Peaks project update: #11

[Joey Wheeler]

It's really weird how much traction Curry 2016 is getting here. Missed a significant chunk of the playoffs (more than half of the first two rounds), had a notoriously underwhelming Finals, clearly negative on/off throughout the playoffs. Had 1 strong series out of 4 in the playoffs and even in that one his team was 1 point better with him off and all the evidence points towards Durant having been the better player throughout the series.

He did put up big regular season numbers, but they're not that big compared to what other guards like Westbrook and Harden did in recent years actually. Great regular season impact numbers, but they were actually second in his own team behind Draymond's (who actually kept those numbers up in the playoffs too). The only logical explanation is some people were caught up in all the hype during 2016 and don't want to admit they were wrong...

The 11th best peak of all time is certainly not someone whose team was almost 4 points better without them throughout 24 playoff games (with a very significant off sample due to all the time he missed).

He changed the way the game was played. Teams had no idea what to do, or how to defend him. He could score basically at will, and his scoring was better than anyone else by 3/2.

per36 he averaged 32/6/7 on (by 2pt/3pt/ft) 57/45/91 on 21 FGA and 5 FTA

Michael Jordan's 88 average

per36 he averaged 31/5/5 on 55/13/84 on 22 FGA and 9.4 FTA

In other words, he blows MJ out of the water on every level offensively. There was no one even close to him in terms of scoring.

He got injured in the playoffs, and the Warriors still made the Finals and lost mainly because the league stepped in and suspended Draymond. If it weren't for that, his team would probably be considered the GOAT, and Curry would be in the top 10 EVEN WITHOUT considering the injury.

I don't think, considering the injury, 11th is placing him high at all.

Westbrook the season after had 33/11/11 per 36, albeit on much worse efficiency. He then backed it up with 35/11/10 in the playoffs too. Harden this past season had 35,4/7/7 on 53/37/88 in the RS and 30/7/6 in the playoffs. How high is he on your list? For reference Curry went 27/6/6 in the playoffs on 49/40/92. I don't even know why we're using per 36 stats instead of per match or even 100 possessions, but fair enough...

Also, in the NBA titles are won in the playoffs, not in the RS. Your penultimate paragraph is actually a great argument against Curry, not for him; he was injured, missed games, played below par and his team still got to the Finals and almost won anyway. That only shows how strong they were that they were still that formidable even without Curry, who played at most 1 great series out of 4 in the playoffs.

[euroleague]

It's really weird how much traction Curry 2016 is getting here. Missed a significant chunk of the playoffs (more than half of the first two rounds), had a notoriously underwhelming Finals, clearly negative on/off throughout the playoffs. Had 1 strong series out of 4 in the playoffs and even in that one his team was 1 point better with him off and all the evidence points towards Durant having been the better player throughout the series.

He did put up big regular season numbers, but they're not that big compared to what other guards like Westbrook and Harden did in recent years actually. Great regular season impact numbers, but they were actually second in his own team behind Draymond's (who actually kept those numbers up in the playoffs too). The only logical explanation is some people were caught up in all the hype during 2016 and don't want to admit they were wrong...

The 11th best peak of all time is certainly not someone whose team was almost 4 points better without them throughout 24 playoff games (with a very significant off sample due to all the time he missed).

He changed the way the game was played. Teams had no idea what to do, or how to defend him. He could score basically at will, and his scoring was better than anyone else by 3/2.

per36 he averaged 32/6/7 on (by 2pt/3pt/ft) 57/45/91 on 21 FGA and 5 FTA

Michael Jordan's 88 average

per36 he averaged 31/5/5 on 55/13/84 on 22 FGA and 9.4 FTA

In other words, he blows MJ out of the water on every level offensively. There was no one even close to him in terms of scoring.

He got injured in the playoffs, and the Warriors still made the Finals and lost mainly because the league stepped in and suspended Draymond. If it weren't for that, his team would probably be considered the GOAT, and Curry would be in the top 10 EVEN WITHOUT considering the injury.

I don't think, considering the injury, 11th is placing him high at all.

Westbrook the season after had 33/11/11 per 36, albeit on much worse efficiency. He then backed it up with 35/11/10 in the playoffs too. Harden this past season had 35,4/7/7 on 53/37/88 in the RS and 30/7/6 in the playoffs. How high is he on your list? For reference Curry went 27/6/6 in the playoffs on 49/40/92. I don't even know why we're using per 36 stats instead of per match or even 100 possessions, but fair enough...

Also, in the NBA titles are won in the playoffs, not in the RS. Your penultimate paragraph is actually a great argument against Curry, not for him; he was injured, missed games, played below par and his team still got to the Finals and almost won anyway. That only shows how strong they were that they were still that formidable even without Curry, who played at most 1 great series out of 4 in the playoffs.

I'll work my way backwards:
Last Point: That shows Curry's impact even when injured and playing at far below optimum is STILL near KD at his peak. If getting injured, in your view, means you are disqualified from the whole healthy RS... you may be judging 'best year' not 'best peak'. Over that year, when healthy, he consistently dominated. If his playoffs were the level of his RS, he would be top 3 - not 11th.

