Again, was 2001 Kobe's peak?
Does 2011 post similat #'s to his later versions? No?
Red herring is red. Frankly, this kind of questioning is tangential and gives me the impression you want me to make your arguments for you. However if we're going to do this thing where you ask me random opinions to seek inconsistencies rather than just crafting your case, I'll ask that you ask questions that would actually tease out inconsistencies.
My case for curry is based on
-> better impact #'s
-> more portability
-> better team
So. any questions should be revolved around examples should feature seasons which posted
-> better impact #'s
-> more portability
-> better team success.
If they don't, then it's a red herring and i'm going to be ignoring it.
It certainly is convenient how we can dismiss the bad playoffs for Curry such that we leave as a sample the single playoffs where his team was operating at its absolute peak and he faced zero adversity at all.
It's amazing you're complaining about sample size while specifically ignoring all data but two small stretches where curry was coming off injuries. If we're going to actually look at sample, then lets look at it properly.
Pro curry sample:
-> 2013-2015 postseason stretch with better #'s than kobe or wade
-> 2017 stretch where a healthy curry posted impact #"s in line with the 82 games of his 2016 rs and which, like the 2013-2015 postseson stretch had better impact #'s than kobe or wade
-> 2019 postseason where he posted best in the league-arguably best #"s. Last 4 regular seasons where he's posted #"s challenging lebron.
a few games off an injury in 2016 and 2018.
We're talking about single season peaks and you're hand waving a single postseason where curry obliterates both kobe and wade on impact #'s because of multi-game stretches coming off injuries. You're also, by neccesity, hand waving an 82 game regular season where his impact #'s destroyed anything kobe's because of a few games of an injury. So no, this is nonsense. My sample of data is way bigger than yours, so I'm going to dismiss you and eballa's complaints regarding sample size.
Regardless, draymond's impact isn't an argument against curry's so this really is a moot point.
It is when I am trying to call into question inconsistent reliance on "impact".
Draymond being a top 6 player wouldn't contradict curry's being better than kobe. Dray not being a top 6 player wouldn't contradict curry being better than kobe. If i was using the fact curry won exclusively, you may have a point. Alas, I am not, so red herring is red.
If that increases based on playoff value, how good was Nurkic if he ranks in the top ten without being in the playoffs? My guess is that the bigger reason was that Giannis dipped.
You do realize what the pm in pipm stands for? Compare nurkic's minuites with the players you would consider superstars and answer your own question. And no, giannis didn't dip, it's per minuite, not accumulative. Giannis went up a bit. Curry went up more.
Red herring is red.
Cite the full CORP numbers if you are going to use them.
Curry, -> 18.7 %
Giannis, -> 18.3 %
Davis -> 16%
FYI, Kobe's very best peak corp was 18.7 and unlike 2019 curry, he didn't have points docked for health. Curry has multiple seasons on or above peak kobe's level across the board on impact #"s. So whatever you think of said #"s, the notion that curry only graded higher based on outlier's can only be arrived at with extensive gymnastics.
What impact metrics are you checking? This is what I mean when I say you need to be clear, because I have seen plenty of impact metrics marking Embiid as possibly the league's most impactful force.
Please post these metrics. PIPM, luck adjusted rapm, rpm, corp all say otherwise.
"Physical dominance" is already baked in to skillset, so it's silly to value that seperately.
Considering how we have watched Curry struggle with physical defence more than most, it obviously is not.
You realize what "baked in" means right? Curry's phyiscal failings will affect his effectiveness at basketball skills. So double counting that is redundant and silly and just conforming to your own biases.
Great sample size.
My sample size is bigger than yours which is non existent. And given you're the one whose making assertions regarding curry's teammate on his teammates, it is you who has the burden of proof.
Based on what? They were both very consistent in their playing style. They are less system flexible the way Curry hypothetically is (because of his off-ball value), but that is not the same as being system dependant (unless you mean the "system" is them having high usage, which is pedantic and can be applied to basically any top player).
