GSP wrote:http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=15045924
Thought this was an interesting video. Iggy is an incredible playmaker and having a ballhandler and playmaker of that caliber on the wing that can really increase the pace of games and get the Warriors running and is a menace in transition, it really helps Warriors offense and Stephs scoring as he can really kill teams off the ball.
First of all, there's no doubt that Iggy helps this team with his playmaking-ability, defense and qualities in the open court. But when we're referring to the numbers mentioned, we have clarify what we're talking about. We're looking at a sample size < 50 3PM, i.e. a few cold or hot shooting nights matter a lot. Last year, Curry hit 44.7% of his 3PA when being (potentially) assisted by Iggy which is good but virtually the same as his overall percentages. The year before, he hit 43.4% of his 3PM (+1.0%). The sample size, by the way, is equally questionable in both cases obviously.
Furthermore, Curry posts a 71.5 TS%, 67.0 eFG% in small-ball line-ups (947 Poss, 325 TSA). Curry and Iggy share 625 of the 947 possessions together on the court, in which Curry posts a 75.7 TS%, 71.0 eFG%. Does Iggy help these kind of line-ups to be this effective? Sure, no question. But he's certainly not the only reason it works and the more likely explanation of the number mentioned on ESPN is that Curry simply does very well in the small-ball settings in general, fueled but not run by Iggy, combined with the issue the small sample size presents us. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Iggy has such an overwhelming impact on Curry's individual shooting as the video suggests.
GSP wrote:In the games without Iggy this season Stephs averaging in 10 games: 27.5/6.4/6 3tovs, .613ts in 34MPG against an average DRtg of +1.3. Still good numbers but not the superhuman boxscore numbers we're accustomed to. Aside from San Antonio most of the defenses he played were terrible (Clippers tonight were the only other top 10 defense), they actually played all of the bottom 5 defenses in half those games (Minny, Philly, Lakers, Suns, Pelicans).
Still, this is a sample containing of only 10 games. He had two rough shooting nights, we can't assume these kind of games happen too often, can we? Usually, we shouldn't exclude certain games of a sample but let's do it here and look at the 8 game sample without the two rough shooting nights (which still includes a rough shooting night against the Lakers) for illustrative reasons. His numbers: 29.0/6.6/5.4 on roughly 63 TS%. Not as great as his averages but certainly closer to them. Curry's two rough shooting nights happened to be a) on the second game of a b2b on the road (against the by far best defense in the game, unbeaten at home and going for the first seed) and b) on the third game in four nights on a three-game road trip. I really wouldn't read too much into it.
GSP wrote:Im interested in seeing how him and the Warriors would perform when hes the only ballhandler/playmaker on the team (or just Livingston, basically how theyd play without Draymond/Iggy offensively, obviously theyd suffer alot defensively, although i guess u cant separate offense and defense like that), a role guys like Kd, Kobe, Lebron, Nash, Westbrook, Cp3 etc. have been in. Im still not completely sold on Steph as being a top tier playmaker personally, at least definitely not on the same tier as the Cp3/Rubio/Lebron/Westbrook/Walls of the world. Id have expected to see more from him there in the games Iggy missed, especially with his scoring significantly being worse, but instead its Draymonds continued lead role as the playmaker + Livingston/Bogut increased load there.
I have some issues with this part.
1. 'Curry as the only ball handler/playmaker on the team, like [list of players] were.' Team construction is really important here and by that I don't mean actual but planned team construction. Among the six players you listed, four or five of them would be considered very ball-dominant. None of them, with the exception of KD, comes even close to the off-ball impact Curry has. There is a reason these players served as the clear-cut primary facilitators/on-ball guys besides their ability to fill in this role: everything else doesn't mesh well with their style of play, it cuts into their own production and the way they make most of their impact. You construct your team differently around them because they simply need different players in order to maximize their impact. I really don't need to know what Curry could do on a team so poorly constructed that it cannot effectively make use of Curry's gravity. I mean, what's the point of it? It's not like you can't find a couple of decent playmakers in this league if this is your first priority. Not as good as Green or Iggy, probably, but having special players is what makes the Warriors not only good but historically great.
