Interesting Kobe vs Curry stats

[G35]

When people try to argue LeBron is a better 3pt shooter than Kobe guys always say "Kobe took alot of difficult off balance 3s that LeBron can't make".........now that Kobe is compared to curry im seeing guys say " the game is so different now, Kobe couldn't work his 3s"

Why is the argument completely different now guys?? Lol

I do see a difference in the types of shots each player takes.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[dhsilv2]

This is what Kobe did over his career:

2PT FGA - 15.3
3PT FGA - 4.1

What do the numbers suggest he practiced more.......

I'd hope a shot he's taking 20-30% of the time he's worked on an awful lot. ~21% of his shots were 0-3 feet from the basket.

12% were 3-10
17% were 10-16
28% were 16-<3

So ~49% of his shots were at least 16 feet back. Looks to me like he practiced shooting from a decent distance a LOT.

That is relative to a shot he's taking 70-80% of the time. Its not one way.

% of shots that were 2PA
Kobe - .784
Curry - .542

Kobe took many of those "bad" shots that were from the 16ft out to the 3pt line...that no-man's land. Kobe took 28% of his shots from that range and earlier in his career it was regularly in the 30% range.

Steph is at less than 20% from that range but the first few years of his career he was shooting 28-30% of his shots there. In the last few years....10-12% of his shots come from this range.

Its clearly a different philosophy in how the game was played. I don't know why so many people are butt hurt about that fact that......

2 point shots include layups. In terms of jump shots kobe took 25-35% of his jumper shots from 3.

Your claim is that Kobe would shoot 38% from 3 if he played today, yet he was only 40% in the 16 to 3 range.

Yes, it's a new world where players and coaches aren't stupid and know that 3's are useful. It doesn't change the fact that Kobe wasn't nearly the shooter you're making him out to be.

[Clyde Frazier]

There's nothing wrong with siding with kobe here... for now. You know what doesn't help your case, though? Gross generalizations on either end to support your argument, and not presenting the stats to back them up.

[LakerLegend]

Except Curry also puts up massive impact while Harden doesn't.

Like Jordan, he's the only guy to make a 55 win team into a 70 win team.

And unlike most people, he has a supporting cast that can get that many wins on their own.

How many players can take 55 win teams and turn them into 73 win teams, then?

Well, since you guys brought it up...

There are maybe 10 teams in NBA history that have won more than 65 games.

What happened in the Warriors 73 win season?

Two teams did it in the SAME YEAR, IN THE SAME CONFERENCE. The Spurs winning 67, with a bunch of old men in the core and resting them for half the season.

Not to mention the Warriors were down 3-1 to one team and lost the Finals to another.

So I don't think that 73 wins tells the whole story.

[cpower]

This is what Kobe did over his career:

2PT FGA - 15.3
3PT FGA - 4.1

What do the numbers suggest he practiced more.......

I'd hope a shot he's taking 20-30% of the time he's worked on an awful lot. ~21% of his shots were 0-3 feet from the basket.

12% were 3-10
17% were 10-16
28% were 16-<3

So ~49% of his shots were at least 16 feet back. Looks to me like he practiced shooting from a decent distance a LOT.

That is relative to a shot he's taking 70-80% of the time. Its not one way.

% of shots that were 2PA
Kobe - .784
Curry - .542

Kobe took many of those "bad" shots that were from the 16ft out to the 3pt line...that no-man's land. Kobe took 28% of his shots from that range and earlier in his career it was regularly in the 30% range.

Steph is at less than 20% from that range but the first few years of his career he was shooting 28-30% of his shots there. In the last few years....10-12% of his shots come from this range.

Its clearly a different philosophy in how the game was played. I don't know why so many people are butt hurt about that fact that......

I think you nailed it with your only stat. If Kobe was great at making threes (Curry level) He would have been the Orginal Mamba Splash and he would have a legit case vs Lebron and Jordan.
Curry in his prime years has obvious greater offensive impact than Kobe, so give the man credit. The man can hit 40% from three point land after crossing over or firing it from 30 ft. It has nothing to do with today's offense philosophy. If guys could do it earlier they would have been tearing the league apart already. If you think Kobe can do what Curry does in today's league..then there is no point to say anything..

[bledredwine]

Well, if you really want to know? There have been an absurd amount of crappy and young starting line-ups in the league, hence the Bulls going on a win streak this year

We all know that this league is top and bottom heavy.

