Edit: you messed up the quoting again; will respond to the other stuff as I edit.
Edit2: Done.
Edit3: Since you have such a difficult time remembering...
We have watched plenty of players get nowhere despite opening things up for their offensively inept teammates; Curry has never had that test in any meaningful sample size. So we compare him to peak Wade and peak Kobe, who maintained consistent scoring production (in a way Curry has often failed to do in the playoffs, especially in 2016) while carrying a large load on defence (as guards, sure, but obviously doing more than Curry) and being the main passing engine (Curry splits with Draymond). And in the playoffs, I think that matters.
Now onto the response.
freethedevil wrote:The dots are all singular seasons. His 2017 season is a purple. The other seasons aren't. So as far as "single season peaks go", if you want to use that, curry's season is, much higher than any of the seasons you've lusted,
That is explicitly not what the graph says. The dots are white if below 3 RAPM, so you can literally count and figure out they are not individual.
freethedevil wrote:How is 2016 relevant to 2017? The data has been provided, the metric you're using has his 2017 much higher than the other peaks,If you don't like it, fine, but you can't honestly use that data as an argument against 2017 curry when it clearly has 2017 curry well above the peaks you've listed. His three year score simply isn't relevant to this thread.
Again, you pretty clearly are misreading the graph. And I explained how you could logic out a potential conclusion, or at least a question, by knowing his three-year peak was 2013-15.
Fam, you were the one who brought this up. You can't use a set of data, and then disregard what the data you're using says. Dramond green was healthy, while curry missed playoff games and had injuries in 2016 and 2018.
So was Draymond’s three-year playoff peak better than Curry’s average from 2013-15?
Westbrook had massive imapct, but he also did so on a far worse team. Curry's 2017 impact came on a far better team. Elevating a great team is harder than elevating a lesser team by the same amount. Westbrook isn't being considered because his team was terrible comapred to the other people on this list.
And yet Curry, Durant, and Draymond all rate highly together.
Your own, and frankly the only argument you've made so far, is based on evidence that contradicts your argument. You say "kobe, wade and robinson" were "higher quality" players. Now make a case. Explain how players who
1. were less successful
2. are less portable
3. and have less of an impact
were better than 2017 Curry.
Fortunately we also have
1. team success
2. impact
also strongly favoring curry.
So again, what is the argument for any of the seasons you've mentioned. Saying they were "higher quality" isn't an argument. What makes less successful, less imapctful, and less portable seasons better?
Did this at bottom.
A. Fallacy is fallacious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumI don't care what other people think. If you have an argument that any of the seasons you've listed are "higher quality" than curry's 2017, make it. If you can't make that argument, or cite such an argument from the other people's votes, then what they voted isn't relevant.
I am saying to be consistent you should be arguing for Garnett like that.
Curry won more in 2017. He impacted the game more in 2017. He was more portable in 2017. What did kobe do more of? What did wade do more of? What did these players do that makes their seasons more impressive than 2017? Looking for squeaks in curry's case does not suffice as a case for th eplayers you've listed. You have to actually make the case they're "higher quality players"
Already did.
Huh? Why does it matter if he's great at rim protection for a forward or a center? He is a player whose impact is mostly contingent on defense who doesn't protect the rim as well as the best of his contemporaries. On most teams that is the most important thing for players who derive most of their impact on defense. I am not "simply dismissing" his metrics, I am explaining to you specifc limitations that are hidden in gsw. Forwards are typically good scoring threats. Green isn't. Defensive anchors usually need to be great rim protectors, draymond doesn't. Draymond is a great passing but he doesn't space the floor limiting the effectiveness of his own skill in most situations. Whether I'm biased or not doesn't matter. If any of the above isn't true then refute it.
Why is his impact so high? “Forwards need to score”? Why? Yeah, usually defensive anchors are traditional centres; why is Draymond’s impact so much higher? Why is his impact better despite limited scoring?
This is just baseless claims and strawmen.
Funny projection.
