Peaks project update: #9

[E-Balla]

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).

Remember the argument here. I'm saying Curry didn't improve. The fact that there's almost no difference in his RAPM from 15 to 16 to 17 might be telling in this regard. I'm not trying to definitively prove he didn't improve, I'm looking for evidence outside of his PPG and other things easily explained away with his new role taking 11 3s a game that he did improve. I've yet to see any evidence.

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).

You might rank 2015 LeBron low but I'd easily put that year over 2017 so that's more of a preference thing. Plus Curry's rankings are less important, Draymond's showing a clear improvement was. I don't even like using RPM, I just found it strange he kept citing those numbers when they agreed with my argument and not his.

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.

All I can ask for really.

I don't expect everyone to think KD is the reason he was so good that postseason, but it's at least a strong argument against him that doesn't exist for other people in this range (Oscar, Magic, KG, West, Dr. J, Hakeem, etc). I just find it hard to believe that he just magically played better with KD than before and it had nothing to do with KD changing how defenses played him in the playoffs when that whole regular season he looked worse than the prior 2 seasons.

[cecilthesheep]

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...
...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).

I would love to have more discussion, but i just want to say it's very unclear to me why Magic would be considered better in those years. I'm sure there's a case, but I haven't heard it, and team success doesn't have much to do with why I think 1987 is clearly his best year.

Sure, Magic's team was worse later on, but that doesn't necessarily mean he improved. His peak was just very high, high enough that as his team declined and he slowly declined he could still get them to the finals. His statistical peak seems to clearly be '87, unless you're approaching it from a totally different angle than anything I've thought of, and the eye test says that's part of a short time period when he'd raised his decision making to essentially perfect levels, he'd added the jump shot as a consistent weapon, and he was still at his athletic peak.

[Samurai]

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.

Fair point about per 100 if the minutes and pace is similar. So if we just look at his per game numbers:
93: 26.1 pts, 13 reb, 3.5 assists, 1.8 steals, 4.2 blocks, 3.2 TOV, 27.3 PER, .234 WS/48
94: 27.3 pts, 11.9 reb, 3.6 assists, 1.6 steals, 3.7 blocks, 3.4 TOV, 25.3 PER, .210 WS/48

Not sure if you want to stick with per 100 numbers for playoffs since he played 11 more games in 94 than 93. But even if you go with per game, 93 was still better in rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. Your point about his performance against the Knicks vs. the Sonics is fair. But since I do consider sample size, it isn't the biggest gap between the 2 years. If the RS and playoff numbers were the same in both years, then I could look at those 2 series as the tie breaker if their performance in the far greater sample size was identical. Here they clearly are not, particularly the rebounding differential. To me, one very small sample size series does not outweigh the bulk of the data in terms of how I view them. I understand that you may weigh a single series more than the rest of the year in which case your mileage may vary.

At the end of the day, it all depends on what criteria various individuals choose to weigh more than others. Different criteria can lead to different conclusions.

[freethedevil]

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?

Curry has only led +/- playoff stats in 2017 when he broke the record for them. You keep saying kd's made his 2017 impact stats better, but that's a baseless assumption. +/- stats tend to get worse, not better, as you improve your team.

In 2015 he led them in the rs and then got blown away by lebron once the playoffs started. Yes, curry moved off the ball more in 2015, however curry's deep shooting picked up in 2016. That deep shooting has forced defences to trap him higher. His shooting as a whole jut got better. given that his threat as a shooter is the #1 source of his playmaking, it's not a coincidence that his box creation peaked as his shot got deeper and better.

[Timmyyy]

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).

You might rank 2015 LeBron low but I'd easily put that year over 2017 so that's more of a preference thing. Plus Curry's rankings are less important, Draymond's showing a clear improvement was. I don't even like using RPM, I just found it strange he kept citing those numbers when they agreed with my argument and not his.

