an ideal system, playing up to his strengths, I don't see how it's unfavorable relative to other stars. If heliocentric offense (or whatever the term is) is consistently leading to better offensive performance, then we need to rethink how ideal the Warriors approach with Curry is. I mean, has it led to a higher ceiling? No, I don't think so. Is it less consistent? Clearly.

As for defenses that any star doesn't like to face...typically, in a deep PS run against tougher defenses, everyone is going to be run out of their comfort zone and they need to adjust and still maintain their performance. You're right, that isn't unique to Curry. Everyone else faced that too.

[MyUniBroDavis]

On curry and Durant

I agree curry was more impactful for those warriors teams and has a better offensive impact

(Prolly player too but Durant on paper is just so godly lul)

That being said Durant filled a role that wasn’t more about increasing their offensive rtg vs increasing the odds of the offense not stagnating, I think he helped more so in a way of patching up a ship instead of upgrading the engine, so the expected wind go up more than off rtg indicate IMO

I would also say that it’s not fair to say curry was a step beyond Durant throughout their runs. I mean even in 2017, while currys average level of play was certainly better, I would say that while curry has a Top tier+ offensive run, And his average level of play was higher, I wouldn’t necessarily say I would prefer to have currys run over durants, as blasphemous as that sounds. That’s not really a knock on curry though since Durant basically had one of the best efficiency scoring playoff runs ever lol, and I’d say currys average level of play was higher still