Per36: I use this stat, as opposed to per100, because it's easier to visualize.
Per100: Curry - 43/8/9/3 (same percentages as before) on 28.6 FGA and 7.2 FTA
Per100: Westbrook 17 - 45/15/15/2 on 34 FGA and 14.7 FTA
Per100: Harden 18 - 48/9/10 on 32.7 FGA and 14.7 FTA

Curry is still head and shoulders above them as scorers, taking 4.1. less shots and 5.5 less FTA to score 5 points less than Harden Furthermore, Harden did have one of the greatest scoring seasons ever - however, it's one thing to put up that type of volume on a 53 win team... and another thing altogether to put up those numbers while winning 73 games and setting the all-time W/L record.

[Joey Wheeler]

He changed the way the game was played. Teams had no idea what to do, or how to defend him. He could score basically at will, and his scoring was better than anyone else by 3/2.

per36 he averaged 32/6/7 on (by 2pt/3pt/ft) 57/45/91 on 21 FGA and 5 FTA

Michael Jordan's 88 average

per36 he averaged 31/5/5 on 55/13/84 on 22 FGA and 9.4 FTA

In other words, he blows MJ out of the water on every level offensively. There was no one even close to him in terms of scoring.

He got injured in the playoffs, and the Warriors still made the Finals and lost mainly because the league stepped in and suspended Draymond. If it weren't for that, his team would probably be considered the GOAT, and Curry would be in the top 10 EVEN WITHOUT considering the injury.

I don't think, considering the injury, 11th is placing him high at all.

Westbrook the season after had 33/11/11 per 36, albeit on much worse efficiency. He then backed it up with 35/11/10 in the playoffs too. Harden this past season had 35,4/7/7 on 53/37/88 in the RS and 30/7/6 in the playoffs. How high is he on your list? For reference Curry went 27/6/6 in the playoffs on 49/40/92. I don't even know why we're using per 36 stats instead of per match or even 100 possessions, but fair enough...

Also, in the NBA titles are won in the playoffs, not in the RS. Your penultimate paragraph is actually a great argument against Curry, not for him; he was injured, missed games, played below par and his team still got to the Finals and almost won anyway. That only shows how strong they were that they were still that formidable even without Curry, who played at most 1 great series out of 4 in the playoffs.

I'll work my way backwards:
Last Point: That shows Curry's impact even when injured and playing at far below optimum is STILL near KD at his peak. If getting injured, in your view, means you are disqualified from the whole healthy RS... you may be judging 'best year' not 'best peak'. Over that year, when healthy, he consistently dominated. If his playoffs were the level of his RS, he would be top 3 - not 11th.

Per36: I use this stat, as opposed to per100, because it's easier to visualize.
Per100: Curry - 43/8/9/3 (same percentages as before) on 28.6 FGA and 9.2 FTA
Per100: Westbrook 17 - 45/15/15/2 on 34 FGA and 14.7 FTA
Per100: Harden 18 - 48/9/10 on 32.7 FGA and 14.7 FTA

Curry is still head and shoulders above them as scorers, taking 4.1. less shots and 5.5 less FTA to score 5 points less than Harden Furthermore, Harden did have one of the greatest scoring seasons ever - however, it's one thing to put up that type of volume on a 53 win team... and another thing altogether to put up those numbers while winning 73 games and setting the all-time W/L record.

I'm judging best year indeed since that seems to be the format this project is structured in, we're picking years. So yeah, being able to perform at your best in the most important situations is very important; most teams in history with 2016 Curry as their best player are capped at losing in the 1st round or 2nd round of the playoffs since they don't have enough quality (unlike the Warriors) to keep beating playoff teams without their star. I don't know how it 'shows Curry's impact'; it's not like he was diminished but still putting up amazing impact numbers, the Warriors actually were 4 points better during those playoffs without him. Those numbers aren't perfect and include a lot of "noise" from blowout games in WCF and Finals, but they're enough to show that you can't really credit Curry for their run to almost the title. If anything, there's a serious argument Draymond was their best player in those playoffs.

Head and shoulders above? He was more efficient for sure, but you're really underestimating how big a 5 point difference in volume is; 48 points vs 43 is at least as considerable as Curry's efficiency advantage. Also getting to the free throw line is something that is positive, not negative as those are the most efficient shots in basketball. If you value efficiency that much more than volume then we have Kevin Durant in 2014, who per 100 averaged 42/10/7 on 55/39/87, 27.2 shots per match (1pt less volume in 1.4 shots less), which is pretty much in the same ballpark.

From what I understood, you took his RS performance, rated it very highly and took it to be his peak and since you're not judging best year what happened in the playoffs doesn't mean much to you. That is a fair approach to take, the problem with it is in the NBA the RS has relatively little importance and it's in the playoffs that you can truly judge someone's level since it's when there are really huge stakes. Curry did look unstoppable in that RS, but then again it's just the RS...

[euroleague]

Westbrook the season after had 33/11/11 per 36, albeit on much worse efficiency. He then backed it up with 35/11/10 in the playoffs too. Harden this past season had 35,4/7/7 on 53/37/88 in the RS and 30/7/6 in the playoffs. How high is he on your list? For reference Curry went 27/6/6 in the playoffs on 49/40/92. I don't even know why we're using per 36 stats instead of per match or even 100 possessions, but fair enough...

Also, in the NBA titles are won in the playoffs, not in the RS. Your penultimate paragraph is actually a great argument against Curry, not for him; he was injured, missed games, played below par and his team still got to the Finals and almost won anyway. That only shows how strong they were that they were still that formidable even without Curry, who played at most 1 great series out of 4 in the playoffs.