Yeah that Lebron comment was meant to be from my personal POV, just to show there are occasions where the comparisons between years do not seem right for me and I am sure you will find examples where it doesn't align with your POV too.
Absolute agreement on the ranking part with Draymond. That was what I wanted to say. And I also agree with the last sentence.

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.

All I can ask for really.

I don't expect everyone to think KD is the reason he was so good that postseason, but it's at least a strong argument against him that doesn't exist for other people in this range (Oscar, Magic, KG, West, Dr. J, Hakeem, etc). I just find it hard to believe that he just magically played better with KD than before and it had nothing to do with KD changing how defenses played him in the playoffs when that whole regular season he looked worse than the prior 2 seasons.

Don't agree with the regular season was worse than in 15 and 16 thing, because while his efficiency looks a little worse I don't think his impact dropped at all as already showed in the comparisons of RAPM and RPM, where I think looking at all the data it's close enough to call it roughly a draw.
KD definitely had some impact on how Curry was guarded, but I still think the WOWY triangle that was posted is a solid indicator that Curry still was hugely impactful even without Durant. Would be interesting to see that chart for PO's only.

[liamliam1234]

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...
...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).

I would love to have more discussion, but i just want to say it's very unclear to me why Magic would be considered better in those years. I'm sure there's a case, but I haven't heard it, and team success doesn't have much to do with why I think 1987 is clearly his best year.

Sure, Magic's team was worse later on, but that doesn't necessarily mean he improved. His peak was just very high, high enough that as his team declined and he slowly declined he could still get them to the finals. His statistical peak seems to clearly be '87, unless you're approaching it from a totally different angle than anything I've thought of, and the eye test says that's part of a short time period when he'd raised his decision making to essentially perfect levels, he'd added the jump shot as a consistent weapon, and he was still at his athletic peak.

So I will acknowledge his postseason statistics peak in 1987. And I weigh that heavily as well, so I fully understand the case for 1987. But, looking at sample sizes, I think it is meaningful that his 1987 regular season trails 1989 and 1990. I am not definitively saying he was better in later seasons. But looking at level of competition, maybe a postseason increase in 1987 is not quite as phenomenal as it may initially seem. I just think it is a discussion which has been dismissed off-hand because the 1987 Lakers were better than their post-Kareem counterparts. Say what you will about the differences between 1994 and 1993 Hakeem, but at least I can cite the Rockets not being that much improved.

Having said all of that, your point is taken, and I am less reluctant to mark 1987 Magic as his peak than previously indicated. I just think people should not just make inherent assumptions about it because of the team success.

[E-Balla]

Curry has only led +/- playoff stats in 2017 when he broke the record for them. You keep saying kd's made his 2017 impact stats better, but that's a baseless assumption. +/- stats tend to get worse, not better, as you improve your team.

Ok so now I get it. You're trying to reference single postseason +/-? Well I don't see much relevance in that, and it's not at all refuting my argument that KD made Curry play better. Those numbers you posted showing the reliability of +/- numbers are also off, as those numbers are regular season numbers and not raw postseason +/- splits which don't translate too well year to year or have much reliability due to tiny sample size.

I mentioned KD because you tried to say something about Dray's +/- relative to Curry's in 2016 vs 2017 so KD lowering Draymond's +/- numbers was relevant.

This seems like an argument you've reasoned yourself into backwards, postseason +/- won't say anything about whether or not KD made Curry play better, and you'd expect his +/- to be better if KD made him play better. Either way I'm not confident making any statements on whether or not Curry played better year to year off single season playoff +/- on different rosters with different dynamics.

In 2015 he led them in the rs and then got blown away by lebron once the playoffs started. Yes, curry moved off the ball more in 2015, however curry's deep shooting picked up in 2016. That deep shooting has forced defences to trap him higher. His shooting as a whole jut got better. given that his threat as a shooter is the #1 source of his playmaking, it's not a coincidence that his box creation peaked as his shot got deeper and better.

Curry's deep shooting didn't pick up. He took more because Kerr moved him off ball. Again this isn't proving he improved at all, I'm not talking about numbers I'm talking about his game. The game isn't played on a spreadsheet.