And the 130 point games is enough proof of inflation in stats. I've only seen excuses for it, not a valid reason.

Excuses you say? The excuse is suggesting the Warriors wins record is inflated because of the league is "top and bottom heavy".
Who is the best player in the league? I say it is Curry but people out there keep saying it is LeBron. Okay so explain why LeBron has not led his teams to similarly impressive wins records? Or how about the Thunder when two commonly touted top 5 players in Durant and Westbrook were on the same team? Or how about that terrific Spurs dynasty led by all-time great Duncan that gave chase to the Warriors to try and get the first seed but had to settle for 67-wins? LeBron and Duncan have played in the same era and failed to rack up the same number of wins as the Warriors.

When the Bulls had their 120 point games with Jordan you saying we should just write it off as inflation too? It's easy to come up with valid reasons to explain the higher scores. More teams are shooting threes and are playing more efficient basketball. Curry is probably the most efficient high volume scorer in history and his team plays with pace to maximize that advantage. One would expect higher scores to follow.

Regarding why improving a good team by the same amount as a bad team is more impressive maybe a free throw shooting analogy would be illustrative. Is improving a free throw % from 0% to 10% easier or harder than improving it from 90% to 100%?

Excuses? Speaking of excuses....
Did the Warriors with the chip their 73 win season? So were they the best team ever? Is it safe to say that the 73 wins was illusive if not?

I rest my case.

The East in particular has had very few stars, most located on one or two teams. The West has a few substantial teams and not much else. It's not been the most competitive league for them to win 70 in. I think that most of us can admit that. There are many teams with unusually young starting line-ups or rebuilding. Hell the 1st seed East Celtics started rebuilding just a few years ago.

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

[dhsilv2]

Well, if you really want to know? There have been an absurd amount of crappy and young starting line-ups in the league, hence the Bulls going on a win streak this year

We all know that this league is top and bottom heavy.

And the 130 point games is enough proof of inflation in stats. I've only seen excuses for it, not a valid reason.

Excuses you say? The excuse is suggesting the Warriors wins record is inflated because of the league is "top and bottom heavy".
Who is the best player in the league? I say it is Curry but people out there keep saying it is LeBron. Okay so explain why LeBron has not led his teams to similarly impressive wins records? Or how about the Thunder when two commonly touted top 5 players in Durant and Westbrook were on the same team? Or how about that terrific Spurs dynasty led by all-time great Duncan that gave chase to the Warriors to try and get the first seed but had to settle for 67-wins? LeBron and Duncan have played in the same era and failed to rack up the same number of wins as the Warriors.

When the Bulls had their 120 point games with Jordan you saying we should just write it off as inflation too? It's easy to come up with valid reasons to explain the higher scores. More teams are shooting threes and are playing more efficient basketball. Curry is probably the most efficient high volume scorer in history and his team plays with pace to maximize that advantage. One would expect higher scores to follow.

Regarding why improving a good team by the same amount as a bad team is more impressive maybe a free throw shooting analogy would be illustrative. Is improving a free throw % from 0% to 10% easier or harder than improving it from 90% to 100%?

Excuses? Speaking of excuses....
Did the Warriors with the chip their 73 win season? So were they the best team ever? Is it safe to say that the 73 wins was illusive if not?

I rest my case.

The East in particular has had very few stars, most located on one or two teams. The West has a few substantial teams and not much else. It's not been the most competitive league for them to win 70 in. I think that most of us can admit that. There are many teams with unusually young starting line-ups or rebuilding. Hell the 1st seed East Celtics started rebuilding just a few years ago.

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

The bulls won 72 after the league expanded...

The top 3 teams in the league won 196 games in 96 and they won 197 in 16. The top 16 teams won 817 in 16 vs 812 in 2016.

There were 3 60 game winners in 96 vs 2 in 16. 7 50 game winners in 96 vs 6 in 16.

What does this tell us? Pretty much nothing useful. But the spurs winning 67 vs the Sonics doesn't tell me or anyone else much.

[clyde21]

I don't understand why people are having such a tough time comprehending that Curry might actually be just as good as Kobe. It's really not that surprising.

I don't see anyone not understanding that Curry might be as good as Kobe. I see people reacting to those that are saying he is "multiple levels" better than Curry.