2. 'Not completely sold on Curry as a top-tier playmaker'. I don't want to directly compare Curry to other players in this post, but I do want to address the label 'playmaker'. The players you listed happen to be the players with the most APG in the league, except you omitted Rondo and included LeBron who is known for being a great playmaker. This is why I feel like we have to define the term 'playmaking' before any discussion about this topic can amount to anything. To me, your playmaking-ability is basically your ability to create shots for your teammates. The more reliable and the more efficient you are in this department, the better you are as a playmaker. How you get it done doesn't matter at all. That's why I will strongly disagree that Rubio or Wall are ahead of Curry in terms of playmaking, and I also do see good arguments for Curry being a more impactful playmaker than LeBron and Westbrook. Paul probably ranks among the five - or maybe even three - best playmakers in the history of the game, so he's pretty special in this regard. To me, using my definition above, the way Curry creates 4-on-3 opportunities, space for teammates and the way he initiates the offense clearly counts as playmaking-ability. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether he gets rewarded with an assist or not, it doesn't matter of he makes the final pass or not as long he makes the plays - be it as a creator or catalyst.
3. 'I expected him to do more in the playmaking department in Iggy's absence'. Genuine question: why? Why would they go away from a strategy that works extremely well? The Warriors use Curry off-ball and they use him as the initiator of the PnR with Green because it's so damn effective. There's simply no reason to change this style regardless of Iggy's absence. You can judge it as you wish, but I see no reason to doubt or punish a player for maximizing his and his teammates' strengths and hence for playing smart basketball and sticking to the offensive schemes. In fact, I would be quite irritated to see them turning their backs on what worked just because one player - who doesn't even play the majority of minutes with Curry - got injured. Curry's individual scoring being worse doesn't mean the way the Warriors play must be significantly changed. The Warriors react to what teams do (look no further than the Minnesota game, where the Timberwolves switched on everything and Curry kept feeding Green in the post against Rubio; which, by the way, coincided with Curry having 11 assists and Green going 10 for 12 on 2's), but they smartly use Curry the way he should be used, and this includes off-ball action and exploiting mismatches Curry creates for others and/or himself.
Also, it should be clear as to why Curry's playmaking must (!) look different from other players. Nobody gets the kind of treatment Curry does behind the arc. Nobody. Teams are trying everything to contain Curry. They double-team, blitz and trap him, they frequently switch - sometimes on everything -, they try to deny him the ball, they pressure him early. Regardless of how one values this in an evaluation, the existence of these strategies is undeniable reality. When you have a player who gets treated differently compared to other players, it's only reasonable to expect a different kind of output. Do the same to Paul or Westbrook and they would behave differently as well, likely to record less assists but perhaps leading even more efficient offenses.
GSP wrote:I dont feel comfortable putting him in the GOAT peak conversations with Mj, Shaq, Hakeem, Lebron, just yet. There are plenty of unanswered questions and im coming along now in seeing drza's view of Steph and Warriors rosters relationship as a really perfect marriage for both parties. He is still incredible and having one of the best seasons ever, especially offensively.
Well, I had a brief conversation with drza on this topic so I won't go into more detail about his arguments at this point. It's also fine to not feel comfortable to lable this Curry season the GOAT peak (although he definitely belongs in the conversation, there's basically no way to look at his numbers, team-success, impact etc. and not see at least a candidate for the GOAT regular season peak).
The roster around Steph and the team's strategy is definitely well-suited to emphasize his strenghts. However, to me this doesn't work as an argument against Curry because not only does this take anything away from Curry's individual skills but also people look at this the wrong way, imo. Hakeem and LeBron never led a team as great as the Warriors, and Shaq and MJ had plenty of help and great players around them as well. If the Warriors and Curry weren't a great match, they wouldn't be this good - one of the, and maybe the, best teams in the history of the game, you need great fit to achieve this. It seems like some people would rank Curry higher if he had similar numbers but played on a team with less synergy which, consequently, wins less but still plenty games (like, say, LeBron on the Heat). To me, this doesn't make any sense at all.