[E-Balla]

Don't agree with the regular season was worse than in 15 and 16 thing, because while his efficiency looks a little worse I don't think his impact dropped at all as already showed in the comparisons of RAPM and RPM, where I think looking at all the data it's close enough to call it roughly a draw.
KD definitely had some impact on how Curry was guarded, but I still think the WOWY triangle that was posted is a solid indicator that Curry still was hugely impactful even without Durant. Would be interesting to see that chart for PO's only.

1. I remember Curry having long stretches of shooting under 40% which for him is a big deal. From the middle of November to the middle of March (56 games) Steph shot 37.7% from deep. He was 49% in his other 23 games to start and end the year. The vast majority of the season talk was about how bad Steph was shooting compared to his regular.

2. Sure but that WOWY triangle doesn't answer any of the concerns I have about Steph so I don't really get it's inclusion here. It doesn't prove he was better than 2015 and 2016 and it doesn't prove KD didn't help his postseason production. Valuable information for if anyone wanted to put KD over Steph though.

[E-Balla]

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...
...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).

I would love to have more discussion, but i just want to say it's very unclear to me why Magic would be considered better in those years. I'm sure there's a case, but I haven't heard it, and team success doesn't have much to do with why I think 1987 is clearly his best year.

Sure, Magic's team was worse later on, but that doesn't necessarily mean he improved. His peak was just very high, high enough that as his team declined and he slowly declined he could still get them to the finals. His statistical peak seems to clearly be '87, unless you're approaching it from a totally different angle than anything I've thought of, and the eye test says that's part of a short time period when he'd raised his decision making to essentially perfect levels, he'd added the jump shot as a consistent weapon, and he was still at his athletic peak.

So I will acknowledge his postseason statistics peak in 1987. And I weigh that heavily as well, so I fully understand the case for 1987. But, looking at sample sizes, I think it is meaningful that his 1987 regular season trails 1989 and 1990.

A few things here:

1. Magic actually had his best postseason in 86. I think it's worth mentioning Magic's highest level of play statistically was 87, and the year leading up to 87. It paints a clear picture that those were the years Magic peaked athletically, mentally, and with his skillset.

2. How does his 87 regular season trail 89 and 90 at all? Career high scoring, one of his 4 years leading the league in assists (the others being 86, 84, and 83), the best team he led by far, the best offense he led by far. Outside of his scoring efficiency due to his 3 point shooting I don't see what makes his 89 and 90 regular seasons better. If anything they're on the same level.

I am not definitively saying he was better in later seasons. But looking at level of competition, maybe a postseason increase in 1987 is not quite as phenomenal as it may initially seem. I just think it is a discussion which has been dismissed off-hand because the 1987 Lakers were better than their post-Kareem counterparts. Say what you will about the differences between 1994 and 1993 Hakeem, but at least I can cite the Rockets not being that much improved.

Having said all of that, your point is taken, and I am less reluctant to mark 1987 Magic as his peak than previously indicated. I just think people should not just make inherent assumptions about it because of the team success.

Maybe in 90 I can hear the argument of the competition gap mattering but in 89 Magic wasn't anywhere near as good as he was in any other postseason between 84 and 91.

Personally I think watching him play Magic peaked starting in late 85 and maintained that level of play through 87. The 3 point shot was never a large enough part of his game for me to say it makes the difference.

[freethedevil]

Curry has only led +/- playoff stats in 2017 when he broke the record for them. You keep saying kd's made his 2017 impact stats better, but that's a baseless assumption. +/- stats tend to get worse, not better, as you improve your team.

Ok so now I get it. You're trying to reference single postseason +/-? Well I don't see much relevance in that, and it's not at all refuting my argument that KD made Curry play better. Those numbers you posted showing the reliability of +/- numbers are also off, as those numbers are regular season numbers and not raw postseason +/- splits which don't translate too well year to year or have much reliability due to tiny sample size.