I don't think I saw anyone say he's multiple levels ahead. I'm just seeing people detract from the arguments about era and pace.

Personally I think the two are pretty even and it's a toss up.

[ccameron]

I don't understand why people are having such a tough time comprehending that Curry might actually be just as good as Kobe. It's really not that surprising.

I don't see anyone not understanding that Curry might be as good as Kobe. I see people reacting to those that are saying he is "multiple levels" better than Curry.

I don't think I saw anyone say he's multiple levels ahead. I'm just seeing people detract from the arguments about era and pace.

Personally I think the two are pretty even and it's a toss up.

I agree, and I might put Curry slightly ahead. Someone did say he was “multiple levels” ahead on the first page though, and I think the stats the OP posted exaggerate the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Jaivl]

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

The bulls won 72 after the league expanded...

The top 3 teams in the league won 196 games in 96 and they won 197 in 16. The top 16 teams won 817 in 16 vs 812 in 2016.

There were 3 60 game winners in 96 vs 2 in 16. 7 50 game winners in 96 vs 6 in 16.

What does this tell us? Pretty much nothing useful. But the spurs winning 67 vs the Sonics doesn't tell me or anyone else much.

Ouch!

BTW, the Spurs were freaking loaded. Yes, you can strawman it to a bunch of old men won 67 hurr durr, but they were probably 2 of the top 5 most productive old men ever (Duncan, Ginóbili) plus two prime all-stars (Kawhi, LaMarcus), two former all stars (West, Parker), elite role players (Green, Mills), GOAT coach...

OKC were also loaded, we "only" won 55, but 1) Durant missed some games (3-7 record without) and 2) we underperformed on the regular season (59 expected wins). We were clearly a 60W team while healthy.

70+ wins is an irrelevant benchmark anyway and it requires a good deal of luck, the '16 Warriors aren't better than the '18 Warriors, and the '96 Bulls sure as hell aren't either.

[bledredwine]

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

The bulls won 72 after the league expanded...

The top 3 teams in the league won 196 games in 96 and they won 197 in 16. The top 16 teams won 817 in 16 vs 812 in 2016.

There were 3 60 game winners in 96 vs 2 in 16. 7 50 game winners in 96 vs 6 in 16.

What does this tell us? Pretty much nothing useful. But the spurs winning 67 vs the Sonics doesn't tell me or anyone else much.

Ouch!

BTW, the Spurs were freaking loaded. Yes, you can strawman it to a bunch of old men won 67 hurr durr, but they were probably 2 of the top 5 most productive old men ever (Duncan, Ginóbili) plus two prime all-stars (Kawhi, LaMarcus), two former all stars (West, Parker), elite role players (Green, Mills), GOAT coach...

OKC were also loaded, we "only" won 55, but 1) Durant missed some games (3-7 record without) and 2) we underperformed on the regular season (59 expected wins). We were clearly a 60W team while healthy.

70+ wins is an irrelevant benchmark anyway and it requires a good deal of luck, the '16 Warriors aren't better than the '18 Warriors, and the '96 Bulls sure as hell aren't either.

EDIT: double post

[bledredwine]

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

The bulls won 72 after the league expanded...

The top 3 teams in the league won 196 games in 96 and they won 197 in 16. The top 16 teams won 817 in 16 vs 812 in 2016.

There were 3 60 game winners in 96 vs 2 in 16. 7 50 game winners in 96 vs 6 in 16.

What does this tell us? Pretty much nothing useful. But the spurs winning 67 vs the Sonics doesn't tell me or anyone else much.

Ouch!

BTW, the Spurs were freaking loaded. Yes, you can strawman it to a bunch of old men won 67 hurr durr, but they were probably 2 of the top 5 most productive old men ever (Duncan, Ginóbili) plus two prime all-stars (Kawhi, LaMarcus), two former all stars (West, Parker), elite role players (Green, Mills), GOAT coach...

OKC were also loaded, we "only" won 55, but 1) Durant missed some games (3-7 record without) and 2) we underperformed on the regular season (59 expected wins). We were clearly a 60W team while healthy.

70+ wins is an irrelevant benchmark anyway and it requires a good deal of luck, the '16 Warriors aren't better than the '18 Warriors, and the '96 Bulls sure as hell aren't either.

