2020-21 NBA Season Discussion

[MyUniBroDavis]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I mean I don’t disagree with that.

I think the sample is so small that we can’t really draw a full conclusion out of it, although I’m way more skeptical of the “curry was so hurt and that’s why he was bad vs the cavs” argument than I used to be.

On heliocentric offenses, I do think Kerr falls too in love with currys off ball impact. I think in general people see it and confuse uniqueness with effectiveness.

Yes, it is unique and part of the toolbox, but the offense is still gonna be best with curry running the show. It helps and gives a different look, a different thing to adjust to, a counter, etc etc, but Kerr makes it his Go-To to much sometimes imo, utilize it heavily but don’t over utilize it vs the better option.

That being said, I do think you’d need to prove curry can’t function in a heliocentric offense, or that the way curry offenses have been limited are in a way that is more curry vs the approach

I don’t disagree with the idea that the pre Durant curry warriors struggled in ways vs certain teams that wasn’t due to noise

At the same time normally I don’t blame players for being gameplanned against with their coaches not adjusting, brons the only guy I think where I’m confident they’ll figure it out from a tactical perspective, but I don’t blame Kobe for what happened vs Boston nor was I gonna blame Harden for the 2-3 zone until it came out he told the team he didn’t wanna do anything off ball at all (obv it’s more recent so that one it’s easier to break down how the offense broke down despite the numbers and it was more noise that still was relatively unimpressive).

I do think that people tend to throw in court offensive rtg for curry and end it at that sometimes and it just seems a bit lazy, I mean even vs Toronto, some people go through some loops of Toronto being a -1000 relative playoff defense vs them matching up well vs the 76ers with Gasol terrorizing embiid and being the best “build a wall” team vs Giannis, whereas their strengths didn’t counter the warriors as heavily in that the coverages you want to run for the warriors are basically opposite of the bucks and 76ers, and the warriors offense being okay vs the raptors, when outside of game 1 every good offensive game from a team perspective could be attributed to someone that wasn’t curry lol.

Otoh I don’t think any of that means curry isn’t a ATG+ offensive guy, or that he’s like a playoff choker or anything because idt 2015 was a bad run by any stretch or that 2016 proves anything. Sample sizes to use raw off rtg for a single playoff run are so small, I think they’re not really great to draw conclusions from more so to lead you in a certain direction.

I wouldn’t say curry struggles more than other top stars when he’s or his team is beat from a tactical perspective, and in general my approach for that is I don’t blame guys for tactical failings but I give credit to those that can see through that, but it’s absurdly rare

[The-Power]

Steph looked mediocre before Draymond came back and Draymond without Steph last season looked like a G league player.

Of course they complement each other well and make each other better. But we've seen enough of Steph without Draymond and vice versa to know that both are excellent players without each other. You're looking at a couple of games in exceptional circumstances when the sample we have available where only one of them is on the court over the years is so much larger that it's really choosing a simple narrative over actual data.

Steph without Draymond played four (!) games this season and the last two of those were actually much better already (scoring 36 Points in 62% TS and 31 Points on 76% TS respectively). Curry actually started the season worse last year when he played next to Green than he did this year when he didn't. So what's the difference between last season and this season compared to the seasons before? The answer is quite obvious to me.

What both of these guys need more than they need each other is a team that understands their habits and what they want to do on the court. That's why they are a great fit; it's not because those two have a symbiosis that cannot ever be replicated or even approached. When they struggled for the games you point to above, the team saw drastic turnover and did not have any synergy. Green and Curry were absolutely fine playing without each other between 2015 and 2019, when the team actually had chemistry.

So while they are a great fit, no doubt, they are both excellent players on their own. There's no doubt about this either, and a constructed narrative based on a few games with a team in turmoil doesn't change that.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Steph looked mediocre before Draymond came back and Draymond without Steph last season looked like a G league player.

Of course they complement each other well and make each other better. But we've seen enough of Steph without Draymond and vice versa to know that both are excellent players without each other. You're looking at a couple of games in exceptional circumstances when the sample we have available where only one of them is on the court over the years is so much larger that it's really choosing a simple narrative over actual data.