I mentioned KD because you tried to say something about Dray's +/- relative to Curry's in 2016 vs 2017 so KD lowering Draymond's +/- numbers was relevant.

This seems like an argument you've reasoned yourself into backwards, postseason +/- won't say anything about whether or not KD made Curry play better, and you'd expect his +/- to be better if KD made him play better. Either way I'm not confident making any statements on whether or not Curry played better year to year off single season playoff +/- on different rosters with different dynamics.

In 2015 he led them in the rs and then got blown away by lebron once the playoffs started. Yes, curry moved off the ball more in 2015, however curry's deep shooting picked up in 2016. That deep shooting has forced defences to trap him higher. His shooting as a whole jut got better. given that his threat as a shooter is the #1 source of his playmaking, it's not a coincidence that his box creation peaked as his shot got deeper and better.

Curry's deep shooting didn't pick up. He took more because Kerr moved him off ball. Again this isn't proving he improved at all, I'm not talking about numbers I'm talking about his game. The game isn't played on a spreadsheet.

You keep missing the point, +/- stats don't necceasrily improve with better teammates. In fact, depending on what you're using, better teammates would decrease your +/- stats. If a team is still very good without you, your +/- stats could take a hit. So saying "idk if kd improved his +/- stats" is silly. That's not how +/- stats work.

[trex_8063]

Copied from last thread....

1st ballot - '94 Hakeem Olajuwon
Most gauges [and evaluating persons] rate his defensive impact as near the top for his generation. Combine that with his solid scoring skills (that with his range, footwork, and varied scoring repertoire he was able to scale up at no significant loss of efficiency during the playoffs) and decent big-man passing, and obviously he was a pretty damn potent offensive player, too (and I do love two-way players, at least for these top spots).
Although his supporting casts of the mid-90's get poo-pooed on more than I think is strictly justified, it's certainly true that he had limited offensive help in '94; but he managed to keep the offense treading water (at a level of mediocre) during the rs. Then they OUTPERFORMED expectation (vs the defense faced) in each and every playoff series en route to a title.

2nd ballot - '93 Hakeem Olajuwon
tbh, it's almost splittin' hairs between '93 and '94 Hakeem to me. I know '94 is the consensus year, but I guess I'm just going to sort of spam this ballot with Hakeem because I think he's the best candidate. I'll not be voting for '95, though, as I do think he'd declined by then (even if it was still enough to get the job done vis a vis another title).

3rd ballot - '04 Kevin Garnett
Another amazing two-way player. Dominant defensive year while also averaging 24.2 ppg and 5.0 apg (despite a damn-near stopped pace of just 89); only slightly above average shooting efficiency, but near GOAT-level big-man turnover economy. Anchored the 5th-rated offense while simultaneously anchoring the 6th-rated defense with principle supporting cast being Sam Cassell, an ancient Latrell Sprewell, Trenton Hassell, Fred Hoiberg, Mark Madsen, and Gary Trent.
I truly suspect they'd have gone to the finals (possibly won??) if not for Sam Cassell's most untimely injury [if memory serves, wasn't it a pulled groin as result of doing a celebratory "big balls" dance? ].
Garnett is on another planet from every other player in the league in RAPM this season (literally +3 from the guy in 2nd [Shaq]). Though never one to fixate on a single metric, it's good to know that he was also #1 in the league in rs PER (by >2 over the 2nd-placed player), #1 in rs WS (by nearly 5 over the 2nd-placed player), #1 in rs VORP (by >2 over the 2nd-placed player), etc.

[clyde21]

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.

yea, little thing called MCL might have something to do with that.

dumbfounding that people are still peddling this nonsense.

[Timmyyy]

2. Sure but that WOWY triangle doesn't answer any of the concerns I have about Steph so I don't really get it's inclusion here. It doesn't prove he was better than 2015 and 2016 and it doesn't prove KD didn't help his postseason production. Valuable information for if anyone wanted to put KD over Steph though.

