Everyone’s thinking it but nobody wants to say it

[art_tatum]

what if the warriors traded curry for a million firsts to the spurs.
IMO curry + wemby would have a punchers chance at the chip.

[dhsilv2]

Just because I have LEBRON handy with multie years in it. Kobe in 2012 was 2.03 O-LEBRON +3.16 D-LEBRON -1.13
Curry 2.64 +3.78 -1.14

That checks. Kobe was lazier but larger. Lazier, I understand. Creation burden, heavier minutes logged, lockdown season, weaker support around him defensively, etc. Larger helped, and even in decline, he had some pretty good physical tools to work with.

The bottom line is I think they're similar enough in this context where I don't think there's a big gap beyond...Curry was just better to start with and Curry is a better off ball guy which allows him to age better as he can do less without not being Curry.

I mean, I suppose this now raises the question of what we're discussing. I have not been primarily talking about physical decline, but overall impact profile. Steph is definitely less effective than he used to be, which is normal for a dude in his mid-30s this late into his career. He's aging more gracefully because of his shooting ability and off-ball game, we both very clearly agree on that front. No revelations there, those types of players age more gracefully than athletic slashers. That's not news. And the defensive slide is also understandable for both. Steph's offensive impact is higher than was Kobe's at the same age, but the actual true "age" of the players is different based on total minutes logged because Kobe played quite a lot more NBA basketball by 34 than has Steph.

So yeah. I mean, Steph has good seasons in him yet. AS-level seasons, no doubt. And will likely continue aging with some grace as a result of how he plays. But he's also at 2/3s of Kobe's total RS minutes played, so we're not really comparing these guys apples to apples, so to speak.

My comment to Roger was that Kobe really hadn't dropped off more so than Curry. His statement was that Kobe in his late stages was MUCH worse than Curry is now. Curry was better peak vs peak and thus after a drop off, yes he's still better. But Kobe's huge drop off came once he got hurt. Before injury kobe was very much still a plus impact player. And the impact metric I just bought out shows just that. Kobe and Curry are strong offensive pluses and notable but not off settingly bad on defense.

[thinktank]

Oh enough with the Lakers hate it's so played out
Lakers will be a contender in the West

This free agency made the West a lot less competitive
Doesn't matter if you believe all your lies

Lakers "hate" is played out but your "DLo for (insert every player in the NBA)" posts aren't?

No because that's a actual trade offer the Lakers want to use to get something back

Lakers can also offer Reaves, Rui, Vando, Gabe, Woods, Reddish, Max Christie

But yet again all the haters will say they are all YMCA players and Lakers deserve to get nothing back for them

5 out of 6 aren't floor raisers. Maybe Reaves is. Don't forget how the Lakers were barely in the playoffs last year.

[MrSparkle]

Isaac, Cole A., Black, Jett, 3 unprotected FRPs for Curry

Curry Suggs Fultz
KCP Harris
Franz Ingles
Paolo Mo
WCJ Goga

Disney World would love Steph

[Capn'O]

I'd like to see him finish it out with the Warriors. More importantly, it seems like he would too.

If the right situation presented himself maybe he'd change his mind but I don't see any reason for either side to part ways. He's a huge draw and a huge piece of how the org changed from a laughingstock to a perennial champion. They can rebuild around him.

[CROBulls]

Curry should stay with Warriors. There is no reason to ring chase, there is no reason to chase any money. He is gonna earn almost 60M in last year of his current deal. That's still superstar money under new CBA.

He is already 36 and he is gonna be 38 when he is UFA. I think when his deal ends he is gonna retire. He is not Lebron, there is no records to chase to even stay and sign veteran deal.

Team and core of dynasty will end. He should go out in sunset. And Warriors should be already building a statue outside arena, so when he retires it's gonna be unveiled.

[tsherkin]

My comment to Roger was that Kobe really hadn't dropped off more so than Curry. His statement was that Kobe in his late stages was MUCH worse than Curry is now. Curry was better peak vs peak and thus after a drop off, yes he's still better. But Kobe's huge drop off came once he got hurt. Before injury kobe was very much still a plus impact player. And the impact metric I just bought out shows just that. Kobe and Curry are strong offensive pluses and notable but not off settingly bad on defense.