Steph without Draymond played four (!) games this season and the last two of those were actually much better already (scoring 36 Points in 62% TS and 31 Points on 76% TS respectively). Curry actually started the season worse last year when he played next to Green than he did this year when he didn't. So what's the difference between last season and this season compared to the seasons before? The answer is quite obvious to me.

What both of these guys need more than they need each other is a team that understands their habits and what they want to do on the court. That's why they are a great fit; it's not because those two have a symbiosis that cannot ever be replicated or even approached. When they struggled for the games you point to above, the team saw drastic turnover and did not have any synergy. Green and Curry were absolutely fine playing without each other between 2015 and 2019, when the team actually had chemistry.

So while they are a great fit, no doubt, they are both excellent players on their own. There's no doubt about this either, and a constructed narrative based on a few games with a team in turmoil doesn't change that.

The idea curry needs draymond is kind of absurd when by far the biggest thing draymond provides for curry specifically is someone to dump it off to when getting blitzed for short roll situations, since most nba players can realize when currys open since he needs like an inch of space

People tend to not give credit to currry for the offensive performances of the warriors at times and it’s kind of absurd lol, based off of like a 6 game sample in the 2016 playoffs where the team did well offensively, as if Kay didn’t go supernova and average 30 a game in 50-50-80 splits hitting 6 threes a game

Or that the offense was solid with draymond in and curry out in 2016 being definitive proof, despite this being a small sample, and it being a trend that hasn’t held up at all, whatsoever literally any other year from 2015 to 2019. The converse, currys offense plummeting with draymond off the court, doesn’t hold true the other years as well. Obviously durants a confounding factor but it’s weird then that that doesn’t help draymond

This isn’t to roast draymond but there’s at least one guy on this board that thinks draymond was the engine on offense and it’s like pls stop I already have covid lol.

Draymond obviously enhances curry and vice versa, the idea that dray is integral to currys success is kind of ridiculous, although I do think in general pick and roll ball handlers need a guy that can make sure you don’t just blitz them in the pick and roll, that’s like saying shaq needs a guy who can throw post entry passes or AD needs someone that can ball handle in the p and r.

[freethedevil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longetvity is another matter. I'm talking abot primes here.

The issue here is you keep focusing specifcally on offensive team results, and then saying they're unimpressive based on the warrios strength defensively and offensively. Bird's teamamtes offensievly were alot better than curry's pre-kd. Ditto for Magic. Draymond's imapct preodmnately comes from defense, so specifcally honing on offensive ratings here doesn't really amke sense. Furthermore, teams shift to offensive or defenisve lineps depending on matchups and ect, so if the holistics are holding up, then harping on the offensive speifcally doesnt make much sense. The warroirs playoff offense was +5 and their playoff defense was +5.

Curry was able to consinstelt anchor strong playoff teams, and the teams success in the playoffs predated draymond or klay's ascension, focusing in on offneisve rating and then saying "73 win team" which was a byproduct of defense and offense doesn't make much sense. The lakers leading --better offenses-- can easily be explained by Kobe's teamamtes being better offensively than curry's --or-- the lineups being offense orenated as opposed to defense orientated. If we just look at the team results, is what kobe's doing more impressive than curry with context adjustment? I dont't think so. What absolutely isn't reasonable is using the warriors success defnesively AND offensively as a supporting cast wthout curry, and then looking specifcally at --offensive team results-- as some kind of proof of these other players superority.

Is klay thompson's scoring and draymond's passing and harrison's shooting(well, actually he didn't shoot well in the playoffs) and iggy's secondary creation better than james harden, capela, and two elite three and d's? Don't think so.

You're welcome to break down the lakers pieces offensively, but using holsitic sccess and then only looking at the --offense-- curry is leading him to doesn' tmake any kind of sense. Compare the --skills-- of the offensie players kobe played iwht on those better laker offenses and then do it with the offenses curry played with. Then using offensive team results may make some sort of sense here, but this, i'm going to look at o-rating and then be like the warriors were so good base , not onw hat they did offensively, but just what they did period makes little sense to me.


