Can context explain away Curry's impact dominance?ReggiesKnicks wrote:Djoker wrote:Joao Saraiva wrote:
...
They only drop off a lot without Curry...
How much of this matters because Curry is the system?
I find myself in a circular logic thought-process, an infinite loop.
1) Curry has incredible +/- and On/Off
2) Curry has incredible +/- and On/Off because the system is built specifically around Curry (and to a lesser extent Draymond who plays a pivotal role)
3) The system is so incredibly effective that any
inflation in the numbers are due to Curry's sheer impactful and importance
4) Curry has incredible +/- and On/Off because of his impact and importance
This is an aspect of why I am incredibly high on Curry and why he has a clear argument for being the best Non-Jordan & Non-LeBron perimeter player
ever. I can see arguments for him as high as #2 on this list (Behind LeBron James) and he is a shoe-in for the Top 5. The question is where does he end up, and will he get enough support to end up #2.
So I think this is a key question Reggie, and I'm glad you brought it up
I do think Curry's numbers are boosted to some extent by the system being built around him. If I were to spell out the concerns for "fit boosting Curry", it would be
1. The system / Kerr's coaching is built around Curry.
2. The players during Curry's peak have a good fit with Curry.
3. The era was favorable to Curry's impact.
... But! I'm not sure if this is compelling enough to leave Curry out of my Top 4. His impact advantage is fairly significant over some of these other players (so you'd have to heavily ignore the data or weigh this context quite heavily against Curry)... plus Curry's not the only one here to be boosted by context.
1. The coaching/system helped… But the system was arguably the best ever, and Curry was still extremely impactful when he wasn’t playing the usual Curry-ball
The system built around Curry was arguably the single most dominant system ever:
The 2017 Warriors have a best-in-history overall (RS+PS) SRS of +16.25! That's +3.27 standard deviations out in front, and it's directly during Curry's peak. There's no team other team in history with even +15, and the 1997 Bulls are way back at +2.63 standard deviations. The 2018 Warriors are 5th all time, the 2015 Warriors are 10th, and the 2016 Warriors were on pace to be clearly better than 10th when healthy (until the got injured and ended up "all the way down" at 26th). That's three teams in the top 10 ever, and two in the top 5.
In ELO (basically a relative win percentage metric, rather than a relative point differential metric like SRS), the 2017 Warriors are again 1st all time, the 2015 Warriors are 4th, the 2016 Warriors are 5th, and the 2018 Warriors are 17th.
So the Curry system is arguably the most dominant system ever, arguably by a wide margin... and the only possible team that could compete come in a different era. If you could build a system that dominant, that gives you a high probability of winning multiple championships, which is built around Curry yes but also lets everyone else on the team flourish -- why wouldn't you?
When the system wasn't built around Curry, he was still highly impactful:
-In 2014, clearly before Curry ascended to his peak-level performance as a player, he was playing for a negative-value coach in Mark Jackson, who certainly did not allow Curry to be an innovator off-ball, and who has a variety of famous stories being toxic in the locker room. Even so, Curry was 1st in the league in regular season AuPM (better than peak Durant, peak Chris Paul, and LeBron who was starting to coast) and 2nd in the league in playoff AuPM.
-In 2019, while the Warriors were overall coasting in the regular season after many years of deep playoff runs (which likely diminished the regular season impact of they stars slightly), I also saw on film a shift to playing more Durant ball. Durant isolation attack became more of a central focus of his attack, while Durant focused less on the little things like moving off ball, or boxing out for rebounds. We see some evidence for this in 2019 Durant's load, which also went up slightly. People often suspect the Warriors were trying to appease Durant by playing Durant ball, after the Draymond-Durant falling out. Even so, Curry ends up being 1st in the league in regular season AuPM (ahead of peak Giannis and prime Durant) and second in playoff AuPM (first out of everyone who made it out of the second round).
2. The teammate fit helped… But the surrounding players arguably benefited from Curry too, and good teammate synergy should be positive
Of course, Curry’s hand-in-glove fit with Draymond also helps Curry to some extent.
But the ability to synergies with your best teammates is a positive skill, not a negative -- You can’t build the most dominant team of all time without being able to be incredibly synergistic with your teammates! The goal of a player is to win a championship, and the more dominant you are, the better your chances are. Draymond looks like one of the most valuable players of his era, and I’d argue that’s boosted by getting to play alongside Curry (in addition to being arguably the best defender of his era, of course).