I think you misunderstood me, I didn't use it to compare between the Curry seasons. I think it is useful to show you that Currys impact wasn't tied to Durant opening things up for Curry how you implied. Since it is for the whole season that doesn't directly address the PO's part, which is why I added this last sentence where I said it would be interesting to see it for PO's only, but it is a hint that Curry had no problem being impactful without Durant and I didn't see anything that would suggests this changed in the PS, at least until now. Maybe you have something?

[E-Balla]

Curry has only led +/- playoff stats in 2017 when he broke the record for them. You keep saying kd's made his 2017 impact stats better, but that's a baseless assumption. +/- stats tend to get worse, not better, as you improve your team.

Ok so now I get it. You're trying to reference single postseason +/-? Well I don't see much relevance in that, and it's not at all refuting my argument that KD made Curry play better. Those numbers you posted showing the reliability of +/- numbers are also off, as those numbers are regular season numbers and not raw postseason +/- splits which don't translate too well year to year or have much reliability due to tiny sample size.

I mentioned KD because you tried to say something about Dray's +/- relative to Curry's in 2016 vs 2017 so KD lowering Draymond's +/- numbers was relevant.

This seems like an argument you've reasoned yourself into backwards, postseason +/- won't say anything about whether or not KD made Curry play better, and you'd expect his +/- to be better if KD made him play better. Either way I'm not confident making any statements on whether or not Curry played better year to year off single season playoff +/- on different rosters with different dynamics.

In 2015 he led them in the rs and then got blown away by lebron once the playoffs started. Yes, curry moved off the ball more in 2015, however curry's deep shooting picked up in 2016. That deep shooting has forced defences to trap him higher. His shooting as a whole jut got better. given that his threat as a shooter is the #1 source of his playmaking, it's not a coincidence that his box creation peaked as his shot got deeper and better.

Curry's deep shooting didn't pick up. He took more because Kerr moved him off ball. Again this isn't proving he improved at all, I'm not talking about numbers I'm talking about his game. The game isn't played on a spreadsheet.

You keep missing the point, +/- stats don't necceasrily improve with better teammates. In fact, depending on what you're using, better teammates would decrease your +/- stats. If a team is still very good without you, your +/- stats could take a hit. So saying "idk if kd improved his +/- stats" is silly. That's not how +/- stats work.

We're talking about the playoffs here. My argument for his +/- numbers IN THE PLAYOFFS is that he played better because he had KD out there with him. Like I've said for the 50th time, 2016 and 2015 Curry would do just as well if not better if put in a similar situation. His play next to KD isn't emblematic of much other than exactly how much more talented that team was than any other team ever.

[freethedevil]

Ok so now I get it. You're trying to reference single postseason +/-? Well I don't see much relevance in that, and it's not at all refuting my argument that KD made Curry play better. Those numbers you posted showing the reliability of +/- numbers are also off, as those numbers are regular season numbers and not raw postseason +/- splits which don't translate too well year to year or have much reliability due to tiny sample size.

I mentioned KD because you tried to say something about Dray's +/- relative to Curry's in 2016 vs 2017 so KD lowering Draymond's +/- numbers was relevant.

This seems like an argument you've reasoned yourself into backwards, postseason +/- won't say anything about whether or not KD made Curry play better, and you'd expect his +/- to be better if KD made him play better. Either way I'm not confident making any statements on whether or not Curry played better year to year off single season playoff +/- on different rosters with different dynamics.


Curry's deep shooting didn't pick up. He took more because Kerr moved him off ball. Again this isn't proving he improved at all, I'm not talking about numbers I'm talking about his game. The game isn't played on a spreadsheet.

You keep missing the point, +/- stats don't necceasrily improve with better teammates. In fact, depending on what you're using, better teammates would decrease your +/- stats. If a team is still very good without you, your +/- stats could take a hit. So saying "idk if kd improved his +/- stats" is silly. That's not how +/- stats work.

