West/Bird vs. Curry/Durant

[Ol Roy]

It's a battle of the best sharpshooting combo guards and combo forwards; old versus new.

Who would you take in a team setting? Rules and era are up for discussion.

[SNPA]

Bird’s ****talking would make Durant cry.

[rand]

Before the 3pt line I'd take West/Bird but not after.

[Samurai]

Too many factors not stated to answer this one. Which era? What rules are enforced? Obviously it seems unfair to me to take someone who played without a 3-point line (and nearly as unfair to take someone who played when the 3-point shot was legal but not taught/stressed nearly as much then as it is now) and put them in today's game just as it would be unfair to take someone from today's game and put them in an era with no 3-point shot, massively inferior medical/physical training, equipment, travel and a vast difference in how the game was officiated. So obviously I am assuming the OP means who would I take between West/Bird in a non 3-point era (or an early era where the 3-point shot was rarely emphasized) or Curry/Durant in today's game. In that case, while very close, I would lean West/Bird. Since I don't know who fills out the rest of my team, I'd rather have West's versatility. He would be a star whether he was asked to play the PG or SG. If I have Curry, and my other guard is say, Bob Cousy, my backcourt would be too undersized and weak defensively in the backcourt.

[One_and_Done]

KD and Curry and it's not even remotely close. Bird is likely worse than KD, and West is far worse than Curry. The fit is better for KD/Curry too. I'd take Curry over Bird/West by himself probably.

[SNPA]

KD and Curry and it's not even remotely close. Bird is likely worse than KD, and West is far worse than Curry. The fit is better for KD/Curry too. I'd take Curry over Bird/West by himself probably.

Is this a Saturday night sober post?

[One_and_Done]

KD and Curry and it's not even remotely close. Bird is likely worse than KD, and West is far worse than Curry. The fit is better for KD/Curry too. I'd take Curry over Bird/West by himself probably.

Is this a Saturday night sober post?

West is a product of his era to a large extent. He wouldn't scale that well today.

[penbeast0]

West is a product of his era to a large extent. He wouldn't scale that well today.

As opposed to Curry and Durant who are not at all a product of the 3 point spamming era.

Don't get me wrong; they are ATG players, all 4 probably top 20 all time. And, like players from other eras, smart players take advantage of the rules and work on the things that are most important to the league they actually play in.

But the idea that West's game wouldn't scale is just silly unless you feel anyone that played before whatever magical cut off date a poster has in his head where the NBA went from plumbers and firemen to millionaire athletes would be useless today. West's game with his combination of long range and drive to draw fouls or finish while passing and defending the perimeter extremely well is probably better built to scale to today's game than anyone else from the 60s or 70s.

[tsherkin]

My first thought echoes others: 3pt line or not changes this a fair bit. With, I take Curry/Durant and don't even think twice about it. Without, the reverse. I suspect West and Bird would both thrive in today's game, but it's harder to conceive of them surpassing Curry/Durant in that environment, and likewise the reverse. KD, of course, is a murderous mid-range monster, so I think he'd actually be the best scorer of the bunch even in the 60s and 70s, but Steph loses out a fair bit without the 3pt shot. He'd be good, but far from epic without it, given how central that shot is to his relevance and efficacy.

[Tim Lehrbach]

KD, of course, is a murderous mid-range monster, so I think he'd actually be the best scorer of the bunch even in the 60s and 70s, but Steph loses out a fair bit without the 3pt shot. He'd be good, but far from epic without it, given how central that shot is to his relevance and efficacy.

I'm not sure about this. KD's career FG% is higher overall, but Curry is significantly better beyond 16 feet. Without the three point line, his super deep shots disappear and his volume from what is now a long two goes up -- where he's even better than he is from beyond the arc.

[tsherkin]

KD, of course, is a murderous mid-range monster, so I think he'd actually be the best scorer of the bunch even in the 60s and 70s, but Steph loses out a fair bit without the 3pt shot. He'd be good, but far from epic without it, given how central that shot is to his relevance and efficacy.

