RealGM

How many titles if Steph Curry replaces Nash for career?

97 Suns-10 Curry
98 Suns-11 Curry
99 Dallas-12 Curry
00 Dallas-13 Curry
01 Dallas-14 Curry
02 Dallas-15 Curry
03 Dallas-16 Curry
04 Dallas-17 Curry
05 Suns-18 Curry
06 Suns-19 Curry
07 Suns-20 Curry
08 Suns-21 Curry
09 Suns-22 Curry
10 Suns-23 Curry

I don't think Curry utilizes the Suns system the way Nash did, so while Nash is at least 1 tier above Nash as a player, I'm not sure he'd be able to elevate that team to the levels Nash did.
Does 14 Curry instead of Nash beat the mighty Kings of 2002? I'm leaning towards no.
Does 15 Curry overcome the loss of Dirk mid-series and beat the Spurs in the WCF? I think so, I mean had Dirk not went down the finals were within very close reach.
I'm also leaning towards yes in 04. superman Curry would've carried than franchise to title.
So 2 with DAL, and I'd say 0 with PHX, but given D'Antoni was the coach, who knows?
I vote 3

Steph being coached by Don Nelson and Mike D'Antoni for his whole career would be something to see. Imagine if we started to see a player take 10 3s a game, many of them off the dribble, in 2003. How different would the league be today

Mavrelous wrote:I don't think Curry utilizes the Suns system the way Nash did, so while Nash is at least 1 tier above Nash as a player, I'm not sure he'd be able to elevate that team to the levels Nash did.
Does 14 Curry instead of Nash beat the mighty Kings of 2002? I'm leaning towards no.
Does 15 Curry overcome the loss of Dirk mid-series and beat the Spurs in the WCF? I think so, I mean had Dirk not went down the finals were within very close reach.
I'm also leaning towards yes in 04. superman Curry would've carried than franchise to title.
So 2 with DAL, and I'd say 0 with PHX, but given D'Antoni was the coach, who knows?
I vote 3

I wonder how D'Antoni would use Curry's ability to play off the ball? Not saying they would or wouldn't win in Phoenix, but one strategy teams used in the playoffs was to not put pressure on Steve Nash so they could force him into being a scorer and take away his playmaking. You obviously can't do that with Curry.

That Phoenix team sucked when Nash didn't have the ball in his hands, but Currys off the ball play could have changed that as well.

A shame there's not more discussion here as I think this is a really interesting hypothetical. Usually a big part of the discussion of dropping Steph in an earlier era is "would coaches back then know how to use him/let him play the way he does?" In this case, we've got two of the most forward thinking offensive coaches in Nellie and D'Antoni - I don't think it's a stretch to think they would give him as much a greenlight as he has today.

So then the question is what happens when you put the greatest shooter of all time in an era that massively undervalued the 3 point shot. Steph was obviously revolutionary today, but as others have pointed out the league was already in the middle of a 3 point revolution led by the late 2010s Spurs among other teams. What happens if Steph breaks out in the middle of the the 2000s? What happens to defenses that were built up to counter Shaq, the dominant force of the early 00s run up against the emerging dominant force in Steph who plays in a totally opposite way? How would it affect how Lebron, who would be entering the league right as Curry reaches his apex in this hypothetical, would develop his game going forward?

parsnips33 wrote:So then the question is what happens when you put the greatest shooter of all time in an era that massively undervalued the 3 point shot. Steph was obviously revolutionary today, but as others have pointed out the league was already in the middle of a 3 point revolution led by the late 2010s Spurs among other teams. What happens if Steph breaks out in the middle of the the 2000s? What happens to defenses that were built up to counter Shaq, the dominant force of the early 00s run up against the emerging dominant force in Steph who plays in a totally opposite way? How would it affect how Lebron, who would be entering the league right as Curry reaches his apex in this hypothetical, would develop his game going forward?

Of relevance, Ray Allen had a season in 02 where he popped 7.7 3PA/g at 43.4% from three. Naturally, he didn't exhibit quite the same range as Steph, and certainly wasn't as dynamic on ball... and 7.7 isn't 10+, but still. Even Reggie hadn't done that before. It was the fifth-most 3PA/g (out of 15 player-seasons of 7+ 3PA/g from 1980-2004)...

And the only one beside Dennis Scott in 96 (pulled-in line) to shoot 40%+.