We're talking about the playoffs here. My argument for his +/- numbers IN THE PLAYOFFS is that he played better because he had KD out there with him. Like I've said for the 50th time, 2016 and 2015 Curry would do just as well if not better if put in a similar situation. His play next to KD isn't emblematic of much other than exactly how much more talented that team was than any other team ever.

And I'm telling you that +/- stats don't suddenly change how they work in the playoffs than from the regular season. Even if kd "made curry look better", that wouldn't necessarily translate to a increase in +/- stats. and is just as likely to translate to a decrease in those kinds of stats. He may have made curry look better to the casual viewer, but how he would have impacted curry's +/- stats depends on the stat you're using. In general, the less stable +/- stats get inflated when superstars are paired with inferior teammates as opposed to superior ones

[E-Balla]

2. Sure but that WOWY triangle doesn't answer any of the concerns I have about Steph so I don't really get it's inclusion here. It doesn't prove he was better than 2015 and 2016 and it doesn't prove KD didn't help his postseason production. Valuable information for if anyone wanted to put KD over Steph though.

I think you misunderstood me, I didn't use it to compare between the Curry seasons. I think it is useful to show you that Currys impact wasn't tied to Durant opening things up for Curry how you implied. Since it is for the whole season that doesn't directly address the PO's part, which is why I added this last sentence where I said it would be interesting to see it for PO's only, but it is a hint that Curry had no problem being impactful without Durant and I didn't see anything that would suggests this changed in the PS, at least until now. Maybe you have something?

Oh my bad then I misunderstood. And I don't have numbers for that, and I don't really think they'll be useful with how small the samples will be and how tight playoff rotations are. I'm not really concerned with +/- in single postseasons unless there's a specific story you're telling with the numbers (for example Westbrook in 2017 outscoring Houston by 40 in the last 4 games while OKC went 1-3 to lose the series). It's just too noisy and lineup dependent to be useful without going extremely deep into who was on the floor for those 40 minutes without the star player.

I think the vastly improved boxscore numbers is enough evidence to see he benefitted from KD, even if KD benefitted more from playing with Curry. Like I keep saying they're the most stacked team ever by a distance. Of course Curry produced at a level he couldn't produce at when defenses key in on him, that's what he always does. One bad series and his +/- is dead, in 2016 for example Curry led the team in on/off through the first 3 rounds, but in the Finals was a -7.5 while Draymond was a +18. +/- tells a story when the sample size we're talking about is that small, and without that story I'm not comfortable using it.

[E-Balla]

You keep missing the point, +/- stats don't necceasrily improve with better teammates. In fact, depending on what you're using, better teammates would decrease your +/- stats. If a team is still very good without you, your +/- stats could take a hit. So saying "idk if kd improved his +/- stats" is silly. That's not how +/- stats work.

We're talking about the playoffs here. My argument for his +/- numbers IN THE PLAYOFFS is that he played better because he had KD out there with him. Like I've said for the 50th time, 2016 and 2015 Curry would do just as well if not better if put in a similar situation. His play next to KD isn't emblematic of much other than exactly how much more talented that team was than any other team ever.

And I'm telling you that +/- stats don't suddenly change how they work in the playoffs than from the regular season. Even if kd "made curry look better", that wouldn't necessarily translate to a increase in +/- stats. and is just as likely to translate to a decrease in those kinds of stats. He may have made curry look better to the casual viewer, but how he would have impacted curry's +/- stats depends on the stat you're using. In general, the less stable +/- stats get inflated when superstars are paired with inferior teammates as opposed to superior ones

They don't 17 games is a tiny sample size in the regular season too!

If Curry plays better his +/- numbers will be better it's that simple. I don't know why you keep mentioning this like it proves anything. It's a 17 game sample of +/- in a postseason where every time Curry hit the floor his team vastly out powered the other team. I'm sure KD also had his best postseason +/- numbers in 2017. I don't think it's his best season either.