I'm not sure about this. KD's career FG% is higher overall, but Curry is significantly better beyond 16 feet. Without the three point line, his super deep shots disappear and his volume from what is now a long two goes up -- where he's even better than he is from beyond the arc.

That is an assumption, though. What if he replaces them with more shots fromn10-16 and at the rim? Especially at pre-1980 paces, that is far more likely. Also in general, he is a 54.1% FG guy inside the arc kn 13.8 FGA/g. Steph's at 52.3% on 8.7. Curry shoots about 9% worse in the RA, about 1% worse from 3-10 and 10-16...

And the difference you're describing from 16-23 is 46.2 vs 45.5, aka trivial. Durant also has more (5) seasons shooting 50%+ from that range than does Steph (3).

So IMHO, not really a factor.

EDIT:

I see where you're coming from, in the sense that in the 90s and early 2000s, there was a lot of long 2s versus the 3, right? But the way those guys played, there was a lot less of that. Alex English made a career in the 80s out of racing up and down and bombing baseline 15-footers, for example. He did more, but because of the tempo, he was able to supplement a lot of his other action with those shots. And he was far from alone there. And Durant is an excellent iso player, able to get to the nail or the elbows with relative ease. Those are the shots which form his staple diet these days, and he's shot 50% or better from 16-23 feet in 5 of the past 7 seasons. He CRUSHES it from there, and on about 17% of his shot volume. From 10-16, 51.4% on about a QUARTER of his shot volume.

Hopefully that illustrates my point a little more clearly.

[Tim Lehrbach]

KD, of course, is a murderous mid-range monster, so I think he'd actually be the best scorer of the bunch even in the 60s and 70s, but Steph loses out a fair bit without the 3pt shot. He'd be good, but far from epic without it, given how central that shot is to his relevance and efficacy.

I'm not sure about this. KD's career FG% is higher overall, but Curry is significantly better beyond 16 feet. Without the three point line, his super deep shots disappear and his volume from what is now a long two goes up -- where he's even better than he is from beyond the arc.

That is an assumption, though.

True. I figured it was an OK one, though, since we routinely assume the inverse, that players from the past would take threes when transported into today's game.

And the difference you're describing from 16-23 is 46.2 vs 45.5, aka trivial. Durant also has more (5) seasons shooting 50%+ from that range than does Steph (3).

So IMHO, not really a factor.

I really meant the combination of 16-23 + 3 point range. My post did suggest that he's better from 16-23 already, but I was making a further assumption that he seeks -- and makes -- more shots from that range in a world without the three. Steph's just a better long-range shooter on higher volume. Again, I don't think the assumption that he'd continue to outperform Durant from deep, or even improve upon his raw field goal percentage, is a wild one.

I mean, to your point, it's flatly true that if we do not assume a change in Steph's shot selection, then Durant's efficiency is higher without the extra point for the three. All I said was I'm not sure, though.

[tsherkin]

True. I figured it was an OK one, though, since we routinely assume the inverse, that players from the past would take threes when transported into today's game.

Little bit different, though. See the stealth edit I got in before I saw this reply. There's incentive to shoot more from the long two, but KD is extremely good at generating shots from 15 feet and in, even with the 3pt shot. He's more of a 4-6 3PA/g than a big-volume bomber from there and a VERY large chunk of his shot volume comes from 10-16 feet, which is the single highest zone of proportion in his game.

I really meant the combination of 16-23 + 3 point range. Steph's just a better long-range shooter on higher volume.

He's a better 3pt shooter. The difference on long 2s is trivial at best, and actually decidedly in Durant's favor over the past 7 seasons.

[Tim Lehrbach]

True. I figured it was an OK one, though, since we routinely assume the inverse, that players from the past would take threes when transported into today's game.

Little bit different, though. See the stealth edit I got in before I saw this reply.

Lol I did some stealth editing myself to clear up my point.

There's incentive to shoot more from the long two, but KD is extremely good at generating shots from 15 feet and in, even with the 3pt shot. He's more of a 4-6 3PA/g than a big-volume bomber from there and a VERY large chunk of his shot volume comes from 10-16 feet, which is the single highest zone of proportion in his game.