You guys are cracking me up by naming just a few teams cherry picking much? Try this on for size. In the 90s you'd face Shaq Penny, Ewing's Knicks, Payton Kemp Sonics, Millers pacers, Zo Johnsons Hornets, Hakeem's rockets, Robinsons Spurs, TMC warriors, Malone Stockton jazz, Rice Hardaway heat, Barkley Johnson Suns, Glenn robinson ray allen Bucks, Clyde Porter Blazers. That's thirteen crafted formiddable teams. Now? You have like six tops outside of GS. Cleveland, Boston, Houston, Spurs, Celtics maybe Toronto and everyone else sucks. Twelve to six, nearly double the formidable teams. Add to that the amount of rebuilding teams? Yep, it's not much of a contest. You see? And then you had Teams like Garnett's T Wolves or Sprewell who weren't even relevant in comparison.

[eminence]

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

The bulls won 72 after the league expanded...

The top 3 teams in the league won 196 games in 96 and they won 197 in 16. The top 16 teams won 817 in 16 vs 812 in 2016.

There were 3 60 game winners in 96 vs 2 in 16. 7 50 game winners in 96 vs 6 in 16.

What does this tell us? Pretty much nothing useful. But the spurs winning 67 vs the Sonics doesn't tell me or anyone else much.

Ouch!

BTW, the Spurs were freaking loaded. Yes, you can strawman it to a bunch of old men won 67 hurr durr, but they were probably 2 of the top 5 most productive old men ever (Duncan, Ginóbili) plus two prime all-stars (Kawhi, LaMarcus), two former all stars (West, Parker), elite role players (Green, Mills), GOAT coach...

OKC were also loaded, we "only" won 55, but 1) Durant missed some games (3-7 record without) and 2) we underperformed on the regular season (59 expected wins). We were clearly a 60W team while healthy.

70+ wins is an irrelevant benchmark anyway and it requires a good deal of luck, the '16 Warriors aren't better than the '18 Warriors, and the '96 Bulls sure as hell aren't either.

You guys are cracking me up by naming just a few teams cherry picking much? Try this on for size. In the 90s you'd face Shaq Penny, Ewing's Knicks, Payton Kemp Sonics, Millers pacers, Zo Johnsons Hornets, Hakeem's rockets, Robinsons Spurs, TMC warriors, Malone Stockton jazz, Rice Hardaway heat, Barkley Johnson Suns, Glenn robinson ray allen Bucks, Clyde Porter Blazers. That's thirteen crafted formiddable teams. Now? You have like six tops outside of GS. Cleveland, Boston, Houston, Spurs, Celtics maybe Toronto and everyone else sucks. Twelve to six, nearly double the formidable teams. Add to that the amount of rebuilding teams? Yep, it's not much of a contest. You see? And then you had Teams like Garnett's T Wolves or Sprewell who weren't even relevant in comparison.

Pick a year from the 90's man. Mashing them all together like that is pretty weak (for instance Ray Allen wasn't even in the league while Shaq and Penny were teamed up).

[Starboy]

Not interested in arguing with Kobe fans, but two things were funny to me:

1) "5/10 year peak is irrelevant, blah blah blah" ... in EVERY single Kobe vs whoever thread, that's the only argument Kobe fans have stat wise.
2) "Curry TS% is not adjusted for era, Curry lives in the 3 point era"....Curry MADE the 3 point era. He literally revolutionized the NBA and he doesn't get any credit for that? Sigh.

[dhsilv2]

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

The bulls won 72 after the league expanded...

The top 3 teams in the league won 196 games in 96 and they won 197 in 16. The top 16 teams won 817 in 16 vs 812 in 2016.

There were 3 60 game winners in 96 vs 2 in 16. 7 50 game winners in 96 vs 6 in 16.

What does this tell us? Pretty much nothing useful. But the spurs winning 67 vs the Sonics doesn't tell me or anyone else much.

Ouch!

BTW, the Spurs were freaking loaded. Yes, you can strawman it to a bunch of old men won 67 hurr durr, but they were probably 2 of the top 5 most productive old men ever (Duncan, Ginóbili) plus two prime all-stars (Kawhi, LaMarcus), two former all stars (West, Parker), elite role players (Green, Mills), GOAT coach...

OKC were also loaded, we "only" won 55, but 1) Durant missed some games (3-7 record without) and 2) we underperformed on the regular season (59 expected wins). We were clearly a 60W team while healthy.