I'll work my way backwards:
Last Point: That shows Curry's impact even when injured and playing at far below optimum is STILL near KD at his peak. If getting injured, in your view, means you are disqualified from the whole healthy RS... you may be judging 'best year' not 'best peak'. Over that year, when healthy, he consistently dominated. If his playoffs were the level of his RS, he would be top 3 - not 11th.

Per36: I use this stat, as opposed to per100, because it's easier to visualize.
Per100: Curry - 43/8/9/3 (same percentages as before) on 28.6 FGA and 9.2 FTA
Per100: Westbrook 17 - 45/15/15/2 on 34 FGA and 14.7 FTA
Per100: Harden 18 - 48/9/10 on 32.7 FGA and 14.7 FTA

Curry is still head and shoulders above them as scorers, taking 4.1. less shots and 5.5 less FTA to score 5 points less than Harden Furthermore, Harden did have one of the greatest scoring seasons ever - however, it's one thing to put up that type of volume on a 53 win team... and another thing altogether to put up those numbers while winning 73 games and setting the all-time W/L record.

I'm judging best year indeed since that seems to be the format this project is structured in, we're picking years. So yeah, being able to perform at your best in the most important situations is very important; most teams in history with 2016 Curry as their best player are capped at losing in the 1st round or 2nd round of the playoffs since they don't have enough quality (unlike the Warriors) to keep beating playoff teams without their star. I don't know how it 'shows Curry's impact'; it's not like he was diminished but still putting up amazing impact numbers, the Warriors actually were 4 points better during those playoffs without him. Those numbers aren't perfect and include a lot of "noise" from blowout games in WCF and Finals, but they're enough to show that you can't really credit Curry for their run to almost the title. If anything, there's a serious argument Draymond was their best player in those playoffs.

Head and shoulders above? He was more efficient for sure, but you're really underestimating how big a 5 point difference in volume is; 48 points vs 43 is at least as considerable as Curry's efficiency advantage. Also getting to the free throw line is something that is positive, not negative as those are the most efficient shots in basketball. If you value efficiency that much more than volume then we have Kevin Durant in 2014, who per 100 averaged 42/10/7 on 55/39/87, 27.2 shots per match (1pt less volume in 1.4 shots less), which is pretty much in the same ballpark.

From what I understood, you took his RS performance, rated it very highly and took it to be his peak and since you're not judging best year what happened in the playoffs doesn't mean much to you. That is a fair approach to take, the problem with it is in the NBA the RS has relatively little importance and it's in the playoffs that you can truly judge someone's level since it's when there are really huge stakes. Curry did look unstoppable in that RS, but then again it's just the RS...

Point 1: This is 'peak year' not 'most valuable year'. He peaked far higher, even if he missed some time at that peak from injury.

Point 2: The warriors have a higher +- because Curry missed games against bad teams, and played against the best teams injured (including without Draymond in a 40 point beatdown). Playoff +- isn't a good method to use over one year's playoff, as a 20 game sample size isn't significant enough.

Point 3: A 5 point difference is big...but it's not as big as 6 possessions used, which is how many more Harden needed to score his points(4 extra FGA and 5 extra FT to score 5 more points). KD took far more FTs in 2014 as well - 13FTA per game vs Curry's 7. FTs need to be taken into account, as they are possessions being used to score. KD also wasn't as efficient, taking 6 more FTA (around 2.5 possessions) with 1.4 less FGA (1.4 possessions) for a net total of KD using of 1.1 more possessions used to score 1 point less.

Harden

Furthermore, on top of Curry's scoring, the way he scored - playing off-ball and from far beyond the 3/off screens - destroyed defenses in ways Harden/KD didn't. Curry didn't take the ball out of his teammates hands like Harden/KD, thus depriving them of opportunity. Draymond wouldn't be elite on offense playing with Harden - he'd be a huge negative, watching Harden dribble around then take an iso shot. Similar to team's run through KD - as we have seen these past years.

Not only did Curry have the GOAT scoring season in efficiency and volume, the way he scored opened up opportunities for his teammates to thrive without him even touching the ball.

[Mavericksfan]

Why is the data unreliable? Because the picture it paints is not the one you want to see?

And why is the narrative 'false'? It is factual that the Warriors were ~4 points better without Curry on the floor than with him on during the 2016 playoffs. There's room for argument on how relevant those numbers are, but claiming they are false is just denying facts.

It's also incredibly ironic to see +/- numbers being dismissed as "unreliable" and "false" when they're the argument most prominently used around here to talk up Curry's greatness. Even with another player in the discussion, the 11th highest peak ever player's team being 4 points better without him in the playoffs would still be something that'd require some justification, but it's especially funny with it being Curry given the amount of arguments for him on this site based on this type of data.

Finally, that wasn't the only argument I used anyway, it was one in a list including missing half of the first two rounds of the playoffs, having an underwhelming Finals and at best 1 great playoff series out of 4. It's not like I said Playoff on/off is the be all end all, just one of the aspects that makes it baffling he's being considered. Good luck finding any other top 20/30 peak season being considered where the guy has negative playoff on/off numbers.

They’re unreliable because they’re extremely noisy. Not only is the sample size small but raw +/- data does nothing to account for the other 9 players on the court.