I really meant the combination of 16-23 + 3 point range. Steph's just a better long-range shooter on higher volume.

He's a better 3pt shooter. The difference on long 2s is trivial at best, and actually decidedly in Durant's favor over the past 7 seasons.

Yeah. I grant that I've made an assumption about Curry's long twos going up in volume and possibly even effectiveness because my hunch is that he'd play his off-ball game to generate those shots and jettison the comically long bombs from his game. I am not assuming he becomes a Durant-level maestro at self-manufactured middies.

I take your points as valid, including me underselling Durant's midrange effectiveness vis-a-vis Steph's. I remain "unsure," however, that Durant remains the higher-efficiency shooter without the three.

[tsherkin]

Yeah. I grant that I've made an assumption about Curry's long twos going up in volume and possibly even effectiveness because my hunch is that he'd play his off-ball game to generate those shots and jettison the comically long bombs from his game. I am not assuming he becomes a Durant-level maestro at self-manufactured middies.

I take your points as valid, including me underselling Durant's midrange effectiveness vis-a-vis Steph's. I remain "unsure," however, that Durant remains the higher-efficiency shooter without the three.

I think it's pretty clear that he's a higher-efficiency shooter without the three. That's straight-up true right now. And it makes sense, given their size and athleticism differences (even at this age). Durant can clear space just by stopping and popping. Long arms, tall guy, high release. And heaven forbid they put 80s/90s bigs on him (or earlier), he'd torch them with his skill profile. There isn't a guy in the league from then at that position who could have stayed with him.

Steph is underrated from inside the arc and on-ball, of course, but he just isn't KD in that respect. KD is arguably the best mid-range scorer in league history, and is in general one of the greatest shooters and scorers the NBA has ever seen.

We saw what Steph looked like on more moderate 3pt shooting earlier in his career. He hasn't scored 25+ ppg without taking at least 9.8 3PA/g over a season in his career. He passed more, ran more PnR as the POA guy, but shot a similar amount. And through 2015 when he was doing that, he wasn't even close to KD from the rim out to 10 feet, fell well behind from 10-16 and was about the same from 16-23.

It's hard to tell, of course. Tempo shift would help Steph as much as KD, or at least nearly so. And Steph wouldn't be bombing from 30 feet without the 3pt shot. He remains highly adept as an off-ball guy but has an underrated handle and short game, to be sure, so I imagine he would remain effective. And he was still an 8 apg dude prior, because he is a savvy playmaker. But his scoring ability is still very 3pt centric, which is not the case for KD. Like, just this past season, KD has games of 40, 39, 41, 30, 30, 31, and 3 games at 28 while making 1 or 0 3P in a game. Dude can just flat out score.

[SNPA]

I don’t get the logic that adding the three point era hurts Bird/West. That makes no sense. We aren’t assuming those guys are great from distance, we know they are.

[tsherkin]

[
I take your points as valid

I mean, it's an interesting discussion to have, right? 3s remain the core focus and emphasis of Steph's entire relevance in superstardom. Wondering what he would look like without them is interesting. Like I said, he DOES have an underrated handle and mid-range game. It just isn't at Durant's level, which is no surprise. There are maybe a handful of guys in league history who have been anywhere near that, and KD has physical tools Steph does not, which further underscores things. KD is ALSO one of the league's greatest shooters, so the distance between Steph and his counterpart is smaller in this example than in basically any other comparison.

It's fun to ponder!

[Tim Lehrbach]

Yeah. I grant that I've made an assumption about Curry's long twos going up in volume and possibly even effectiveness because my hunch is that he'd play his off-ball game to generate those shots and jettison the comically long bombs from his game. I am not assuming he becomes a Durant-level maestro at self-manufactured middies.

I take your points as valid, including me underselling Durant's midrange effectiveness vis-a-vis Steph's. I remain "unsure," however, that Durant remains the higher-efficiency shooter without the three.