In Phoenix, Nash himself was already a 43-47% 3pt shooter, typically on around 4-5 3PA/g. I think the extra value of Steph's scoring punch would have been nice, and certainly would have been a struggle for most to guard, but he didn't have Nash's level of passing and that more than any scoring ability was what bootstrapped those Suns squads. He wasn't going to be doing anything with that team the year Nash took Boris Diaw and co into the playoffs when Amare was down with microfracture surgery. We already know that there is a functional limit to the value of high-end individual volume scoring, even when it's very efficient.

This would really show how good Klay Thompson/Draymond Green really is.

tsherkin wrote:

parsnips33 wrote:So then the question is what happens when you put the greatest shooter of all time in an era that massively undervalued the 3 point shot. Steph was obviously revolutionary today, but as others have pointed out the league was already in the middle of a 3 point revolution led by the late 2010s Spurs among other teams. What happens if Steph breaks out in the middle of the the 2000s? What happens to defenses that were built up to counter Shaq, the dominant force of the early 00s run up against the emerging dominant force in Steph who plays in a totally opposite way? How would it affect how Lebron, who would be entering the league right as Curry reaches his apex in this hypothetical, would develop his game going forward?

Of relevance, Ray Allen had a season in 02 where he popped 7.7 3PA/g at 43.4% from three. Naturally, he didn't exhibit quite the same range as Steph, and certainly wasn't as dynamic on ball... and 7.7 isn't 10+, but still. Even Reggie hadn't done that before. It was the fifth-most 3PA/g (out of 15 player-seasons of 7+ 3PA/g from 1980-2004)...

And the only one beside Dennis Scott in 96 (pulled-in line) to shoot 40%+.

In Phoenix, Nash himself was already a 43-47% 3pt shooter, typically on around 4-5 3PA/g. I think the extra value of Steph's scoring punch would have been nice, and certainly would have been a struggle for most to guard, but he didn't have Nash's level of passing and that more than any scoring ability was what bootstrapped those Suns squads. He wasn't going to be doing anything with that team the year Nash took Boris Diaw and co into the playoffs when Amare was down with microfracture surgery. We already know that there is a functional limit to the value of high-end individual volume scoring, even when it's very efficient.

Really good point, and I'll add that the the thing that changed with Steph compared to Ray/Reggie is how he got his 3s, namely pulling up off the dribble from even a foot or two behind the line. I think that deep pull up ability is more than just a difference in degree (shooting better than Reggie/Ray but on the same kind of shots) but a difference in kind where he's generating offense in a previously unheard of way. Granted Nash had a pretty good off the dribble pull up and was extremely efficient himself.

parsnips33 wrote:Really good point, and I'll add that the the thing that changed with Steph compared to Ray/Reggie is how he got his 3s, namely pulling up off the dribble from even a foot or two behind the line. I think that deep pull up ability is more than just a difference in degree (shooting better than Reggie/Ray but on the same kind of shots) but a degree in kind where he's generating offense in a previously unheard of way. Granted Nash had a pretty good off the dribble pull up and was extremely efficient himself.

Oh yes. Steph is a phenomenal player who isn't just a guy who runs off baseline screens and flex screens and all that, no question. He'll stare right into your eyes and pop a three from 40 feet, does it coming around screens, STARTS set on-ball and then turns himself into an off-ball threat... He's wild.

My point was more that he can score 30 ppg on 66% TS and it won't matter as much if the team around him can't get it done. We saw that with Dantley. The difference between Steph and Nash was that while Nash's quieter scoring was a problem come the playoffs, his playmaking is what got them there in the first place. Steph is a good passer, and an underrated playmaker in general, but Nash was a whole other level on that front. Nash used the threat of his scoring to help enable his playmaking and was a savant in how he was able to work the play with PnR, continuation action and so forth.

I think Curry's team is a top-2 team throughout 2002-2006 and one of the top-5 contenders in 2008-2010. I would guess 1-4 rings in the 2002-2006 window and 1 ring in 2008-2010.