The numbers you see to back up Curry’s greatness are typically some sort of adjusted +/- data that try to account for teammates and opponents. You may want to take a step back and reevaluate your criteria for judging players if you don’t know the difference raw +/- and adjusted +/-.

The funny thing is I agree with your overall point (not quite to the same extent) but I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by using poor metrics to make your argument.

Imo you should stick to questioning his durability and poor Finals performance. I was just pointing out that the raw +/- numbers dont give us anything despite your attempts at forcing your anti-Curry propaganda.

[cecilthesheep]

1. 2004 Kevin Garnett - Most dominant offense/defense combo remaining. Guarded all five players on the floor, awesome passer/creator, all-time great help defender, basically the only thing he wasn't historically incredible at was scoring, which he could still do just fine. I value guys with no weaknesses highly, and Garnett isn't even mediocre at anything.

2. 1964 Oscar Robertson - Again the no weaknesses thing comes into play. Oscar's worst attribute was probably defense, but he wasn't bad at that; he at least picked up steals and used his size well. Offensively he's the complete package - best passer of his era, unstoppable Dirk-esque jumper, incredible floor general/organizer.

3. After much thought, I'm voting for 1966 Jerry West. I think he was 100% the offensive force Kobe was, arguably the greatest offensive player ever when he played, and he has the great advantage of also being an incredible defender, using his length and intelligence to block shots and create live-ball turnovers. '66 is when he started to unlock his passing game more, running pick-and-rolls a little more often, and he was still at his athletic peak at this stage. Combined with an unbelievable playoff run, it's enough to put him over Kobe and Curry, my other two contenders for this spot.

[liamliam1234]

Love West. Think the guard debate is going to become extremely messy once Garnett and Robertson are in (not tracking, but I feel like I have seen enough Garnett votes for him to be favoured for now). In contention we have three Curry seasons, three Kobe seasons, two Wade seasons, 2003 McGrady, and I think I have seen five different seasons mentioned as West’s peak (1965-66 and 1968-70).

So on that note...

1.) What makes you give 1966 the definitive nod? Speaking for myself, I think 1968 has a similarly strong case (but I guess no Finals appearance might be the penalty there).

2.) If Jerry West holds the peak offence title and was also probably a top ten all-time guard defender (or, you know, relative to era), what puts him below Robertson for you?

[cecilthesheep]

Love West. Think the guard debate is going to become extremely messy once Garnett and Robertson are in (not tracking, but I feel like I have seen enough Garnett votes for him to be favoured for now). In contention we have three Curry seasons, three Kobe seasons, two Wade seasons, 2003 McGrady, and I think I have seen five different seasons mentioned as West’s peak (1965-66 and 1968-70).

So on that note...

1.) What makes you give 1966 the definitive nod? Speaking for myself, I think 1968 has a similarly strong case (but I guess no Finals appearance might be the penalty there).

2.) If Jerry West holds the peak offence title and was also probably a top ten all-time guard defender (or, you know, relative to era), what puts him below Robertson for you?

1. Well, he only played 51 games in 1968, which pretty much eliminates that year for me; his scoring volume was also significantly lower that year, while his TS% was only 1.7 points higher. 1970 was actually the other year I considered; the unbelievably efficient playoff run in '66 was what tipped the scales there.

2. I was a little imprecise with my language, but it has to do with peak vs. overall greatness. I think Oscar peaked higher, enough higher to make up for the defensive gap at a relatively low-impact defensive position, but West earned the title of "greatest offensive player" by aging a lot better and maintaining his dominance for longer - Oscar's scoring fell off earlier and the rest of his game declined somewhat as a result, while West became a great facilitator during the later years and still maintained good scoring production.

edit: I am now slightly rethinking that greatest-offensive-player designation for West, because he did get hurt more often. It's very close. I did say "arguably", heh heh

[Joey Wheeler]

I'll work my way backwards:
Last Point: That shows Curry's impact even when injured and playing at far below optimum is STILL near KD at his peak. If getting injured, in your view, means you are disqualified from the whole healthy RS... you may be judging 'best year' not 'best peak'. Over that year, when healthy, he consistently dominated. If his playoffs were the level of his RS, he would be top 3 - not 11th.

Per36: I use this stat, as opposed to per100, because it's easier to visualize.
Per100: Curry - 43/8/9/3 (same percentages as before) on 28.6 FGA and 9.2 FTA
Per100: Westbrook 17 - 45/15/15/2 on 34 FGA and 14.7 FTA
Per100: Harden 18 - 48/9/10 on 32.7 FGA and 14.7 FTA

Curry is still head and shoulders above them as scorers, taking 4.1. less shots and 5.5 less FTA to score 5 points less than Harden Furthermore, Harden did have one of the greatest scoring seasons ever - however, it's one thing to put up that type of volume on a 53 win team... and another thing altogether to put up those numbers while winning 73 games and setting the all-time W/L record.

I'm judging best year indeed since that seems to be the format this project is structured in, we're picking years. So yeah, being able to perform at your best in the most important situations is very important; most teams in history with 2016 Curry as their best player are capped at losing in the 1st round or 2nd round of the playoffs since they don't have enough quality (unlike the Warriors) to keep beating playoff teams without their star. I don't know how it 'shows Curry's impact'; it's not like he was diminished but still putting up amazing impact numbers, the Warriors actually were 4 points better during those playoffs without him. Those numbers aren't perfect and include a lot of "noise" from blowout games in WCF and Finals, but they're enough to show that you can't really credit Curry for their run to almost the title. If anything, there's a serious argument Draymond was their best player in those playoffs.