The results and individual impact of the Draymond-led Curry-less 2020 Warriors were shockingly bad… worst-in league bad without Curry, and Draymond only had a +2.8 on/off. The effort certainly wasn’t as high as it could have been, but you’re telling me he went from a +2.8 on/off in 20 without Curry to a +9.6 on/off with Curry in 21 all on account of just improved effort? Curry has the single best raw WOWY signal in his prime of all time -- if you're a fan of LeBron's GOAT case because of his WOWY signal, you should be high on Curry's peak as well — and again this is indicative of Curry’s teammates benefiting significantly from Curry. In plus minus data, the Draymond-less Curry minutes from 2015–2019 are +11.84 net Rating (2500 minutes), while the Curry-less Draymond minutes are +3.12 net Rating (2800 minutes), again suggesting Draymond was helped more by Curry than the reverse.... and that overall, they both benefited from each other (which is what you want the building a good team!)
Put another way — why is it that so many random players have career-best or career-revival performances with the Warriors? I'd argue it's playing with Curry.McGee went from the laughing stock of the league to a serviceable player on perennial contenders. Nobody had heard of Gary Payton II, until suddenly he started being able to make enough shots to stay on the floor (because they were all wide open corner shots). Patrick McCaw, Alfonzo McKinnie, Jordan Bell, Shaun Livingston, Otto Porter Jr, ... all career-best seasons or career-revival seasons when playing with Curry/Warriors. Curry made Alfonzo McKinney look like a somewhat serviceable player in the NBA finals in 2019… only for him to be an end-of-bench player on a league-worst level team the very next year, and out of the league soon after. Jordan Poole looked like a legit contributor on a championship-level team in 22, and then looked like a guy you’d only ever want as a tank-commander the first year he was traded. Even the offensive costars look better -- Curry’s presence improved Klay Thompson’s three point shooting percentage by +4.2% (39.4 -> 43.6%) and Kevin Durant’s by +6.5% (34.5 -> 41%).
While not every player can play Curry-ball (it usually requires good BBIQ or a simplified role), those that can end up looking much more impactful than they do on other teams, and I’d argue that’s on account of playing Curry-ball next to Curry.
3. The era helped… but being an innovator is a positive, and we typically judge players era-relative regardless.
Of course, Curry was ahead of his time. But for those who judge players era-relative, the question of how he’d be in a later era isn’t relevant. For those who use the time machine argument to say peak Curry would be less valuable if he played in 2025, it’s worth noting there’s a symmetry… that might suggest Curry would be even more game-breaking and impactful if he played in an earlier era.
Even a past-peak Curry (who had lost a step in his speed, ability to get separation on his three point shot, rim pressure, and steal rates in passing lanes; while having a great season in other areas) clearly showed he could lead a championship-level team in 2022, roughly post-three point revolution (although there are still slight changes happening today). Without having their starting lineup healthy for a single regular season game, and with a significantly less talented team than 2015–2018, Curry’s 2022 Warriors still had a overall (RS+PS) SRS that’s better than Jokic’s 2023 Nuggets. The 22 Warriors’ OSRS was +9.42 (ranked 40th all time) to the 23 Nuggets’ +8.50 (43rd all time). So it’s not clear how much Curry would be less impactful today.
Regardless, again for most people, time machine arguments are fun and interesting but less relevant to our evaluation. Bill Russell was a defensive innovator (in vertical shot-blocking strategies for big men, and in horizontal defensive strategies for big men) and played in an era where the value of big man defense was at its single most valuable. He may well be less impactful as a defender in another era… but most people still have him on their Mount Rushmore and as the GOAT defender. It’s also possible he would have found other ways to innovate if he played later. We just don’t know. The same applies to Curry.
4. Finally,
Curry’s not the only player here whose impact may have benefited from positive contexts-Shaq played with prime Phil Jackson, who most people think is a better coach than Steve Kerr.
The triangle + three point spacing clearly benefitted Shaq. He could play a great two and three man game with some great players. Of course Kobe was an all-nba to MVP level player by 01-04, and they got good contributions from their depth including Derek Fisher, Horry, and an old Grant. 01 Shaq had great spacing and the triangle emphasizes off-ball motion from stars, both of which played to his strengths as a strong off-ball player who could get low-post position with his strength and mass. The spacing definitely made it easier to pass out to the perimeter (wider passing lanes) and of course the three-point shots were more valuable than long twos (which utilizes his passing more)
Shaq played in the golden age of big men. There was enough spacing to help with post-ups, but offenses were still post-up and isolation centric, which fits well with what Shaq wanted offensively. This also was a boost defensively, as Shaq didn’t have to defend out in space (his biggest weakness). Finally, they played in the slowest era of the perhaps since the merger, which is a definite benefit for someone who was growing heavier, lacked speed, and certainly didn’t always get back in transition.
-Duncan played with prime Greg Popovich, who most people think is a better coach than Steve Kerr.