Kobe's largest drop-off in this regard very clearly happened after 2013, yes. That's when he became intolerably bad. That said, he'd been declining since well before that, though. He trailed off pretty sharply in terms of scoring efficiency.

Code: Select all

2008: 57.6%, +3.6% rTS
2009: 56.1%, +1.7%
2010: 54.5%, +0.2%
2011: 54.8%, +0.7%
2012: 52.7%, +0.0%
2013: 57.0%, +3.5%
2014: 50.5%, -3.6% (6-game season)
2015: 47.7%, -5.7%
2016: 46.9%, -7.2%


So this is only a facet of impact, of course. But after 2011, he never hit 53%+ TS ever again, and again 2008, only 2013 was a strong season in terms of efficiency. And then obviously, post-Achilles, he was toast. So many minutes, post-injury, still taking 20+ FGA/g in 2015, I mean, he was well and truly finished by then. But again, we're talking about a guy who had over 45,000 NBA minutes on his body prior to the 13-14 season. There are 19 guys in league history with that many minutes or more on their entire careers. Kobe, who finished with over 48,000 minutes played, is 8th all-time in that regard, so it isn't hard to really ignore that portion of his career. Returning to that thought, he hit the league at 17. Steph hit the league at 21. Prior to his age 21 season, Kobe had already logged 5,055 minutes in the league, and then of course would ultimately support a higher MPG average than Steph for a large chunk of his career.

It's worth remembering that from 98 through 08, he averaged +3.17% rTS. So post 08, he fell off pretty sharply in that regard. He scaled up well as the league grew more efficient in 05 and later, but as his athleticism ebbed, he struggled to keep up. After 08, you can really see him failing to get to the rim as much. Obviously, he deserves some slack for that in 06, because he was shooting 27 times per game, and that leads to a lot of jumpers, but it didn't really start to fall off until after 08, tidily lining up with his draw rate starting to ebb, and likewise his broader efficiency.

Again, this accesses the idea of style and how impact is produced for given players. Kobe was very clearly less effective as a scorer past a certain point, and it's rooted heavily in his approach to the game to at least some extent.

That said, he also had Phil Jackson coaching through 2011. The triangle definitely did him no favors as an older guy. Then he had a year of Mike Brown during the lockout year (where we again saw league-wide suppression of offensive efficacy as we had the last time back in 99), and then suddenly under MAD, he had a revival... where the biggest issue was minutes per game more than anything else. And suddenly he was at an efficiency level we hadn't seen from him since 2008.

Sooooo, that likely means that at least some part of Kobe's decline prior to his age-34 season was related to roster quality and how he was deployed. LA also went from 5th-fastest in the league in 09 (his last season of 55%+ TS) to 14th the year after, then down to 21st (under 91 possessions per game), to 20th under Brown (about the same as in 2011), then back up to 5th in the league (up over 94 poss/g again). And that also made a difference. They also dropped off precipitously as a team in terms of 3pt shooting (both in volume and percentage), which again hampered everything.

So, lots of little variables which bring us back to some level of "context probably magnified Kobe's actual level of decline."

[shi-woo]

One of the reasons people love Steph is because he was always the opposite of the superteam stars that continuously hop ship when the going gets tough. He won an organic ring at the start of the superteam era, bringing the rag tag franchise to the pinical of the sport, showed how easy it really is winning on a super team, and then won another organic ring to solidify himself as a Top 15 ATG. Part of why Steph is so beloved is because he stuck it out. He didn't jump ship when Klay got hurt like LeBron did with Wade. He didn't bounce when the team had drama. He wasn't in the media complaining about not trading draft picks ect ect. He's a true leader, and is literally the entire franchise. You don't just give up that clout and responsibility to go help LeBron chase shadows, or help Wemby create a foothold in the league.