Head and shoulders above? He was more efficient for sure, but you're really underestimating how big a 5 point difference in volume is; 48 points vs 43 is at least as considerable as Curry's efficiency advantage. Also getting to the free throw line is something that is positive, not negative as those are the most efficient shots in basketball. If you value efficiency that much more than volume then we have Kevin Durant in 2014, who per 100 averaged 42/10/7 on 55/39/87, 27.2 shots per match (1pt less volume in 1.4 shots less), which is pretty much in the same ballpark.

From what I understood, you took his RS performance, rated it very highly and took it to be his peak and since you're not judging best year what happened in the playoffs doesn't mean much to you. That is a fair approach to take, the problem with it is in the NBA the RS has relatively little importance and it's in the playoffs that you can truly judge someone's level since it's when there are really huge stakes. Curry did look unstoppable in that RS, but then again it's just the RS...

Point 1: This is 'peak year' not 'most valuable year'. He peaked far higher, even if he missed some time at that peak from injury.

Point 2: The warriors have a higher +- because Curry missed games against bad teams, and played against the best teams injured (including without Draymond in a 40 point beatdown). Playoff +- isn't a good method to use over one year's playoff, as a 20 game sample size isn't significant enough.

Point 3: A 5 point difference is big...but it's not as big as 6 possessions used, which is how many more Harden needed to score his points(4 extra FGA and 5 extra FT to score 5 more points). KD took far more FTs in 2014 as well - 13FTA per game vs Curry's 7. FTs need to be taken into account, as they are possessions being used to score. KD also wasn't as efficient, taking 6 more FTA (around 2.5 possessions) with 1.4 less FGA (1.4 possessions) for a net total of KD using of 1.1 more possessions used to score 1 point less.

Harden

Furthermore, on top of Curry's scoring, the way he scored - playing off-ball and from far beyond the 3/off screens - destroyed defenses in ways Harden/KD didn't. Curry didn't take the ball out of his teammates hands like Harden/KD, thus depriving them of opportunity. Draymond wouldn't be elite on offense playing with Harden - he'd be a huge negative, watching Harden dribble around then take an iso shot. Similar to team's run through KD - as we have seen these past years.

Not only did Curry have the GOAT scoring season in efficiency and volume, the way he scored opened up opportunities for his teammates to thrive without him even touching the ball.

Point 1: Let's assume your hypothesis is correct and Curry peaked 'far higher' than for instance Dirk Nowitzki in 2011. Why does it matter if that 'peak' is nowhere to be seen when it actually matters with a title at stake (ie in the playoffs)? Why wouldn't Nowitzki be considered better for actually coming up big when it counted even assuming his peak level is 'far inferior' (which is something I'm far from agreeing with)?

Point 2: Curry's on/off was negative vs OKC (-1) and Cavs (-11), the two contenders they faced. It was actually positive against the 'bad teams' Houston and Portland. Also, the Warriors were blown out twice vs OKC and once vs the Cavs, but Draymond played all those games. The game Draymond didn't play they lost by 15, not 40. I do agree playoff on/off has its limits in terms of analysis, it's just a data point and I'm certainly not arguing Curry was a net negative player because of it. Without him, they probably get backdoor swept by OKC or lost in 6 at best (still beat Portland and Houston tho). That said, it's still a data point that reflects something that happened; it's highly unlikely to say the least that a guy with a -4 on/off over 20+ games had this "huge impact" you're talking about, even accounting for all the noise in the sample and the flaws of the stat even with a larger sample. He was good for sure; was he superstar good taking the entire postseason in consideration? Not really. Was he better than Draymond over the course of the playoffs? Highly debatable at best.

Point 3: Things don't work linearly, the more you score the harder it is to remain efficient, not to mention that Harden generally takes more difficult shots than Curry and needs his teammates much less to create his shots. In any case, even if I disagree with it, let's accept your premise that Curry's 2016 RS is the best scoring RS of all-time. I actually agree with the rest you said, teams had no idea how to defend Curry and the Warriors offense during that RS, the main reason for their record wins was the NBA being completely unprepared to deal with them. But back to point 1, how relevant is this really?

Is a peak shown in the RS the same as a peak shown in the PS for you for evaluation purposes? Don't you think the PS has a much higher level of competition and as such the peak level you show there has much higher relevance? Curry might or might not have kept his RS level into the playoffs if not for the injury, we have no way of knowing for sure. What we do know is many other players did so and had higher impact in the playoffs.

If the RS sample is enough for you to determine a player's "real peak level", I can respect that. It is the larger sample after all and Curry as a top 10 regular season peak is a perfectly tenable position; it's just imo a strange position to take because with the way the NBA is structured the RS has little to no stakes for contending teams and we've often seen players (Curry one of them) being exposed to one degree or another in the much more competitive and intense PS environment after dominating the RS. IMO, a player's true level is revealed in the playoffs.

[Joey Wheeler]

Why is the data unreliable? Because the picture it paints is not the one you want to see?