Because if we just look at the team level results, curry's creation+scoring, and induvdiual imapct data from the regular season and palayoffs, curry seems to grade out a lot higher than you're pegging him just on offensive analysis alone.

induvdiual seasons should be treated case by case. It is not remotely useful to try and use the warriors cast in 17 with the warriors to assess their cast 2019. Nor does it make sense to use 17 results to judge the team's capabliities in 16. I recall you warriors record without curry when they had kd to make a statement about what the warriors could do in 15 and 16 and that really makes no snese to me. The impact data syas the warriors were a 48 win team in 2016 wthout curry, and they overperformed that in fhe first round and then underperformed that in the second round.

Re: Bird, iI don't really know how you came to he conclusion that the box score would somehow help curry here as opposed to bird. Curry creates hilariously more off-ball while almost all of bird's creation is assist elgible passes. Curry is the player whose contributions wuldn't necceasrily show up in the boxscore, Bird's best asset, creation, is far better measured via assists so if curry's somehow asssiting a higher percentage of his team's shots on better turnover economy WHILE scoring bette, I don't really see what room there is for --bird being the offenisve goat--. One of bird's bext box score helps is rebounds/blocks where off course bird benefitted greatly from playing with two bigs. You really lose me with the bird stuff here. Bird does far less off-ball than curry does, played with clearly better offensive pieces. Bird wasn't healthy? Why would that not apply to Curry? I don't see how you can decide kobe>curry based on --playoff resilience-- and then turn around ans say bird is in the offensive goat conversation when bird is less resilent, suffers a worse drop off, has the same health issues, has lower lows, lower highs, and wasn' table to lead better offenses despite clearly better offensive teammates.

Bird has no place in hte offensive goat conversation. All the issues you have with curry apply moreso with bird and, and he somehow gets outassisted despite almost all of bird's creation coming from passing.

[freethedevil]

Steph looked mediocre before Draymond came back and Draymond without Steph last season looked like a G league player.

Of course they complement each other well and make each other better. But we've seen enough of Steph without Draymond and vice versa to know that both are excellent players without each other. You're looking at a couple of games in exceptional circumstances when the sample we have available where only one of them is on the court over the years is so much larger that it's really choosing a simple narrative over actual data.

Steph without Draymond played four (!) games this season and the last two of those were actually much better already (scoring 36 Points in 62% TS and 31 Points on 76% TS respectively). Curry actually started the season worse last year when he played next to Green than he did this year when he didn't. So what's the difference between last season and this season compared to the seasons before? The answer is quite obvious to me.

What both of these guys need more than they need each other is a team that understands their habits and what they want to do on the court. That's why they are a great fit; it's not because those two have a symbiosis that cannot ever be replicated or even approached. When they struggled for the games you point to above, the team saw drastic turnover and did not have any synergy. Green and Curry were absolutely fine playing without each other between 2015 and 2019, when the team actually had chemistry.

So while they are a great fit, no doubt, they are both excellent players on their own. There's no doubt about this either, and a constructed narrative based on a few games with a team in turmoil doesn't change that.

The idea curry needs draymond is kind of absurd when by far the biggest thing draymond provides for curry specifically is someone to dump it off to when getting blitzed for short roll situations, since most nba players can realize when currys open since he needs like an inch of space

The sample the power is using only supports their agrgument if we disregard the second round. The warrriors are matched by a 42 win team, and then in the next round with banged up curry beat a 65 win okc team that just won three stright against a 70-win srs Spurs team.

That's what 23 win lift?

It's like wholly irrelevant what that team did with kd in 18 without curry. Curry didn't play with KD in 2016.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Of course they complement each other well and make each other better. But we've seen enough of Steph without Draymond and vice versa to know that both are excellent players without each other. You're looking at a couple of games in exceptional circumstances when the sample we have available where only one of them is on the court over the years is so much larger that it's really choosing a simple narrative over actual data.