could easily be 0. not sure 2015 curry is elevating the 2002 mavs enough to get over the kings or lakers, or even spurs. they already had the #1 offense. they would need to get stops. 2003 mavs seems like the obvious choice in a weak year with 2016 steph, but if we're playing the injury game, we're not getting half of the kings series from steph and, even if they make it, we're not getting half of the spurs series from dirk (was dirk going to be back in the finals?). 2004 already had one of the best offenses ever but was a gimmick team and doesn't have draymond and iggy around to get stops. 2005 doesn't have steph in the 1st round so that might be out and i don't think steph is making that team run like nash did. nash might be a little overrated, but was churning out #1 offenses in a way steph hasn't shown the ability to do. no to 2006 obviously. 2007 might have a chance but this is 2020 steph so no go. my recollection of 2008 phoenix is that they were not just a 2021 curry over nash upgrade from winning. 2009 didn't make the playoffs. 2010 is this year's curry. that team got to the WCF but are we sure they are doing more than already having the #1 offense?

tsherkin wrote:

parsnips33 wrote:So then the question is what happens when you put the greatest shooter of all time in an era that massively undervalued the 3 point shot. Steph was obviously revolutionary today, but as others have pointed out the league was already in the middle of a 3 point revolution led by the late 2010s Spurs among other teams. What happens if Steph breaks out in the middle of the the 2000s? What happens to defenses that were built up to counter Shaq, the dominant force of the early 00s run up against the emerging dominant force in Steph who plays in a totally opposite way? How would it affect how Lebron, who would be entering the league right as Curry reaches his apex in this hypothetical, would develop his game going forward?

Of relevance, Ray Allen had a season in 02 where he popped 7.7 3PA/g at 43.4% from three. Naturally, he didn't exhibit quite the same range as Steph, and certainly wasn't as dynamic on ball... and 7.7 isn't 10+, but still. Even Reggie hadn't done that before. It was the fifth-most 3PA/g (out of 15 player-seasons of 7+ 3PA/g from 1980-2004)...

And the only one beside Dennis Scott in 96 (pulled-in line) to shoot 40%+.

In Phoenix, Nash himself was already a 43-47% 3pt shooter, typically on around 4-5 3PA/g. I think the extra value of Steph's scoring punch would have been nice, and certainly would have been a struggle for most to guard, but he didn't have Nash's level of passing and that more than any scoring ability was what bootstrapped those Suns squads. He wasn't going to be doing anything with that team the year Nash took Boris Diaw and co into the playoffs when Amare was down with microfracture surgery. We already know that there is a functional limit to the value of high-end individual volume scoring, even when it's very efficient.

Why couldn't he have done anything with Diaw and Marion? That's two all-star caliber players in peak form. Before Nash Marion was an All-Star on a winning team averaging 21/10 on 45/39/85 shooting. Boris Diaw & Shawn Marion averaged a combined 41 ppg and 22 rpg when they lost to the Mavs in the WCF. These guys weren't scrubs.

Curry won a Championship in 14/15 where he was the only shot creator on the team and again last season where the only other shot creator was Jordan Poole.


Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, Tim Thomas, James Jones, Eddie House, Leandro Barbosa etc. Those guys are perfect fits with Curry.

Yes, he's not the same level of passer, but he's a significantly better shooter and scorer and significantly better off the ball. He doesn't even need the ball in his hands to create shots for his teammates. He's also a much better defender and rebounder.

I'd argue Curry is a much better fit along side Diaw and that it would open the Sun's offense up even more.

I'm not going to say they would have won it all because nobody knows, but 2x scoring champ & 4x NBA Champ Stephen Curry is obviously the better player and a great fit, and gives the Suns team the elite scorer they needed.

I'm thinking multiple. 2002-2004 Dallas would be extremely good and so would a few of those Suns teams. Those teams are contenders from 02-10 minus about two seasons.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:
Why couldn't he have done anything with Diaw and Marion? That's two all-star caliber players in peak form. Before Nash Marion was an All-Star on a winning team averaging 21/10 on 45/39/85 shooting. Boris Diaw & Shawn Marion averaged a combined 41 ppg and 22 rpg when they lost to the Mavs in the WCF. These guys weren't scrubs.

Of course they weren't scrubs. But Marion was also not a good scorer, volume production aside. His value came when he was enabled by a high-end playmaker. Diaw was a very interesting passing hub and a decent roll man, a very good long-two shooter. Marion was a very good defender and an absolute nightmare in transition. Not a creator, but that isn't a huge issue.

Curry won a Championship in 14/15 where he was the only shot creator on the team and again last season where the only other shot creator was Jordan Poole.

Mmm, but Klay was able to move without the ball to get shots for himself, to face-up as well. Wasn't brilliant in the Finals, of course, but with Lebron laying a large egg and having no scoring help due to Kyrie's injury, it didn't matter much. And on a smaller scale, Barbosa and Livingston were both able to create a shot for themselves. I don't know how much you want to sell the value of that title in this discussion: legit earned, but enabled due to injury, which makes it's utility for describing ability to win a title problematic.

Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, Tim Thomas, James Jones, Eddie House, Leandro Barbosa etc. Those guys are perfect fits with Curry.

Mmm, a lot of set shooters and a guy who can run out in transition. Curry's good, but he doesn't drive creation for those guys the way Nash does. Curry's advantage is as a scorer, of course, but you'd see efficiency drops from everyone on the roster and there's no one there in 06 to compare with Klay, really. 05, 07, 08, we start having a somewhat different discussion because Stoudemire is around. I still don't think it'd be enough, because again, Curry doesn't enable Amare (especially 07 and later) as much as Nash and his own scoring goes only so far on a team that needed to be spoon-fed that much.

I'm not going to say they would have won it all because nobody knows, but 2x scoring champ & 4x NBA Champ Stephen Curry is obviously the better player and a great fit, and gives the Suns team the elite scorer they needed.

Steph's a better player than Nash, but he doesn't provide for that team what Nash did. I think you're pretty heavily underrating what he did as a result of scoring bias. Phoenix needed on-ball direction, and that actually isn't what Steph does best. He switches to on-ball here and there to drive overall efficacy, but it isn't his primary mode of efficacy. He's a solid playmaker, but he also plays less on-ball than he used to, and that does only so much for guys who mostly needed to be set up in volume to a degree that isn't Steph's game. His off-ball gravity matters only so much to those guys.

Now, again, we seem to mostly be speaking about 06, because Amare wasn't there and because that was my original remark. It's perhaps a little different with Stoudemire. You're also underselling Nash's shooting ability. He was a the closest prelude to Curry that we'd seen to that point, particularly with how much he shot unassisted pull-ups in transition and shot in the 40s, and on around 4.5 3PA/g. Certainly not Steph, but he had huge draw. Obviously, Steph is able to maintain a much higher volume, and is in general a superior scorer. But many of the traits that make Steph what he is, Nash had those on a lower plane. Ball control, pull-up threat, high-percentage 3pt shooting, PnR usage to attack, continuity dribbles. And he was a much, much better passer, to a degree similar to how much better a scorer is Steph, which also helps blunt the difference between the two on that specific team.

More particularly, the bit you've completely overlooked?

Golden State was the best defense in the league in 2015. The Suns were 16th in the league in 2006. That's a LARGE difference. And on Phoenix, Steph would be asked to initiate on-ball a lot more than he has had to since Kerr was hired, which is also a movement away from what drives his success with Golden State. The difference in defense between Nash and Steph isn't enough to overcome that humongous defensive chasm.

parsnips33 wrote:Steph being coached by Don Nelson and Mike D'Antoni for his whole career would be something to see. Imagine if we started to see a player take 10 3s a game, many of them off the dribble, in 2003. How different would the league be today

Don't put the cart before the horse. The popularity of those shots didn't happen during Curry's time by chance. Curry's willingness to take those shots evolved then broke the PnR game. Nash had his own version of the same freedom and had nowhere close to Curry's shooting bravery.

tsherkin wrote:

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:
Why couldn't he have done anything with Diaw and Marion? That's two all-star caliber players in peak form. Before Nash Marion was an All-Star on a winning team averaging 21/10 on 45/39/85 shooting. Boris Diaw & Shawn Marion averaged a combined 41 ppg and 22 rpg when they lost to the Mavs in the WCF. These guys weren't scrubs.

Of course they weren't scrubs. But Marion was also not a good scorer, volume production aside. His value came when he was enabled by a high-end playmaker. Diaw was a very interesting passing hub and a decent roll man, a very good long-two shooter. Marion was a very good defender and an absolute nightmare in transition. Not a creator, but that isn't a huge issue.

Curry won a Championship in 14/15 where he was the only shot creator on the team and again last season where the only other shot creator was Jordan Poole.

Mmm, but Klay was able to move without the ball to get shots for himself, to face-up as well. Wasn't brilliant in the Finals, of course, but with Lebron laying a large egg and having no scoring help due to Kyrie's injury, it didn't matter much. And on a smaller scale, Barbosa and Livingston were both able to create a shot for themselves. I don't know how much you want to sell the value of that title in this discussion: legit earned, but enabled due to injury, which makes it's utility for describing ability to win a title problematic.

Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, Tim Thomas, James Jones, Eddie House, Leandro Barbosa etc. Those guys are perfect fits with Curry.

Mmm, a lot of set shooters and a guy who can run out in transition. Curry's good, but he doesn't drive creation for those guys the way Nash does. Curry's advantage is as a scorer, of course, but you'd see efficiency drops from everyone on the roster and there's no one there in 06 to compare with Klay, really. 05, 07, 08, we start having a somewhat different discussion because Stoudemire is around. I still don't think it'd be enough, because again, Curry doesn't enable Amare (especially 07 and later) as much as Nash and his own scoring goes only so far on a team that needed to be spoon-fed that much.

I'm not going to say they would have won it all because nobody knows, but 2x scoring champ & 4x NBA Champ Stephen Curry is obviously the better player and a great fit, and gives the Suns team the elite scorer they needed.

Steph's a better player than Nash, but he doesn't provide for that team what Nash did. I think you're pretty heavily underrating what he did as a result of scoring bias. Phoenix needed on-ball direction, and that actually isn't what Steph does best. He switches to on-ball here and there to drive overall efficacy, but it isn't his primary mode of efficacy. He's a solid playmaker, but he also plays less on-ball than he used to, and that does only so much for guys who mostly needed to be set up in volume to a degree that isn't Steph's game. His off-ball gravity matters only so much to those guys.

Now, again, we seem to mostly be speaking about 06, because Amare wasn't there and because that was my original remark. It's perhaps a little different with Stoudemire. You're also underselling Nash's shooting ability. He was a the closest prelude to Curry that we'd seen to that point, particularly with how much he shot unassisted pull-ups in transition and shot in the 40s, and on around 4.5 3PA/g. Certainly not Steph, but he had huge draw. Obviously, Steph is able to maintain a much higher volume, and is in general a superior scorer. But many of the traits that make Steph what he is, Nash had those on a lower plane. Ball control, pull-up threat, high-percentage 3pt shooting, PnR usage to attack, continuity dribbles. And he was a much, much better passer, to a degree similar to how much better a scorer is Steph, which also helps blunt the difference between the two on that specific team.

More particularly, the bit you've completely overlooked?

Golden State was the best defense in the league in 2015. The Suns were 16th in the league in 2006. That's a LARGE difference. And on Phoenix, Steph would be asked to initiate on-ball a lot more than he has had to since Kerr was hired, which is also a movement away from what drives his success with Golden State. The difference in defense between Nash and Steph isn't enough to overcome that humongous defensive chasm.

I think you are putting too much weight into Klay and underselling Marion. They just won it last year with his corpse and they won it in 2015 with him being absolutely invisible. He has had his moments, but I can't honestly say he's a bigger difference maker than prime Shawn Marion. He's not a rebounder, he's not a passer, he struggles to defend larger perimeter players and he can't put the ball on the floor. That's not to say he can't be great, but he's not a legit 2nd option on offense. Someone like Jordan Poole can be a 2nd option, though.

I think Iguodala would be missed more. He's the guy that would guard the other teams best player and he may have done it better than anybody I've ever seen.

And if Livingston is your idea of a scorer... I just don't know what to say. He did one thing well and he does it at a low volume. I liked the guy, but let's not pretend he was something he wasn't

In 2015 Curry took down every other member of the All-NBA first team and all of them were healthy, and he did it with zero teammates on the NBA's top 75 list. Who else can say they have done either of those?

And just because the Cavs (the 3rd or 4th best team in the NBA) lost its second best player does not discredit the Championship. Thats a cheap shot. By that standard any Championship isn't valid when the second best player on a top 4 team is out. A healthy Warriors team hasn't lost a championship since 2015. LeBron and Kawhi could probably say the same thing. That doesn't discredit what anyone else has done. Staying healthy is a part of the game.


And he's as good on the ball as he is off the ball. He's just very dynamic and scores in a lot of different ways.

PnR efficiency (minimum 5 pos per game)
2022-23 #1
2021-22 #5
2020-21 #1
2019-20 --
2018-19 #2
2017-18 #1
2016-17 #20
2015-16 #1

ISO efficiency (minimum 1.3 pos per game)
2022-23 #10
2021-22 #1
2020-21 #5
2019-20 --
2018-19 #6
2017-18 #9
2016-17 #4
2015-16 #4

Not only do I think he fits in extremely well, but his ability to score on and off the ball takes the team to new heights. He opens up more opportunities and creates a much more difficult task for the opposing teams defense. The improvement Curry brings on defense and rebounding is a bonus.