And why is the narrative 'false'? It is factual that the Warriors were ~4 points better without Curry on the floor than with him on during the 2016 playoffs. There's room for argument on how relevant those numbers are, but claiming they are false is just denying facts.

It's also incredibly ironic to see +/- numbers being dismissed as "unreliable" and "false" when they're the argument most prominently used around here to talk up Curry's greatness. Even with another player in the discussion, the 11th highest peak ever player's team being 4 points better without him in the playoffs would still be something that'd require some justification, but it's especially funny with it being Curry given the amount of arguments for him on this site based on this type of data.

Finally, that wasn't the only argument I used anyway, it was one in a list including missing half of the first two rounds of the playoffs, having an underwhelming Finals and at best 1 great playoff series out of 4. It's not like I said Playoff on/off is the be all end all, just one of the aspects that makes it baffling he's being considered. Good luck finding any other top 20/30 peak season being considered where the guy has negative playoff on/off numbers.

They’re unreliable because they’re extremely noisy. Not only is the sample size small but raw +/- data does nothing to account for the other 9 players on the court.

The numbers you see to back up Curry’s greatness are typically some sort of adjusted +/- data that try to account for teammates and opponents. You may want to take a step back and reevaluate your criteria for judging players if you don’t know the difference raw +/- and adjusted +/-.

The funny thing is I agree with your overall point (not quite to the same extent) but I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by using poor metrics to make your argument.

Imo you should stick to questioning his durability and poor Finals performance. I was just pointing out that the raw +/- numbers dont give us anything despite your attempts at forcing your anti-Curry propaganda.

What propaganda? Everything I posted was based on fact. Saying Curry had negative on/off in the 2016 playoffs is not "propaganda" it's reality and a data point that is relevant to the discussion. Notice how I didn't say "Curry was a net negative player in the 2016 playoffs" because it's not like I'm taking that data point and extrapolating my conclusion on him from it.

I'm actually not a big fan of +/- metrics in general (I do know what APM is) and certainly don't use them to compare players. I've rebutted a lot of arguments for Curry and others on this website based on raw on/off though, so I'm pretty sure those numbers have been used to back up Curry. That said, those numbers exist and they describe a certain reality. The Warriors were 4 points better in the 2016 playoffs with Curry off the court, this is an inescapable reality and it's perfectly legitimate to ask those high on Curry to explain it as those numbers aren't normal for a superstar let alone the "11th highest peak ever". Just because a certain stat doesn't determine "goodness" on its own doesn't mean that the information it provides is analytically useless, that'd basically make every stat useless as basketball isn't math and games aren't won on excel spreadsheets. There's no stat that can replace actually watching the games and extracting conclusions based on your knowledge.

I actually know the explanation for it, the Warriors were absolutely blown off the court, brutally so, in games 3 and 4 at OKC but the gap actually went down a lot after the starters left for both teams. The Finals also had a lot of garbage time. In general, he had a good playoffs when on the court despite the on/off. Emphasis on 'good' though, definitely not what you expect from a superstar and that's before factoring games he just outright missed.

I've offered plenty of "ammo" for my argument against Curry 2016 here, you're just focusing on the +/- when that was just another data point, not some kind of "smoking gun" I thought settle the debate. I mentioned him missing half the first two rounds, underperforming in the Finals and arguably not being the best player on the court in any series and his teams throughout the playoffs.

[euroleague]

Point 1: Let's assume your hypothesis is correct and Curry peaked 'far higher' than for instance Dirk Nowitzki in 2011. Why does it matter if that 'peak' is nowhere to be seen when it actually matters with a title at stake (ie in the playoffs)? Why wouldn't Nowitzki be considered better for actually coming up big when it counted even assuming his peak level is 'far inferior' (which is something I'm far from agreeing with)?

It matters because this is the best peaks project. Nowitzki isn't better because he didn't play better when he wasn't injured. It's pretty simple. It might not be "greater" but it's better.

Point 2: Curry's on/off was negative vs OKC (-1) and Cavs (-11), the two contenders they faced. It was actually positive against the 'bad teams' Houston and Portland. Also, the Warriors were blown out twice vs OKC and once vs the Cavs, but Draymond played all those games. The game Draymond didn't play they lost by 15, not 40. I do agree playoff on/off has its limits in terms of analysis, it's just a data point and I'm certainly not arguing Curry was a net negative player because of it. Without him, they probably get backdoor swept by OKC or lost in 6 at best (still beat Portland and Houston tho). That said, it's still a data point that reflects something that happened; it's highly unlikely to say the least that a guy with a -4 on/off over 20+ games had this "huge impact" you're talking about, even accounting for all the noise in the sample and the flaws of the stat even with a larger sample. He was good for sure; was he superstar good taking the entire postseason in consideration? Not really. Was he better than Draymond over the course of the playoffs? Highly debatable at best.

+- says more about lineups than anything else. Draymond had a great playoffs - and much of it was due to Curry's spacing, as I've already described. Curry being there enables Draymond to do what he does. I've explained this already multiple times. Furthermore, +- in the playoffs means practically nothing - it definitely doesn't indicate whether someone had impact or not.

Point 3: Things don't work linearly, the more you score the harder it is to remain efficient, not to mention that Harden generally takes more difficult shots than Curry and needs his teammates much less to create his shots. In any case, even if I disagree with it, let's accept your premise that Curry's 2016 RS is the best scoring RS of all-time. I actually agree with the rest you said, teams had no idea how to defend Curry and the Warriors offense during that RS, the main reason for their record wins was the NBA being completely unprepared to deal with them. But back to point 1, how relevant is this really?