[freethedevil]

We're talking about the playoffs here. My argument for his +/- numbers IN THE PLAYOFFS is that he played better because he had KD out there with him. Like I've said for the 50th time, 2016 and 2015 Curry would do just as well if not better if put in a similar situation. His play next to KD isn't emblematic of much other than exactly how much more talented that team was than any other team ever.

And I'm telling you that +/- stats don't suddenly change how they work in the playoffs than from the regular season. Even if kd "made curry look better", that wouldn't necessarily translate to a increase in +/- stats. and is just as likely to translate to a decrease in those kinds of stats. He may have made curry look better to the casual viewer, but how he would have impacted curry's +/- stats depends on the stat you're using. In general, the less stable +/- stats get inflated when superstars are paired with inferior teammates as opposed to superior ones

They don't 17 games is a tiny sample size in the regular season too!

Yes, it is, but the sample size doesn't change that having a stacked team =/ inflated plus minus stats. Whatever sample size you're using, better teammates don't mean better +/- stats. That's now how they work.

[E-Balla]

And I'm telling you that +/- stats don't suddenly change how they work in the playoffs than from the regular season. Even if kd "made curry look better", that wouldn't necessarily translate to a increase in +/- stats. and is just as likely to translate to a decrease in those kinds of stats. He may have made curry look better to the casual viewer, but how he would have impacted curry's +/- stats depends on the stat you're using. In general, the less stable +/- stats get inflated when superstars are paired with inferior teammates as opposed to superior ones

They don't 17 games is a tiny sample size in the regular season too!

Yes, it is, but the sample size doesn't change that having a stacked team =/ inflated plus minus stats. Whatever sample size you're using, better teammates don't mean better +/- stats. That's now how they work.

Ok... Playing better leads to having a higher +/- right? If you play better because you're on a stacked team, reasonably we should assume you can have a higher +/- due to playing better due to having a better team. +/- isn't something consistent series to series. It's dependent on so many factors, like 2017 lacking a series like the 2016 Finals where Curry was a net negative.

[Mavericksfan]

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

I’m going to focus on Curry with this response since I actually get your point regarding Magic. I feel the same way about Dirk and why I consider him the GOAT mid range shooter.

1)Reggie had some impressive runs but also some duds. Against the Pistons in 1990 the Pacers O-rating dropped by 7.8.His 1994 series against the Knicks stands out where the Pacers O-rating dropped 7.8 points compared to the regular season. It dropped by 2.7 in 95. So which series are you referring to specifically?

I don’t think it’s even close when comparing their impact. Curry is a better screen setter, moves just as well off the ball, and is an even better shooter with more range. He warps defenses like we’ve never seen.

2)I’m not sure why you’re writing off the MCL injury. Here’s a thread from Reddit showing the average return time is about 42 days for a Grade 2 MCL sprain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/871e5k/grade_ii_mcl_sprain_data_how_long_nba_players/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

The injury occurred April 24th. 42 days puts it at June 5th. Curry returned May 9th only 2 weeks after. He was clearly not 100% at this point. I’m all for criticisms of his decision making at the time or his durability but you glossing over the injury and expected return time is disingenuous at best.

3)He struggled even taking advantage of the mismatches he did generate that series. Also I’m not sure why you’re referring to the attention he garners as “simple traps”. Curry gets trapped from 25-30 feet regularly and sees more attention than almost anyone in NBA history. His +/- data and his teammates performance on/off all reflect this.
Here’s a video showing some of the attention Curry got.
https://youtu.be/PTRKNlS1Ne0?t=23s

4)I think the criticism’s of Curry’s passing was valid in his prior years. I actually think that’s one of the areas he has improved the most (in addition to more strength and that ridiculous 15 foot floater he added). But do you have the data for his numbers in the other games well? I cant find pick n roll data against Portland or the Rockets. Just overall playoffs. This year in the Finals he posted a 26% assist % and 10% TOV. That’s a slight improvement from his regular season numbers going against the best rel playoff defense since the 04 Pistons without Durant. He has clearly improved as a playmaker.