I think it's pretty clear that he's a higher-efficiency shooter without the three. That's straight-up true right now. And it makes sense, given their size and athleticism differences (even at this age). Durant can clear space just by stopping and popping. Long arms, tall guy, high release. And heaven forbid they put 80s/90s bigs on him (or earlier), he'd torch them with his skill profile. There isn't a guy in the league from then at that position who could have stayed with him.

Steph is underrated from inside the arc and on-ball, of course, but he just isn't KD in that respect. KD is arguably the best mid-range scorer in league history, and is in general one of the greatest shooters and scorers the NBA has ever seen.

We saw what Steph looked like on more moderate 3pt shooting earlier in his career. He hasn't scored 25+ ppg without taking at least 9.8 3PA/g over a season in his career. He passed more, ran more PnR as the POA guy, but shot a similar amount. And through 2015 when he was doing that, he wasn't even close to KD from the rim out to 10 feet, fell well behind from 10-16 and was about the same from 16-23.

It's hard to tell, of course. Tempo shift would help Steph as much as KD, or at least nearly so. And Steph wouldn't be bombing from 30 feet without the 3pt shot. He remains highly adept as an off-ball guy but has an underrated handle and short game, to be sure, so I imagine he would remain effective. And he was still an 8 apg dude prior, because he is a savvy playmaker. But his scoring ability is still very 3pt centric, which is not the case for KD. Like, just this past season, KD has games of 40, 39, 41, 30, 30, 31, and 3 games at 28 while making 1 or 0 3P in a game. Dude can just flat out score.

Excellent point about pre-2015 Curry being precedent. It is definitely possible that I've assumed too much on Curry's behalf. If nothing else, the difference in spacing from mid-to-long-two range vs. three may mean his maximum efficiency is never unlocked without the three. I have a hard time seeing him as anything less than elite with or without threes (which I know you haven't claimed), but it's reasonable to say we shouldn't just hand him credit for being as good as or better than Durant in this hypothetical. Durant's done what I'm only guessing Curry could do.

[tsherkin]

Excellent point about pre-2015 Curry being precedent. It is definitely possible that I've assumed too much on Curry's behalf. If nothing else, the difference in spacing from mid-to-long-two range vs. three may mean his maximum efficiency is never unlocked without the three. I have a hard time seeing him as anything less than elite with or without threes (which I know you haven't claimed), but it's reasonable to say we shouldn't just hand him credit for being as good as or better than Durant in this hypothetical. Durant's done what I'm only guessing Curry could do.

Steph's great. I think we can both agree on that. One way to look at it is this:

KD, over his career, is a 27.3 ppg guy (or 37.0 PTS100) on 61.9% TS. He's taken 4.9 3PA/g or 6.7 3PA100.

Steph, over his career, is a 24.8 ppg (or ) on 62.6% TS. He's taken 9.1 3PA/g (including 7 seasons at 10+ and 6 at 11+) or 13.1 3PA100. He also got into his volume scoring role a little later on, but run with it.

So right away, you can see that there is a marginal increase in efficiency (0.7%) over their careers despite HUGE 3pt volume from Steph, which illustrates the dramatic difference in efficiency inside the arc.

Now look at them without.

KD, no 3s: 57.6% TS, 25.3 ppg

Steph, no 3s: 52.7% TS, 20.8 ppg

And this accelerates if you look at the last 7 years or so, where KD has been going HAM from mid-range and actually shooting less from 3, while Steph has gone in the other direction.

[Tim Lehrbach]

KD, no 3s: 57.6% TS, 25.3 ppg

Steph, no 3s: 52.7% TS, 20.8 ppg

And this accelerates if you look at the last 7 years or so, where KD has been going HAM from mid-range and actually shooting less from 3, while Steph has gone in the other direction.

Thanks for doing that calculation, if I understand it correctly: all their same, actual field goal attempts without the extra point for shots beyond the arc? I wondered whether the gulf was that wide. You're right, it's an awful lot for Steph to make up in a hypothetical world where he essentially has to change his game.

I capitulate.