Harden took 7FTA more and 4 FG more to score 5 points per 100 possessions more. That's barely any more points, off of far more shots. The relevance is that Curry did far more than just score - his scoring broke defenses in two. He was the most unstoppable scorer since Shaq and maybe Wilt. Harden is great at making tough iso shots, but he's not doing it within his team's offense - even if he gets his, it won't break your team.

Is a peak shown in the RS the same as a peak shown in the PS for you for evaluation purposes? Don't you think the PS has a much higher level of competition and as such the peak level you show there has much higher relevance? Curry might or might not have kept his RS level into the playoffs if not for the injury, we have no way of knowing for sure. What we do know is many other players did so and had higher impact in the playoffs.

I think a peak in the RS is more valuable, as you can see them against more competition - although it's better if that peak is maintained in the PS. Just having a good PS is pretty useless - you have to be good because you don't have any homecourt, and face the best teams every round. The Warriors, in the regular season, had every team gunning for them - it's not like teams were taking the night off vs the Warriors. Players didn't respect Curry, and he was walking all over them/taunting them/etc. Milwaukee had a sold out stadium and had a city-wide celebration when they beat the Warriors. The competition the Warriors faced in the regular season is arguably more than most teams face in the PS, as every team wanted to take a win from them and not be stepped on and laughed at.

[ardee]

I won't be considering Curry until the bottom end of the teens. He's proven his game is not even close to as Playoff resilient as guys like Kobe/Wade/Dirk (who are incidentally 12-13-14 for me). Also think 2011 Dirk has a case for the 12 spot as well.

[Mavericksfan]

What propaganda? Everything I posted was based on fact. Saying Curry had negative on/off in the 2016 playoffs is not "propaganda" it's reality and a data point that is relevant to the discussion. Notice how I didn't say "Curry was a net negative player in the 2016 playoffs" because it's not like I'm taking that data point and extrapolating my conclusion on him from it.

I'm actually not a big fan of +/- metrics in general (I do know what APM is) and certainly don't use them to compare players. I've rebutted a lot of arguments for Curry and others on this website based on raw on/off though, so I'm pretty sure those numbers have been used to back up Curry. That said, those numbers exist and they describe a certain reality. The Warriors were 4 points better in the 2016 playoffs with Curry off the court, this is an inescapable reality and it's perfectly legitimate to ask those high on Curry to explain it as those numbers aren't normal for a superstar let alone the "11th highest peak ever". Just because a certain stat doesn't determine "goodness" on its own doesn't mean that the information it provides is analytically useless, that'd basically make every stat useless as basketball isn't math and games aren't won on excel spreadsheets. There's no stat that can replace actually watching the games and extracting conclusions based on your knowledge.

I actually know the explanation for it, the Warriors were absolutely blown off the court, brutally so, in games 3 and 4 at OKC but the gap actually went down a lot after the starters left for both teams. The Finals also had a lot of garbage time. In general, he had a good playoffs when on the court despite the on/off. Emphasis on 'good' though, definitely not what you expect from a superstar and that's before factoring games he just outright missed.

I've offered plenty of "ammo" for my argument against Curry 2016 here, you're just focusing on the +/- when that was just another data point, not some kind of "smoking gun" I thought settle the debate. I mentioned him missing half the first two rounds, underperforming in the Finals and arguably not being the best player on the court in any series and his teams throughout the playoffs.

I’m not disputing your overall point and I think you have a strong enough case without using raw +/- (once which is unreliable for a myriad of reasons. It’s far too inconsistent)

You throwing out raw +/- to make a point about Curry takes away from the rest of your points. You don’t even make an effort to compare the the +/- data to other lineups he’s in. Nor do you have data showing what kind if lineup’s he’s faced. All of that is important. You even mention yourself why the data is so skewed but continue to use it.

I dont believe ‘16 Curry belongs in this conversation for a lot of the reasons you mentioned. I’m just trying to move the discussion away from poor arguments using inconsistent data.

The “narrative” or “propaganda” is based on you using data that you don’t even agree with to help paint your picture. That’s done in poor taste and based on your other posts I think you’re too good of a poster/ too smart to settle for such an argument.

[Mavericksfan]

I won't be considering Curry until the bottom end of the teens. He's proven his game is not even close to as Playoff resilient as guys like Kobe/Wade/Dirk (who are incidentally 12-13-14 for me). Also think 2011 Dirk has a case for the 12 spot as well.

He does have the 2017 season which imo should be considered his best overall.

Anchored the best team ever and his play improved in the playoffs.

[ardee]

I won't be considering Curry until the bottom end of the teens. He's proven his game is not even close to as Playoff resilient as guys like Kobe/Wade/Dirk (who are incidentally 12-13-14 for me). Also think 2011 Dirk has a case for the 12 spot as well.

He does have the 2017 season which imo should be considered his best overall.

Anchored the best team ever and his play improved in the playoffs.

Not gonna give him the same amount of credit as guys like I mentioned when he played with 1) a former MVP and the MVP favorite that year till his injury 2) the second greatest shooter of all time who sometimes detonates bigger than Curry himself does 3) a DPoY who is basically a point guard at PF and 4) a former Finals MVP.