Steph without Draymond played four (!) games this season and the last two of those were actually much better already (scoring 36 Points in 62% TS and 31 Points on 76% TS respectively). Curry actually started the season worse last year when he played next to Green than he did this year when he didn't. So what's the difference between last season and this season compared to the seasons before? The answer is quite obvious to me.

What both of these guys need more than they need each other is a team that understands their habits and what they want to do on the court. That's why they are a great fit; it's not because those two have a symbiosis that cannot ever be replicated or even approached. When they struggled for the games you point to above, the team saw drastic turnover and did not have any synergy. Green and Curry were absolutely fine playing without each other between 2015 and 2019, when the team actually had chemistry.

So while they are a great fit, no doubt, they are both excellent players on their own. There's no doubt about this either, and a constructed narrative based on a few games with a team in turmoil doesn't change that.

The idea curry needs draymond is kind of absurd when by far the biggest thing draymond provides for curry specifically is someone to dump it off to when getting blitzed for short roll situations, since most nba players can realize when currys open since he needs like an inch of space

The sample real big three is using only supports their agrgument if we disregard the second round. The warrriors are matched by a 42 win team, and then in the next round with banged up curry beat a 65 win okc team that just won three stright against a 70-win srs Spurs team.

That's what 23 win lift?

It's like wholly irrelevant what that team did with kd in 18 without curry. Curry didn't play with KD in 2016.

That be cool and all but I wasn’t talking to big three here lul

[eminence]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to this post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bolded seems like a big assumption.

Player boxscore Ortg - Opponent Drtg is not a valid statistic in my mind, apologies. Do you have strong reasons for using it?

I look at median series result as a players 'average'. For Curry that's over the '13-'19 time period. 20 relatively healthy series (discounting the 1st 2 rounds of '16 and the first round of '18). I tend to think of my approach as notably more resistant to outliers pulling me astray, why do you feel I'm overweighting '17?

[Peregrine01]

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

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

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

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

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

So I'm a little confused. You feel that Curry doesn't get enough criticism that other superstars of his stature would get if placed in the same situation yet you think there's a great argument for Curry being just behind Bron as best player of this generation. But much of the conventional thinking don't even have Curry anywhere near that; if anything, they've continually undervalued him and understated his value and stature because of what you cited (he's not the typical picture of someone who should be dominating the game). I think your gripes are a bit convoluted.

[Peregrine01]

One more thing about the Steph/Draymond connection:

I can't help but think how similarly that last play to get Steph's last 62 points looked like the end of that Clippers game in 2018 that was the final nail in the coffin for KD and the Warriors. In both plays, Draymond gets the board and bolts down the floor expecting his star teammate to be right there with him to shovel to for a good look. With Steph, Dray knows that he'll be there without even looking or talking. With KD, he found him trailing way behind yelling at him and clapping for the ball. I think it just speaks to the tremendous degree of trust that Steph and Draymond has with each other and ultimately the lack of trust that KD had with the other Warriors.

What's incredible when you think about it is that Steph relinquished control long before KD even got there - he allowed Draymond to be Draymond long before he was even recognized as one of the most intelligent players in the game. Imagine if he hadn't though (which I think most ball-dominant superstars understandably wouldn't have done with a lightly touted player just coming off the bench), the incredible Steph/Draymond connection would not exist, the Warriors would still be known as a historically losing franchise, Draymond may have long ago faded into insignificance and Curry may be known as just another star with no rings.

[parsnips33]

One more thing about the Steph/Draymond connection:

I can't help but think how similarly that last play to get Steph's last 62 points looked like the end of that Clippers game in 2018 that was the final nail in the coffin for KD and the Warriors. In both plays, Draymond gets the board and bolts down the floor expecting his star teammate to be right there with him to shovel to for a good look. With Steph, Dray knows that he'll be there without even looking or talking. With KD, he found him trailing way behind yelling at him and clapping for the ball. I think it just speaks to the tremendous degree of trust that Steph and Draymond has with each other and ultimately the lack of trust that KD had with the other Warriors.