70+ wins is an irrelevant benchmark anyway and it requires a good deal of luck, the '16 Warriors aren't better than the '18 Warriors, and the '96 Bulls sure as hell aren't either.

You guys are cracking me up by naming just a few teams cherry picking much? Try this on for size. In the 90s you'd face Shaq Penny, Ewing's Knicks, Payton Kemp Sonics, Millers pacers, Zo Johnsons Hornets, Hakeem's rockets, Robinsons Spurs, TMC warriors, Malone Stockton jazz, Rice Hardaway heat, Barkley Johnson Suns, Glenn robinson ray allen Bucks, Clyde Porter Blazers. That's thirteen crafted formiddable teams. Now? You have like six tops outside of GS. Cleveland, Boston, Houston, Spurs, Celtics maybe Toronto and everyone else sucks. Twelve to six, nearly double the formidable teams. Add to that the amount of rebuilding teams? Yep, it's not much of a contest. You see? And then you had Teams like Garnett's T Wolves or Sprewell who weren't even relevant in comparison.

I can list names randomly but unless you can take a single year and put it into context as a standout, a simple look at standing doesn't back up your claims at all.

More over just look at your lists! Ray Allen's Bucks? Barkley Johnson's Suns? Ray Allen's bucks only had a winning record in 99. Barkley was on the rockets before Ray Allen was in the league. Then there's the Porter Drexler combo who had their last playoff run in 93, where drexler was missing games, that was the first year of Chuck on the Suns. TMC warriors won one playoff series and of course weren't in the league during chuck's suns, a playoff lj morning team...

By that logic I should include Dirk's Mavs, Duncan's Spurs, Wade/Shaq Heat, Lebron/bosh/wade heat, Lebron Irving Cavs, D Howard Magic, Harden Paul Rockets, Paul Blake Clippers, Aldridge Blazers, Irving Horford Celtics, Lowry Raptors, AD Cousins Pelicans, Curry Warriors, Westbrook KD harden thunder, KG Pierce Allen Celtics, Kobe Gasol Lakers, Giannis Bucks, Embiid Simmons 76ers, Wall Wizards...well you get my point. If I can cherry pick teams from a decade!

If all those teams were at their best in the same season that would be nice I guess. But you used a whole decade to create 13 teams and not all are good. The bucks you quoted made the playoffs once. I'll take Anthony Davis over that due, at least he made the playoffs in 15. The Zo LJ combo made the playoff twice and won 1 playoff series. That's formidable?

[tone wone]

You guys are cracking me up by naming just a few teams cherry picking much? Try this on for size. In the 90s you'd face Shaq Penny, Ewing's Knicks, Payton Kemp Sonics, Millers pacers, Zo Johnsons Hornets, Hakeem's rockets, Robinsons Spurs, TMC warriors, Malone Stockton jazz, Rice Hardaway heat, Barkley Johnson Suns, Glenn robinson ray allen Bucks, Clyde Porter Blazers. That's thirteen crafted formiddable teams. Now? You have like six tops outside of GS. Cleveland, Boston, Houston, Spurs, Celtics maybe Toronto and everyone else sucks. Twelve to six, nearly double the formidable teams. Add to that the amount of rebuilding teams? Yep, it's not much of a contest. You see? And then you had Teams like Garnett's T Wolves or Sprewell who weren't even relevant in comparison.

Yikes. Whats the point of this post???

Shaq & Penny Magic: 1994-1996
Ewings Knicks : 1992-1997
Payton & Kemp Soncis: 1993-1996
Miller Pacers: 1994-1995, 1998
Zo & LJ Hornets: 1992-1995
Hakeem Rockets: 1993-1997
Robinson Spurs: 1993-1996
RunTMC Warriors: 1991-1994. Had their best season when they were no longer RunTMC
Malone & Stockton Jazz: 1992-1999
Rice & Tim Hardaway Heat: Hardaway and Rice never played together
Barkley & KJ Suns: 1993-1996
Big Dog & Ray Allen Bucks: 1st winning season came in 1999
Drexler & Porter Blazers: 1990-1994

I mean, there's one team who peaked in 1990 and another who 1st made the playoffs in 1999. You're just listing teams from the 90s that won some games. THE ENTIRE DECADE?!?!! You're comparing a decade worth of teams to just this ONE season. Are you really doing this???