Counterpoint: I don't like responses like this because it ignores the responsibility the franchise bears in putting a quality team around a star. Cleveland failed on a profound level to put appropriate pieces around Lebron for 7 years, so he left. It made perfect sense. He just didn't handle it well in terms of how things went in the media with The Decision. The franchise did a much better job for Magic, Bird, Jordan and many other ATGs, and those for whom that was not true have languished in the eyes of many as a result. Lebron was sensitive to that and wanted to win, then found his way to such.

Steph was drafted in 2009. They titled in 2015. By that time, he had Klay, Draymond, an innovative coach and a bunch of quality roleplayers, including Iguodala. They tagged Dray in the 2nd round of 2012 and had drafted Klay 11th overall in 2011. They grabbed Bogut ahead of the 12-13 season and he was 6th in the DPOY race during the first title year, and All-D 2nd team.

They did what the Cavs never could during Lebron's first run there, and that made a large difference. Context is very important.

Love the respect for Steph, love supporting the idea that he doesn't really need to go places (though he has earned the right to do that if he feels like doing it at this point). Don't love the heavily-biased remarks about Lebron.

Eh, you're point would hit harder if LeBron didn't leave MIA, rejoin the incompetent CAVS and Lakers, and bail after making it to the finals with 2 different teams. It's that type of culture i'm disagreeable to, and it unfortunately started with LeBron whether people like it or not, or think it's fair or not.

The remarks aren''t biased, its just the reality that came from LeBron's career, and the narrative of the superteam era. Two of the best 3 players have played for 8 teams in their primes. It's not just jumping to more competent organizations, they burn those bridges too, it's chasing legacy. Steph doesn't have to do that. His legacy is cemented, and leaving would do nothing for him in that regard.

The idea of ring chasing was usually reserved for stars who hadn't already won late in their careers. Warriors won the title 3 years ago. It's not like Steph is wasting away on an incompetent franchise. They still won 46 games last year, and should be improved this year with more roster continuity. Ultimately it's his decision, but I find it weird so many fans want to see it happen for their own personal reasons or because the team couldn't trade for an ALL NBA star.

29 other teams have that same responsibility. Only 2-4 of them actually achieve the goal. Only 1 team gets that huge free agent. That doesn't mean the league needs to blow up so new trios you guys like to watch play can do that.

[tsherkin]

Eh, you're point would hit harder if LeBron didn't leave MIA, rejoin the incompetent CAVS and Lakers, and bail after making it to the finals with 2 different teams. It's that type of culture i'm disagreeable to, and it unfortunately started with LeBron whether people like it or not, or think it's fair or not.

But by the time he returned to the Cavs, they already at least had Kyrie and they added Kevin Love in that first season. So he had personnel to work with. You say "unfortunate," but really, it isn't. You don't like it, which is of course your personal prerogative. But there's nothing objectively wrong with Lebron doing what his franchise couldn't get done for him, finding a winning context. That's the goal. And if your team doesn't put the pieces around you, then you'll never win. So why would you stay, knowing full well that you will be judged for the failings of your franchise?

29 other teams have that same responsibility. Only 2-4 of them actually achieve the goal. Only 1 team gets that huge free agent. That doesn't mean the league needs to blow up so new trios you guys like to watch play can do that.

No doubt that the team doesn't have to blow it up. I'd be quite happy if Golden State picked a strategy and managed to effectively handle the last few seasons of Steph's high-impact performance, though, instead of just letting him waste away while he could still be contending. That's the main thing, they're crapping the bed and wasting years where he could be chasing a title with them. Obviously, improvement is rarely instantaneous and, as you noted, they've recently won a title. But I suspect that is more where the sentiment extends from than anything else. And then it isn't about a trio per se, just an environment of contention. That could be on Golden State, but the roster they're sending around Steph isn't that good. And is considerably worse than back in 2022.

[Joao Saraiva]

I miss the days when people respected athletes who spent their entire career repping one team.

But then Lebron James happened and ring whoring every year of your career became accepted by fans of this era lol.

The old champs were the way. I remember when Wilt, Barkley, Kareem, Moses stuck with their franchise to win it all. I also remember teams sticking to their big 3 forever like the Bulls with MJ/Pippen and Grant. They were together for the 6 championships, right?

Also miss the Shaq days in Orlando and their 3-peat.