I also think adding Stoudemire helps Steve Nash more than it does Curry. Curry doesn't need a big man like that.

And yes Nash was a great shooter, but he did have the volume or the degree of difficulty. It's not even close, and his passing does not close the gap.

And yes, that Suns team did play average defense. So did the Heat and the Mavericks. Curry's defense and rebounding could have helped and been enough to bring them up to the Mavs and Heats level. They were very close. That Miami team was one of the worst overall rated teams to win a Championship. That was a weak season and that Suns team could have 100% taken it all. I'm not saying they would have, but I'm DEFINITELY not going to say they couldn't have.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:
I think you are putting too much weight into Klay and underselling Marion.

Klay wasn't amazing, just solid. And of course, one of the best 3pt shooters in league history. A little less effective from 3 in the playoffs, but not by much. 7+ 3PA/g and 39% (in the PS) ranks up there with all but the very best Ray Allen seasons in his entire career, which is a LOT to manage for a team, particularly when that sort of volume was still quite new to the league.

Marion was not a particularly adept shooter, bad almost every time he put the ball on the deck... but he was a good offensive rebounder, he ran routes well, was an exceptional athlete, was very savvy cutting off-ball, and that worked out very well with an elite playmaker.

They just won it last year with his corpse and they won it in 2015 with him being absolutely invisible.

Sure, but they had added Wiggins, Poole, and they had good roleplayers, so making that comment isolated from context isn't helpful.

And if Livingston is your idea of a scorer... I just don't know what to say. He did one thing well and he does it at a low volume. I liked the guy, but let's not pretend he was something he wasn't

I said he was able to create a shot for himself, I didn't say he was a volume option. I thought I was fairly clear about that. Barbosa, the same.

And just because the Cavs (the 3rd or 4th best team in the NBA) lost its second best player does not discredit the Championship. Thats a cheap shot.

No, that's you either not reading what I actually wrote or intentionally ignoring it. The championship counts; injuries don't mean a ring doesn't count. But for the sake of your specific argument, Curry's achievement came specifically because of a team-altering injury that would have radically altered the tone of that whole series. If your contention is that Curry was good enough to win it with what he had in 2015, then you do have to consider what allowed that to happen. In 2006, his competition wasn't injured, so for the purposes of this discussion, health matters.

[And he's as good on the ball as he is off the ball.

PnR efficiency (minimum 5 pos per game)
2022-23 #1
2021-22 #5
2020-21 #1
2019-20 --
2018-19 #2
2017-18 #1
2016-17 #20
2015-16 #1

ISO efficiency (minimum 1.3 pos per game)
2022-23 #10
2021-22 #1
2020-21 #5
2019-20 --
2018-19 #6
2017-18 #9
2016-17 #4
2015-16 #4

Curry is an elite ball handler and on the ball player. There is no way around that.

You understand why this is a limited analysis, right? Curry is a very effective on-ball player, but he doesn't spam those sets and his efficacy as the proportion of his possessions come from on-ball action isn't as high as when he's able to primarily focus on off-ball action and quick sets to get catch-and-shoot threes. Leveraging the 3 is his primary mode of efficacy. When Mark Jackson was making him a 7, 8 apg player, the Warriors offense wasn't nearly as potent as when he was able to start moving away from that more regularly. Curry's skill level isn't under examination here, he's an ATG offensive player and the greatest shooter we've ever seen. He is also a better beneath-arc player than someone like Dame Lillard, which is another major point of separation for him from his peers, of that there is no doubt.

Not only do I think he fits in extremely well, but his ability to score on and off the ball takes the team to new heights. He opens up more opportunities

You say this, but it isn't really true. Him being off-ball murders that team's offense, and they aren't good enough defensively to make up the difference.

And yes, that Suns team did play average defense. So did the Heat and the Mavericks. Curry's defense and rebounding could have helped and been enough to bring them up to the Mavs and Heats level.

Doubtful, actually. Very doubtful. Phoenix's problems on D centered more around defensive rebounding and ball protection than anything else. And even without Amare being a turnstile at the 5, they were a donut team in general. Kurt Thomas, when healthy, could do only so much and they had no bench depth to speak of.