What's incredible when you think about it is that Steph relinquished control long before KD even got there - he allowed Draymond to be Draymond long before he was even recognized as one of the most intelligent players in the game. Imagine if he hadn't though (which I think most ball-dominant superstars understandably wouldn't have done with a lightly touted player just coming off the bench), the incredible Steph/Draymond connection would not exist, the Warriors would still be known as a historically losing franchise, Draymond may have long ago faded into insignificance and Curry may be known as just another star with no rings.

This is a great comparison I never thought of.

I really think Steph/Draymond is up there in terms of best duos ever. The guys are just completely on the same page, complement each other's skill sets perfectly, and the love and trust between them is obvious. Hope they both retire as Warriors.

[limbo]

Man, Jokic averaging almost 13 apg so far makes me think he might be the best passer in the league. Dude is lapping the 2nd place Harden with two full assists more per game...

His turnovers need to come down a bit, but we might be at the start of witnessing one of the best individual playmaking seasons ever. Certainly unprecedented for a 7-foot Center (even though Wilt fans like to point out how he led the league in assists one year with 6.5 apg per 36 minutes...)

[therealbig3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longetvity is another matter. I'm talking abot primes here.

The issue here is you keep focusing specifcally on offensive team results, and then saying they're unimpressive based on the warrios strength defensively and offensively. Bird's teamamtes offensievly were alot better than curry's pre-kd. Ditto for Magic. Draymond's imapct preodmnately comes from defense, so specifcally honing on offensive ratings here doesn't really amke sense. Furthermore, teams shift to offensive or defenisve lineps depending on matchups and ect, so if the holistics are holding up, then harping on the offensive speifcally doesnt make much sense. The warroirs playoff offense was +5 and their playoff defense was +5.

Curry was able to consinstelt anchor strong playoff teams, and the teams success in the playoffs predated draymond or klay's ascension, focusing in on offneisve rating and then saying "73 win team" which was a byproduct of defense and offense doesn't make much sense. The lakers leading --better offenses-- can easily be explained by Kobe's teamamtes being better offensively than curry's --or-- the lineups being offense orenated as opposed to defense orientated. If we just look at the team results, is what kobe's doing more impressive than curry with context adjustment? I dont't think so. What absolutely isn't reasonable is using the warriors success defnesively AND offensively as a supporting cast wthout curry, and then looking specifcally at --offensive team results-- as some kind of proof of these other players superority.

Is klay thompson's scoring and draymond's passing and harrison's shooting(well, actually he didn't shoot well in the playoffs) and iggy's secondary creation better than james harden, capela, and two elite three and d's? Don't think so.

You're welcome to break down the lakers pieces offensively, but using holsitic sccess and then only looking at the --offense-- curry is leading him to doesn' tmake any kind of sense. Compare the --skills-- of the offensie players kobe played iwht on those better laker offenses and then do it with the offenses curry played with. Then using offensive team results may make some sort of sense here, but this, i'm going to look at o-rating and then be like the warriors were so good base , not onw hat they did offensively, but just what they did period makes little sense to me.


Because if we just look at the team level results, curry's creation+scoring, and induvdiual imapct data from the regular season and palayoffs, curry seems to grade out a lot higher than you're pegging him just on offensive analysis alone.

induvdiual seasons should be treated case by case. It is not remotely useful to try and use the warriors cast in 17 with the warriors to assess their cast 2019. Nor does it make sense to use 17 results to judge the team's capabliities in 16. I recall you warriors record without curry when they had kd to make a statement about what the warriors could do in 15 and 16 and that really makes no snese to me. The impact data syas the warriors were a 48 win team in 2016 wthout curry, and they overperformed that in fhe first round and then underperformed that in the second round.