Old players were the real deal. They never changed franchise, even if they failed them for years and years.

No more mamba mentality of asking for a trade as soons as things aren't going well. It's a sad era for basketball.

[madmaxmedia]

I'm not thinking it or saying it. He's won plenty, my guess is he'd rather finish out his career where it started (as long as they are reasonably competitive) than ring chase somewhere else.

It would have been different scenario if he had never won a ring (instead of four!!)

[Mr.Raptorsingh]

Curry/Podziemski/Payton II
Wiggins/Melton/Quinones
Kuminga/Moody/Santos
Green/Saric/Garuba
Looney/Jackson-Davis/Post

Ya dig, Steph?

I could see a trade between the Bulls and Warriors for LaVine if he's healthy

[ShootersShoot]

As a warriors fan, if steph wants to ring chase, I would support and root for him to win one outside of gsw. I honestly wouldnt mind seeing him on another stacked team before he retires.

[Throwawaytheone]

.

[lessthanjake]

Steph is in that weird place where he’s not good enough anymore to win you a title but he’s definitely good enough that him being on the team prevents a real rebuild.

So if you were purely trying to title-chance maximize, then I think you’d move on from Steph now and start the rebuild. But that’s not what the calculus is for the Warriors, because Steph still fills stadiums, gets fans excited, etc. A Steph-led Warriors team that isn’t very good can still make money and and be a team people like to watch about as much as a contending team. So it’s the right play for the team (and for fans) to just let it play out, even if starting the full rebuild earlier would probably maximize title chances over the long term.

And I think Steph’s calculus would be similar. He’s not good enough anymore to lead a team to the title, so there’s not much point in him moving. He’s best off just staying where he’s beloved, and being a one-team guy.

We just watched Jayson Tatum win a title, and I don't think the Celtics ever once even sweated. Relative to the supporting casts around stars that exist right now and in the past few seasons, Steph is absolutely than good enough to lead a team to a title, so is Lebron.

I’d say good enough to lead a team to a title and good enough to win a title are two different things. Steph can still win a title if he’s on an incredible team that’s like the Celtics. But ensemble teams like that are the exception to the rule. Usually you need a genuine top 5 guy playing great, and Steph’s not really that anymore. There’s theoretically a path without it, but I just kind of discount it as an option since it’s very uncommon and requires quite a lot of fortuitous roster moves and decisions (which is why it happens only about once a decade).

[tsherkin]

Steph is in that weird place where he’s not good enough anymore to win you a title but he’s definitely good enough that him being on the team prevents a real rebuild.

So if you were purely trying to title-chance maximize, then I think you’d move on from Steph now and start the rebuild. But that’s not what the calculus is for the Warriors, because Steph still fills stadiums, gets fans excited, etc. A Steph-led Warriors team that isn’t very good can still make money and and be a team people like to watch about as much as a contending team. So it’s the right play for the team (and for fans) to just let it play out, even if starting the full rebuild earlier would probably maximize title chances over the long term.

And I think Steph’s calculus would be similar. He’s not good enough anymore to lead a team to the title, so there’s not much point in him moving. He’s best off just staying where he’s beloved, and being a one-team guy.

We just watched Jayson Tatum win a title, and I don't think the Celtics ever once even sweated. Relative to the supporting casts around stars that exist right now and in the past few seasons, Steph is absolutely than good enough to lead a team to a title, so is Lebron.

I’d say good enough to lead a team to a title and good enough to win a title are two different things. Steph can still win a title if he’s on an incredible team that’s like the Celtics. But ensemble teams like that are the exception to the rule. Usually you need a genuine top 5 guy playing great, and Steph’s not really that anymore. There’s theoretically a path without it, but I just kind of discount it as an option since it’s very uncommon and requires quite a lot of fortuitous roster moves and decisions (which is why it happens only about once a decade).

I don't think this really sells, if only because in the present state of the league, you aren't really likely to see that older model of "one really great dude and a bunch of roleplayers" winning a title. The talent depth in the league right now, particularly on the top tier of teams, is considerable. Like, I doubt we see an '11 Mavs type of title for a while yet, barring some freak roleplayer contributions. You're going to need 2 stars and some really good roleplayers (or at least guys clicking at the right time, like the 2023 Nuggets with Murray playing LIKE a second All-Star).