Also, no. The Mavs were 11th in the league on D and the Heat were 9th. Neither of them was playing at an average level. MIA was at -1.7 relative DRTG and Dallas -1.2. League average was 106.2, which is where the 17th-ranked Warriors sat that season.

His scoring could have helped too since they lost to the Dallas Mavericks and their #1 offense.

Dallas was a competent defense, the second-best offensive rebounding team in the league, extremely good at protecting the ball, very good at drawing and making FTs, and Dirk was unguardable in that series. Nothing about the difference between Steph and Nash on D would have changed the outcome of that series. And again, you replace Nash with Steph in terms of scoring (minding that Nash popped 20.7 ppg on 62.6% TS in that series to begin with), and you see tail-offs in how the rest of the team performed offensively across the breadth of the series, which doesn't really help them win. Their primary issue in series wasn't offensively, but rather that they couldn't guard Dirk and that Dallas' possession control was insane. They were rocking 32.2% ORB and 9.9% TOV as a team. You can score all you like, but if you can't gain control of the possession battle, you're done. They slowed Phoenix down to under 91 possessions per game and punished them in ways that they simply couldn't defend, much as the Spurs often did.

Steph is one of the greatest to ever lace 'em up, but he isn't a magician, man.

tsherkin wrote:

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:
I think you are putting too much weight into Klay and underselling Marion.

Klay wasn't amazing, just solid. And of course, one of the best 3pt shooters in league history. A little less effective from 3 in the playoffs, but not by much. 7+ 3PA/g and 39% (in the PS) ranks up there with all but the very best Ray Allen seasons in his entire career, which is a LOT to manage for a team, particularly when that sort of volume was still quite new to the league.

Marion was not a particularly adept shooter, bad almost every time he put the ball on the deck... but he was a good offensive rebounder, he ran routes well, was an exceptional athlete, was very savvy cutting off-ball, and that worked out very well with an elite playmaker.

They just won it last year with his corpse and they won it in 2015 with him being absolutely invisible.

Sure, but they had added Wiggins, Poole, and they had good roleplayers, so making that comment isolated from context isn't helpful.

And if Livingston is your idea of a scorer... I just don't know what to say. He did one thing well and he does it at a low volume. I liked the guy, but let's not pretend he was something he wasn't

I said he was able to create a shot for himself, I didn't say he was a volume option. I thought I was fairly clear about that. Barbosa, the same.

And just because the Cavs (the 3rd or 4th best team in the NBA) lost its second best player does not discredit the Championship. Thats a cheap shot.

No, that's you either not reading what I actually wrote or intentionally ignoring it. The championship counts; injuries don't mean a ring doesn't count. But for the sake of your specific argument, Curry's achievement came specifically because of a team-altering injury that would have radically altered the tone of that whole series. If your contention is that Curry was good enough to win it with what he had in 2015, then you do have to consider what allowed that to happen. In 2006, his competition wasn't injured, so for the purposes of this discussion, health matters.

[And he's as good on the ball as he is off the ball.

PnR efficiency (minimum 5 pos per game)
2022-23 #1
2021-22 #5
2020-21 #1
2019-20 --
2018-19 #2
2017-18 #1
2016-17 #20
2015-16 #1

ISO efficiency (minimum 1.3 pos per game)
2022-23 #10
2021-22 #1
2020-21 #5
2019-20 --
2018-19 #6
2017-18 #9
2016-17 #4
2015-16 #4

Curry is an elite ball handler and on the ball player. There is no way around that.

You understand why this is a limited analysis, right? Curry is a very effective on-ball player, but he doesn't spam those sets and his efficacy as the proportion of his possessions come from on-ball action isn't as high as when he's able to primarily focus on off-ball action and quick sets to get catch-and-shoot threes. Leveraging the 3 is his primary mode of efficacy. When Mark Jackson was making him a 7, 8 apg player, the Warriors offense wasn't nearly as potent as when he was able to start moving away from that more regularly. Curry's skill level isn't under examination here, he's an ATG offensive player and the greatest shooter we've ever seen. He is also a better beneath-arc player than someone like Dame Lillard, which is another major point of separation for him from his peers, of that there is no doubt.

Not only do I think he fits in extremely well, but his ability to score on and off the ball takes the team to new heights. He opens up more opportunities

You say this, but it isn't really true. Him being off-ball murders that team's offense, and they aren't good enough defensively to make up the difference.

And yes, that Suns team did play average defense. So did the Heat and the Mavericks. Curry's defense and rebounding could have helped and been enough to bring them up to the Mavs and Heats level.