Re: Bird, iI don't really know how you came to he conclusion that the box score would somehow help curry here as opposed to bird. Curry creates hilariously more off-ball while almost all of bird's creation is assist elgible passes. Curry is the player whose contributions wuldn't necceasrily show up in the boxscore, Bird's best asset, creation, is far better measured via assists so if curry's somehow asssiting a higher percentage of his team's shots on better turnover economy WHILE scoring bette, I don't really see what room there is for --bird being the offenisve goat--. One of bird's bext box score helps is rebounds/blocks where off course bird benefitted greatly from playing with two bigs. You really lose me with the bird stuff here. Bird does far less off-ball than curry does, played with clearly better offensive pieces. Bird wasn't healthy? Why would that not apply to Curry? I don't see how you can decide kobe>curry based on --playoff resilience-- and then turn around ans say bird is in the offensive goat conversation when bird is less resilent, suffers a worse drop off, has the same health issues, has lower lows, lower highs, and wasn' table to lead better offenses despite clearly better offensive teammates.

Bird has no place in hte offensive goat conversation. All the issues you have with curry apply moreso with bird and, and he somehow gets outassisted despite almost all of bird's creation coming from passing.

Two points:

-I think you're significantly underrating just what Curry had around him offensively without KD, especially in Green and Klay, and especially Green. Green is super valuable when around great shooters. He's their best passer, he's an awesome roll man, and he's the best in the league in terms of quick decision-making after he receives the pass. That stuff is really underrated, and I don't think the Warriors offense is anywhere near as good without him. I mean, small sample size and all, but Curry struggled before Green came back, and then exploded right when Green came back into the lineup. The whole discussion right now is about how well Green and Curry complement each other, you can't totally disregard how much Green helps Curry offensively and what he provides to the team overall on that side of the ball. And then you have a shooter like Klay, a point forward like Iggy, and yes, another spot up shooter in Barnes who did struggle in the 2016 Finals.

-I think the Warriors' best defensive lineups were their best offensive lineups too, so I don't think this concept that they had to sacrifice some offense while maintaining an elite defense really applies to them. The only exception to that was maybe Bogut, but he didn't play huge minutes, and the Warriors typically went with their Death Lineup for most of the game, which was their best offensive and defensive lineup. And playing one or two defensive players to sacrifice offense here and there isn't unique to the Warriors, every good team pretty much does that throughout playoff runs. And when I think about the Lakers with Kobe, yeah, that actually applies to them more, that they would play more defensive minded players rather than focus more on offense. He didn't exactly have the luxury of his best offensive players being the best defensive players too.

IDK, Curry imo had excellent offensive teammates and there wasn't a conscious push to play more defensive oriented lineups moreso than any other contender, and in fact, he had the luxury of his best offensive and defensive teammates overlapping probably more than any other contender.

EDIT: I think you have very fair points on Bird though, and I think I need to re-evaluate his career more closely.

[therealbig3]

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

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

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

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

Back to this post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bolded seems like a big assumption.

Player boxscore Ortg - Opponent Drtg is not a valid statistic in my mind, apologies. Do you have strong reasons for using it?

I look at median series result as a players 'average'. For Curry that's over the '13-'19 time period. 20 relatively healthy series (discounting the 1st 2 rounds of '16 and the first round of '18). I tend to think of my approach as notably more resistant to outliers pulling me astray, why do you feel I'm overweighting '17?

I honestly think Orating captures a lot more than relative TS%, since TOs get taken into account, even though it's imperfect. Relative TS% doesn't tell me much honestly. The player could be averaging a bunch of TOs and overall struggling offensively as a result, which was actually the case with Curry imo.

I think when you mentioned how Curry's teams are relative Orating of +7, imo that's including an outlier like 2017, which makes it look overall so good and in very exclusive company, when if you look at it more granularly, he's not really in exclusive company.

[eminence]

We're down 30 with 9 minutes to go and have a game tomorrow and Quin has the starters in, dumb as hell.

[eminence]

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

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

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

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

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

Bolded seems like a big assumption.

Player boxscore Ortg - Opponent Drtg is not a valid statistic in my mind, apologies. Do you have strong reasons for using it?

I look at median series result as a players 'average'. For Curry that's over the '13-'19 time period. 20 relatively healthy series (discounting the 1st 2 rounds of '16 and the first round of '18). I tend to think of my approach as notably more resistant to outliers pulling me astray, why do you feel I'm overweighting '17?