You put Steph on a healthy team with a good running mate and some depth and he could absolutely win a title. He's not hugely worse than he was in 2022, he's still among the best offensive players in the league. It isn't 2015, for sure, and the league has caught up enough that he isn't an outlier any longer, but he could absolutely still be at the forefront of a title team built to contend in this era.

[Throwawaytheone]

.

[-Luke-]

Most things I think during the day I would never say on this forum in order not to get banned.

[Ballerhogger]

Make him laker already

[lessthanjake]

We just watched Jayson Tatum win a title, and I don't think the Celtics ever once even sweated. Relative to the supporting casts around stars that exist right now and in the past few seasons, Steph is absolutely than good enough to lead a team to a title, so is Lebron.

I’d say good enough to lead a team to a title and good enough to win a title are two different things. Steph can still win a title if he’s on an incredible team that’s like the Celtics. But ensemble teams like that are the exception to the rule. Usually you need a genuine top 5 guy playing great, and Steph’s not really that anymore. There’s theoretically a path without it, but I just kind of discount it as an option since it’s very uncommon and requires quite a lot of fortuitous roster moves and decisions (which is why it happens only about once a decade).

I don't think this really sells, if only because in the present state of the league, you aren't really likely to see that older model of "one really great dude and a bunch of roleplayers" winning a title. The talent depth in the league right now, particularly on the top tier of teams, is considerable. Like, I doubt we see an '11 Mavs type of title for a while yet, barring some freak roleplayer contributions. You're going to need 2 stars and some really good roleplayers (or at least guys clicking at the right time, like the 2023 Nuggets with Murray playing LIKE a second All-Star).

You put Steph on a healthy team with a good running mate and some depth and he could absolutely win a title. He's not hugely worse than he was in 2022, he's still among the best offensive players in the league. It isn't 2015, for sure, and the league has caught up enough that he isn't an outlier any longer, but he could absolutely still be at the forefront of a title team built to contend in this era.

Quoting tsherkin’s post but responding to you both:

I’m a huge Steph fan (as can be seen quite clearly from huge swaths of my post history), but I think I just take a dimmer view of how good he currently is right now in the twilight of his career. He’s currently 36 years old and will turn 37 during next season. What often happens at this sort of age with major superstars is that they still appear to be doing the same things as before, but it’s just subtly less effective, because the physical decline just makes them a little bit worse at essentially everything and that all adds up. I think Steph is just a good deal less impactful than before, even though he still does the same sorts of actions and whatnot. This can be for many reasons at once—losing a bit of his edge in off the ball movement, not quite having the same shooting legs, being a bit slower and less energetic defensively, not being as quick off the dribble, etc. It just all adds up (and we see that in impact metrics, where he’s been on a steady decline the last couple years, and this past season was at his lowest since 2013). There’s no shame in it when we’re talking about a player that is at an age where every player in history was substantially declined (except maybe Karl Malone). He’s still good, but I think there’s a pretty big gap between him and the top 5 guys in the league at this point. That obviously wasn’t at all the case a couple years ago, but there’s a huge difference in basketball terms between 34 and 36. One age is commonly the very late stages of superstars’ primes, while the other is just always notably past it. I don’t think he’s currently at the level of the type of player that typically is the best player on a title team. If we put him on a team with a guy that *is* that level of player, I think he’s currently very well capable of being a great #2 player on a title team. So I suppose the part of my post that suggested Steph himself has little incentive to leave to pursue a title because he isn’t really able to win one now may be wrong, but I guess I was just assuming that Steph wouldn’t be interested in being the #2 somewhere (nor do the few applicable teams with a top guy actually have cap space for him). He has no need to ring chase like that, given how secure his legacy is, and I think his legacy and day-to-day life would probably be better just by staying a one-team guy until the end. Anyways, my view of Steph’s decline isn’t something I have 100% confidence in, but it’s consistent with what I’ve seen, what the data tells me, and what pretty consistently is the case for players of this sort of age.