Pop ran the offense through Duncan (both as a scoring hub and as a low post passer) and defense through Duncan. giving him primacy on both sides of the ball in 03. It’s extremely impressive that Duncan was able to play with such privacy on both side sides of the ball. Still, this Duncan-ball was massively less dominant than Curry-ball (of course mostly because they had much less talent, but also partly because they playing an offense that would become out-of-date only 2 years later). The fit around Duncan was solid, even if the talent wasn’t there. And you would think the fact that the Spurs were more reliant on Duncan than other stars for their two-way success would juice his impact numbers, given how much the system depended on him.
People have shown Duncan also benefited from usual three point shooting luck in his peak playoff runs (better shooting while he was on the court, worse off, after correcting for to the shooter’s ability and the shot quality)… which did boost his playoff plus minus signal.
-Garnett… played in a bad situation in Minnesota. I won’t sugarcoat it. Most of his teammates were pretty poor, and the good ones tended to get injured or leave. That said, an argument could be made (not sure how compelling it is) that it’s easier to have great impact in floor-raising scenarios, where the team is more singularly reliant on you on both ends, where your backup is worse than Shaun Livingston (Curry’s backup), and where you don’t face diminishing returns as you would on a great team.
Like Shaq, Both Garnett and Duncan played in an era well-suited for their play style. The era emphasized big man offense, with emphasis on post-ups and isolation. This encouraged them to have more primacy in the offense (Duncan especially here). They peaked in a slow era, which allowed them to focus on half court offense and defense, without losing stamina to a faster pace or being punished for being slower to get back (more an issue for Shaq than either of them; Garnett of course had all-time motor/stamina).
The illegal defense rules ended before the 2002 season, which directly empowered big rim protectors to play more zone-style defenses near the basket. The freedom of movement rules, which ended hand checking and allowed for more perimeter-centric offenses and stars, started in 2005. You’ll notice that Duncan’s two best years are 2002 and 2003, while Garnett’s two best years are 2003 and 2004, directly during three-year stretch where the rules favored defenses heavily. Now you, like me, might prefer to analyze players era-relative, in which case the beneficial rules and play styles are less relevant. But for those who don’t, it’s worth noting that the rules/styles favored Shaq/Duncan/Garnett’s play styles in their time, just like the rules/styles favored Curry in his time. Which may not have been a coincidence — the best players may innovate and adapt to play the style that fits best under their era’s rules and strategies.
-Jokic had what I’d describe as a solidly good coach in Mike Malone, definitely above average, among the top Tier or two in his era, but I would also probably not have him as good as Steve Kerr. The talent surrounding Jokic also wasn’t as good as Curry, although they did have solid fit. Playoff hot Jamal Murray is definitely at an all-star / weak-all-nba level, and Aaron Gordon does great in a finishing role off Jokic’s playmaking and being versatile with his size on the defensive end. The Nuggets by 2023 did a great job protecting Jokic defensively from perimeter mismatches, with good hedging, pre-switching, back-line rotations, etc. And like with Garnett, Jokic’s impact likely faced fewer diminishing returns given the team was worse, and it’s not cal
I think the situation for Curry was probably more favorable than the situation for Jokic.
That said, it’s worth emphasizing just how different their team accomplishments were. Jokic’s best team season came in 2023, with an overall SRS of +8.50. No other Nuggets season is in the top 100. Meanwhile Curry’s Warriors had five seasons better than the 2023 Nuggets according to the overall SRS ranking (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2022) and another in the top 100 (2019). Of course, much of this is due to talent difference, but I also think it’s easier to build a two-way GOAT-level team around Curry than vice versa.
I see Jokic as a neutral to moderately positive defender in the past few years depending on the year. He has fantastic defensive rebounding, good communication and positioning (when he has the stamina to try, which is not always the case), active hands and feet in passing lanes, and doesn’t foul at the rim. That said, he also has pretty polarizing defensive weaknesses — he has very little direct vertical rim protection at a position where that’s most important, has very little horizontal defensive mobility in help defense in an era where that’s most important, and his slow horizontal game can allow star perimeter players to feast (if they’re able to get the mismatch) in an era where that’s most important. So even if Jokic has more defensive value in an RAPM-perspective, I would argue he’s more of a defensive capper. Curry’s much easier to build a top 5, best in league, or even all-time defensive team around, as the results have shown. Curry’s style fits better around defensive talent at the power forward or big man position. And if Curry’s game-breaking combination of shooting on and off-ball generate similar to slightly more impact offensively in his era than Jokic’s well rounded game does in his (which is what current plus minus/RAPM numbers suggest), that starts to paint a picture for why Curry has slightly better impact numbers and significantly better team results.
… all that to say, I’m not trying to convince anyone that Curry had the worst situation of the bunch, or that you need to have him 1st or 2nd or anything like that. But
there were aspects of each player’s fit and era that boosted their impact numbers; Curry’s not unique in that aspect. And given Curry has a reasonably clear individual impact advantage and a significant peak team performance advantage, it's fairly explain the actual basketball history, if you rank Curry outside of your top 4 peaks from 2001–2025.