Based on what is draymond "far and away the league's best postseason defender"? Embid, Giannis both outperformed him in dpipm and anchored much better defenses. Gobert completely outperformed him against the rockets defensively. I didn't question his passing, i said he doesn't space the floor do to his lack of a threat reducing the effectiveness of his passing.
Why was his impact higher? (Alright, Embiid was better this postseason; are you arguing him as the best in the game now because he led the postseason in RAPM?) Has Curry fallen off? Without Durant, and sometimes Klay, why did his impact metrics not explode the way you keep saying is true of solo stars with great metrics?
And "curry has a top 3 peak"? Who said that?I said he has a higher peak than the three players you've listed. And you've made about zero arguments for why they were "higher quality" than Curry's 2017 season.
You not reading them does not mean they were not made.
Unfortuantely, you have yet to bring up anything outside of winning(favors 2017 curry), imapct(favors 2017 curry), and portability(2017 curry), so frankly I don't know what part of the story has convinced you curry's peak was below kobe's, wade's
This is all-time level projection.
Oh dear. does this sound right to you: You are basically just looking at scoring, which is jordan's value but this talk of being "unpredecented at the top is nonsense when it is a concept that has been around for years.
What.
Okay lets list curry's value:
-> He's more effecient, more prolific and shoots from farther(forces defenses more up) than any of the three you've listed. Therefore his spacing, much like jordan to his predeccors in terms of scoring, is unprecedented. He is also...
a better ball handler
better passer
a vastly better scorer
Much better off the ball
Not sure I agree but not especially relevant, disagree, disagree (he is more efficient but also has not held up in handling a heavy scoring load nearly as well as Wade/Kobe), agree but possibly offset by mediocre defence.
As for your "good shooter point" again. These effiency splits are based on subtracting the end result with the lower end result. So if klay is a great shooter already, than increasing his effiency won't be any easier than increasing a ineffecient shooter, because we're not comparing the end product, we're comparing how much they improved. If you want to throw out durant playing with a top playmaker in westbrook do to a lack of shooting fine. We can just compare him on the warriors where without curry, despite having great spacing, his effiency has plummeted.
Because Curry is the main source of spacing...
except lebron's impact on korver and jefferson's effiency is far stronger than their impact on him. This example makes no sense.
I am talking about team offence.
Here is another way to think about it: Lebron’s “impact” logically should be consistent regardless of the quality of the shooters, but the team requires players to take advantage of that impact. Curry is the same, except without the passing, defence, and physical dominance (all of which Wade and Kobe have over him). I would take Curry on the Warriors over either of them, but I also would take them on their respective teams over Curry.
freethedevil wrote:Huh?
His case is
-> His team was the goat team
-> His impact was much higher(this is overlal, not just spacing)
-> He can fit on any offense
-> Emphasis on team, so mostly irrelevant here. Is 1996 Jordan his peak? Is 2001 Kobe his peak?
-> Impact metrics are not the deciding factor.
-> A.) Ignores the other half of the game; B.) Fitting on every offence does not mean he fits better as a replacement on every offence. C.) Kobe and especially Wade were perfectly suited to their teams offence.
You deciding to equate imapct with effiency splits is ludicrous. However, you're telling me being more successful, more imapctful, and a better fit isn't enough for curry to be higher than the three players you've listed.
No, because that does not make him a better individual player at his peak.
Since we are really getting into the weeds with RAPM here, I think people really need to start looking at what RAPM tells us. Here is a source. (
https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/). Notice how many role-players are there by the team on a year-to-year basis? Notice how all three of Curry, Durant, and Draymond rate incredibly well next to each ither, despite you swearing up and down that should be profoundly difficult? RAPM is interesting, but people need to stop relying on it as some tell all metric.
So I'll ask again,
what is their argument? What parts of the story do kobe, robinson, and wade's season have that overrules the winning, impact, and fit of 2017 curry
I addressed Wade and Kobe previously as players I feel maintain outside of their situation. Not making the Robinson case apart from pointing out inconsistent evaluations as he compares to Curry in impact.
, we ignore that he played significantly worse in the PO's because he is Stephen Curry (you won't understand it I guess).
).