Very different putting up pretty stats in a situation like that and what, for example, Dirk did in 2011. 2017 Warriors are the GOAT team no doubt but none of the players get too much credit because it's so divided.

[Mavericksfan]

I won't be considering Curry until the bottom end of the teens. He's proven his game is not even close to as Playoff resilient as guys like Kobe/Wade/Dirk (who are incidentally 12-13-14 for me). Also think 2011 Dirk has a case for the 12 spot as well.

He does have the 2017 season which imo should be considered his best overall.

Anchored the best team ever and his play improved in the playoffs.

Not gonna give him the same amount of credit as guys like I mentioned when he played with 1) a former MVP and the MVP favorite that year till his injury 2) the second greatest shooter of all time who sometimes detonates bigger than Curry himself does 3) a DPoY who is basically a point guard at PF and 4) a former Finals MVP.

Very different putting up pretty stats in a situation like that and what, for example, Dirk did in 2011. 2017 Warriors are the GOAT team no doubt but none of the players get too much credit because it's so divided.

If that’s the case I’m assuming Magic/Bird are further down your lists considering how stacked their teams were.

All the impact metrics we have point to Curry being the driving force behind that team. His combination of shooting and playmaking is rivaled by only Bird. Even when he misses games they struggle way more than when any other member is gone.

[E-Balla]

We still have people arguing Curry was injured? Didn't I already debunk this like 2 threads ago? He had a grade 1 MCL sprain. That's a 1-2 week injury, look it up and look up the recovery times for players that had that injury. He sat out over 3 weeks, and the Finals was 2 months later. It's the NBA no one is as healthy as they were in October, that doesn't mean it's an excuse for their play. Curry was just as healthy as everyone else.

Like really just say you don't care about his bad performance, no need to lie and act like he was visibly hurt when he pretty clearly wasn't. He was healthy enough to keep getting up 11 3s a game, mostly off the bounce, at 40%. He was healthy enough to be the most efficient isolation player in the playoffs that year. He was healthy enough to average nearly the same (actually slightly higher) amount of miles run, and average speed in the playoffs as the regular season on both sides of the ball. I already posted his worst plays from game 7, all mental breakdowns, none physical. His injury wasn't affecting his ability to accurately aim behind the back passes, or not stare at Draymond for 3 seconds telegraphing his passes.

Outside of heresay and people assuming Curry is the most brittle player ever and took over 2 months to recover from a 1-2 week injury (sidebar: in 2018 he recovered from a severe grade 2 MCL sprain in less than that time) there's no argument he was still injured.

And if the argument is that he was rusty, the Finals started 24 days after he put up 40 against Portland. The man had a whole month of rust? Really?

[E-Balla]

I won't be considering Curry until the bottom end of the teens. He's proven his game is not even close to as Playoff resilient as guys like Kobe/Wade/Dirk (who are incidentally 12-13-14 for me). Also think 2011 Dirk has a case for the 12 spot as well.

Where's Dr. J on your list?

[Mavericksfan]

We still have people arguing Curry was injured? Didn't I already debunk this like 2 threads ago? He had a grade 1 MCL sprain. That's a 1-2 week injury, look it up and look up the recovery times for players that had that injury. He sat out over 3 weeks, and the Finals was 2 months later. It's the NBA no one is as healthy as they were in October, that doesn't mean it's an excuse for their play. Curry was just as healthy as everyone else.

Like really just say you don't care about his bad performance, no need to lie and act like he was visibly hurt when he pretty clearly wasn't. He was healthy enough to keep getting up 11 3s a game, mostly off the bounce, at 40%. He was healthy enough to be the most efficient isolation player in the playoffs that year. He was healthy enough to average nearly the same (actually slightly higher) amount of miles run, and average speed in the playoffs as the regular season on both sides of the ball. I already posted his worst plays from game 7, all mental breakdowns, none physical. His injury wasn't affecting his ability to accurately aim behind the back passes, or not stare at Draymond for 3 seconds telegraphing his passes.

Outside of heresay and people assuming Curry is the most brittle player ever and took over 2 months to recover from a 1-2 week injury (sidebar: in 2018 he recovered from a severe grade 2 MCL sprain in less than that time) there's no argument he was still injured.

And if the argument is that he was rusty, the Finals started 24 days after he put up 40 against Portland. The man had a whole month of rust? Really?

I’d certainly trust Curry and Kerr’s own statements over yours. You also have a poor understanding of injuries if you think people always automatically heal 100% within a given timeframe.

Curry himself said he wasnt 100%.

Curry being one of the most “brittle” athletes isnt exactly a poor argument considers how often he was hurt prior to that season as well. It’s why his contract was small enough to allow Durant to sign in the first place.

From Curry himself “I wasn't 100 percent, but who cares?”

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/warriors-stephen-curry-on-the-finals-i-wasnt-100-percent-but-who-cares/

Then you look at his ridiculous drop in shooting % from 0-3 feet in the playoffs that year. He shot 54% that year which is much lower than any other year. It was minus 15!!! from his regular season average.

You can ignore that all you want but I think he was hurt. Although it’s still no excuse for his poor play.

[E-Balla]

Also if injuries don't matter to you, Walton is far greater than Curry and should've been in your top 5 range pretty easily.