Doubtful, actually. Very doubtful. Phoenix's problems on D centered more around defensive rebounding and ball protection than anything else. And even without Amare being a turnstile at the 5, they were a donut team in general. Kurt Thomas, when healthy, could do only so much and they had no bench depth to speak of.

Also, no. The Mavs were 11th in the league on D and the Heat were 9th. Neither of them was playing at an average level. MIA was at -1.7 relative DRTG and Dallas -1.2. League average was 106.2, which is where the 17th-ranked Warriors sat that season.

His scoring could have helped too since they lost to the Dallas Mavericks and their #1 offense.

Dallas was a competent defense, the second-best offensive rebounding team in the league, extremely good at protecting the ball, very good at drawing and making FTs, and Dirk was unguardable in that series. Nothing about the difference between Steph and Nash on D would have changed the outcome of that series. And again, you replace Nash with Steph in terms of scoring (minding that Nash popped 20.7 ppg on 62.6% TS in that series to begin with), and you see tail-offs in how the rest of the team performed offensively across the breadth of the series, which doesn't really help them win. Their primary issue in series wasn't offensively, but rather that they couldn't guard Dirk and that Dallas' possession control was insane. They were rocking 32.2% ORB and 9.9% TOV as a team. You can score all you like, but if you can't gain control of the possession battle, you're done. They slowed Phoenix down to under 91 possessions per game and punished them in ways that they simply couldn't defend, much as the Spurs often did.

Steph is one of the greatest to ever lace 'em up, but he isn't a magician, man.

Yes, the 2nd option was injured in 2015 in the Finals. That does not invalidate the possibility that he could lead the Suns over the Mavs or the Heat. Neither of those teams even had a 2nd option like Irving (or a first option like LeBron?), and the Cavs were maybe a top 4 team. Curry also just beat a healthy Boston team while shedding the DPOY. You're argument is cheap and tired.

And you are arguing that Barbosa was a shot creator? You're' reaching. He was FAR better in Phoenix... and he is on the supporting cast you're trying to dismiss because they needed someone else to create their own shots? You can't have it both ways.

Phoenix had an adjusted defensive rating of 106.58 (15th in the NBA) and Dallas was 106.07 (14th in the NBA). Miami was at 105.38 (9th in the NBA). The Spurs were elite (#1) at 100.38.

Sorry, but the #15, #14 and #9 defenses that are all within 1.2 points of each-other can be called average. Average was 107.01 and they were all below that, but close enough to be called average. It's like me saying someone is an average FT shooter and you coming along and saying they shoot 1.2% better than average. Yeah, who cares, it's close enough to be generalized as average.

I'm not saying he's a magician, he's just better and a great fit. The idea that he could make the #4 team in the NBA better and potentially win a few more games shouldn't come as an insult or shock to you.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:
I'm not saying he's a magician, he's just better and a great fit. The idea that he could make the #4 team in the NBA better and potentially win a few more games shouldn't come as an insult or shock to you.

But explicitly you are wrong that he was a ":great fit." Everything about Phoenix centered around Nash's ability to drive their offense and operate in a way which Steph does not. Team construction matters, as does coaching to some extent. MAD was a "give it to your PG, arrange your transition routes, and just pray after that" kind of coach, not Steve Kerr. "Here, have some fairly basic PnR sets and I hope this works out." That isn't really going to do too much for the Suns if you don't have one of the best PnR playmakers in league history, which Steph is not, despite his evident prowess at scoring out of the PnR and his own underrated playmaking ability.

You slap Steph in there, even in his hyper-efficient, 30 ppg form, and they do not function as well as they did in-era. There's an argument to be made outside of 2006 that they could title because they had more offensive support, but you seem to keep underestimating the importance of what Nash did that Steph cannot, with an absent appreciation for the limitations of pure scoring, even hyper-efficient pure scoring.

Marion's drop-off alone would be a significant problem; he was considerably worse when he wasn't playing with Nash, and in no way does Steph replicate what Nash did as a playmaker, nor enough to matter.

The issue is defense not offense. Since Steph is their best player maybe people don't realise it but the Warriors have been just as much of a defensive powerhouse as they've been offensive. They were only 16th in ofrtg last season when they won the chip but 2nd in defense. Maybe Stephs offense helps him win in Nash's circumstances but those teams were usually 1st in offense anyway, defense was the main problem and Steph is only helping marginally there.