[clyde21]

90's squads however? They had their established stars, the years to surround them with correct pieces. It was a more difficult task to win 70 games.

The bulls won 72 after the league expanded...

The top 3 teams in the league won 196 games in 96 and they won 197 in 16. The top 16 teams won 817 in 16 vs 812 in 2016.

There were 3 60 game winners in 96 vs 2 in 16. 7 50 game winners in 96 vs 6 in 16.

What does this tell us? Pretty much nothing useful. But the spurs winning 67 vs the Sonics doesn't tell me or anyone else much.

Ouch!

BTW, the Spurs were freaking loaded. Yes, you can strawman it to a bunch of old men won 67 hurr durr, but they were probably 2 of the top 5 most productive old men ever (Duncan, Ginóbili) plus two prime all-stars (Kawhi, LaMarcus), two former all stars (West, Parker), elite role players (Green, Mills), GOAT coach...

OKC were also loaded, we "only" won 55, but 1) Durant missed some games (3-7 record without) and 2) we underperformed on the regular season (59 expected wins). We were clearly a 60W team while healthy.

70+ wins is an irrelevant benchmark anyway and it requires a good deal of luck, the '16 Warriors aren't better than the '18 Warriors, and the '96 Bulls sure as hell aren't either.

You guys are cracking me up by naming just a few teams cherry picking much? Try this on for size. In the 90s you'd face Shaq Penny, Ewing's Knicks, Payton Kemp Sonics, Millers pacers, Zo Johnsons Hornets, Hakeem's rockets, Robinsons Spurs, TMC warriors, Malone Stockton jazz, Rice Hardaway heat, Barkley Johnson Suns, Glenn robinson ray allen Bucks, Clyde Porter Blazers. That's thirteen crafted formiddable teams. Now? You have like six tops outside of GS. Cleveland, Boston, Houston, Spurs, Celtics maybe Toronto and everyone else sucks. Twelve to six, nearly double the formidable teams. Add to that the amount of rebuilding teams? Yep, it's not much of a contest. You see? And then you had Teams like Garnett's T Wolves or Sprewell who weren't even relevant in comparison.

Dude...

[trex_8063]

Pick a year from the 90's man. Mashing them all together like that is pretty weak (for instance Ray Allen wasn't even in the league while Shaq and Penny were teamed up).

Not only that, I struggle with logic that a) declares the Allen/Glenn Robinson Bucks----which peaked at 52 wins and +3.09 SRS [and that not until '01], but in the 90's were hovering near(ish) to .500 and 0 SRS (not uncommonly below; peaked at .560 win% and +1.66 SRS in the 90's)----were a "crafted formidable team", while b) simultaneously declaring [for example] the current Thunder-----22-17 (though seemingly putting it together now, 8-2 in their last ten) and +4.09 SRS----is "crap".

But the rest of us are accused of mental gymnastics.

[PaulieWal]

Pick a year from the 90's man. Mashing them all together like that is pretty weak (for instance Ray Allen wasn't even in the league while Shaq and Penny were teamed up).

Not only that, I struggle with logic that a) declares the Allen/Glenn Robinson Bucks----which peaked at 52 wins and +3.09 SRS [and that not until '01], but in the 90's were hovering near(ish) to .500 and 0 SRS (not uncommonly below; peaked at .560 win% and +1.66 SRS in the 90's)----were a "crafted formidable team", while b) simultaneously declaring [for example] the current Thunders-----22-17 (though seemingly putting it together now, 8-2 in their last ten) and +4.09 SRS----is "crap".

But the rest of us are accused of mental gymnastics.

Not to pick on him, but most of his posts are filled with inconsistent logic. If we are talking about 72 vs 73 wins then really the focus should be on those two seasons, not an entire decade lol.

[HeartBreakKid]

Not interested in arguing with Kobe fans, but two things were funny to me:

1) "5/10 year peak is irrelevant, blah blah blah" ... in EVERY single Kobe vs whoever thread, that's the only argument Kobe fans have stat wise.
2) "Curry TS% is not adjusted for era, Curry lives in the 3 point era"....Curry MADE the 3 point era. He literally revolutionized the NBA and he doesn't get any credit for that? Sigh.

Not really - players are more comfortable taking shots like 6 feet behind the 3 point line because they see Curry do it but in terms of volume it was always trending upwards.