Alright lets nip in this bud. The problem is we're categorizing certain skills in one box while treating other catergories as a variety of skills. So, lets actually look at who does what better.
Here's what curry does better:
-> cutting inside
-> cutting outside
-> setting screens
-> corner threes
-> elbow threes
-> catch and shoot threes
-> key threes
-> deep threes
-> pull up threes
-> mid range
-> free throws
-> ball handling
-> fighting sceeens
-> defensive positioning
-> guarding smalls
-> drawing coverage
-> attacking smalls
Here's what kobe does better:
-> interior scoring
-> rim protection
-> attacking bigs
-> defending bigs
Kobe is way less versatile meaning there's a smaller range of systems he could excel on meaning he's more system dependent. I realize why you tried to assert the opposite(it's literally your only viable argument for kobe here), but it's utterly baseless and nonsensical. And fyi, i could do the same with wade.
(unless you mean the "system" is them having high usage, which is pedantic and can be applied to basically any top player).
Yes, because curry is far more versatile off the ball than "basically any top player." So, to justify a one way superstar like Bryant being better, you would have to show he's signifcantly more impactful. Nothing supports that though, so you're now trying to reverse engineer excuses for kobe's lack of comparable impact.
Here is PIPM:
Seem familiar? How is that meaningfully different from the exact complaints E-balla had of BPM?
Because that data is being used as an adjustment for the rapm, it isn't actually being used in place of it. Hence why pipm is able to massively outperform bpm.
If good players cannibalise each other, why do impact metrics paint the opposite picture? Why do the Warriors have three of the best six or eight guys? Why does Kevin Durant suddenly leap up the rankings once he joins
Why do you keep insisting on grouping every impact stat together?
Durant's rpm was 11th
in 2017. His luck adjusted stats were top 5. The better player's stats got cannibalized by other offensive players. Curry was ranked behind chris paul, while his luck adjusted stats painted him as lebron on their own tier. Again, the better player got cannibalized. I specifically listed rpm, and you just listed a bunch of different metrics as the sabe to obfuscate the point. Also, rpm is a fraction of a team's total value. So. YOu would expect, if a team is cannibalizing, that the shares would be shares by multiple players. Having the best players lowered while the # of players increase is exactly what would happen if they're getting canniablized.
; did he just happen to learn "winning" basketball in that 2016 offseason? Or if we use your PIPM metric, why do the 2018 Rockets have two of the league's three best players?
Because it's luck adjusted? Why wouldn't a team that won 65 games and posted a + 10 srs not have three high players? Do you think they nearly beat the greatest team ever by not being great?
Where is the contradiction.
Why is Danny Green a superstar impact player on the Raptors? Why is Robert Covington basically on par with Towns? Why is Otto Porter a perpetual metrics maestro? It is because they are all excelling in their roles.
Fringe top 20 is superstar now?
They aren't even close to the best players. Red herring is red.
They are not being dinged because they are not being asked to do anything difficult for their skillset. They are not carrying the teams the way players like Garnett and Lebron and young Jordan and 2002-03 Duncan did. This is not the full story of basketball, and it should be obvious if you guys ever bothered to look at the players next to your specific points of focus.
This is relevant to curry how?
Oh, no, it's not. It's a silly red herring. Curry does more than kobe does. Yet again, you're deseprately grasping for some inconsistency on my part instead of just crafting a compelling case for the peaks you prefer. Curry has a wider variety of skills than wade or kobe, so using garnett in place of kobe and curry in place of green is beyond laughable. Kobe and wade are more similar to green or porter than curry is, rendering this anaolgy invalid. If you wish to dispute that, then do so. in fact, you really have to do so, because that's quite literally the only relevant claim you've made
And fyi, every single player you listed kills the likes of wade and kobe's best seasons in luck adjusted stats(Like AuPM). So listing players at the fringe of the top 20 and then somehow linking them, as superstars, to curry, is the most gymnastic of gymnastics.