I honestly think Orating captures a lot more than relative TS%, since TOs get taken into account, even though it's imperfect. Relative TS% doesn't tell me much honestly. The player could be averaging a bunch of TOs and overall struggling offensively as a result, which was actually the case with Curry imo.

I think when you mentioned how Curry's teams are relative Orating of +7, imo that's including an outlier like 2017, which makes it look overall so good and in very exclusive company, when if you look at it more granularly, he's not really in exclusive company.

And PER captures even more, but it's a steaming garbage pile. Tools are useful based on how you use them. You can prefer Ortg, I prefer seeing rTS and turnovers separated. Combining boxscore Ortg with actual team Drating is not a valid operation no matter how you try to sell it.

More granularly here meaning...? (to note, Medians are basically completely outlier proof)

[therealbig3]

Bolded seems like a big assumption.

Player boxscore Ortg - Opponent Drtg is not a valid statistic in my mind, apologies. Do you have strong reasons for using it?

I look at median series result as a players 'average'. For Curry that's over the '13-'19 time period. 20 relatively healthy series (discounting the 1st 2 rounds of '16 and the first round of '18). I tend to think of my approach as notably more resistant to outliers pulling me astray, why do you feel I'm overweighting '17?

I honestly think Orating captures a lot more than relative TS%, since TOs get taken into account, even though it's imperfect. Relative TS% doesn't tell me much honestly. The player could be averaging a bunch of TOs and overall struggling offensively as a result, which was actually the case with Curry imo.

I think when you mentioned how Curry's teams are relative Orating of +7, imo that's including an outlier like 2017, which makes it look overall so good and in very exclusive company, when if you look at it more granularly, he's not really in exclusive company.

And PER captures even more, but it's a steaming garbage pile. Tools are useful based on how you use them. You can prefer Ortg, I prefer seeing rTS and turnovers separated. Combining boxscore Ortg with actual team Drating is not a valid operation no matter how you try to sell it.

More granularly here meaning...? (to note, Medians are basically completely outlier proof)

Then don't, I don't typically do that either, just wanted some way to account for the fact that Orating can also be affected by the defense a player is facing. Just by raw Orating, Kobe for his playoff prime is 111, Dirk is 119, and Curry in 2015 (again, which you stated was comparable or better than Jordan's average playoff run) is 114. And Curry for his playoff career is 116.

How are you arriving at the +7 relative Orating for Curry's teams?

[therealbig3]

BTW, going back and reading my posts, and I apologize for what might seem like coming and pouring cold water on everyone's parade after Curry had a great game. Wasn't my intention, and if any exchanges that I had after that came off as overly negative or aggressive or mean-spirited or disingenuous, I apologize for that too. Again, wasn't my intention.

I think we're all just passionate about basketball, and so we all have our opinions that we'll defend...my opinion in this case seems to be the minority one in this forum, and I was just trying to express it is all.

[MyUniBroDavis]

How do you guys have title odds so far

Lakers/nets/clippers/bucks are the obvious 4 headed dragon, although the bucks and the nets are underperforming in terms of record they’ll def be top seeds by the end of it I’d assume

The 76ers are looking good too, but it’s early on. I don’t really see any other team as a realistically threat to the title

Edit: doc rivers is their coach lul nvm he gonna put embiid on kyrie

[CumberlandPosey]

i am very impressed by pritchards ability to run an offense.although he graduated and seemed somewhat ready i didnt expect this.he is always on the move and doesnt let the defense set.even threw in some defensive fakes.very energetic little point guard.hope synergies can be created when walker returns.lets go double p !!!!

[Doctor MJ]

Man, Jokic averaging almost 13 apg so far makes me think he might be the best passer in the league.

I thought he was the best passer in the league last year. In general team's whose main playmaker is a big don't generate a ton of assists for that playmaker.

As far as what Jokic's APG being so high this year means when all is said and done, I'm going to let it play out, but clearly, Jokic isn't getting worse.