Interesting Kobe vs Curry stats

[Reservoirdawgs]

I think the better comparison would be to show their TS% compared to the league average. People are shooting the three substantially more now (granted, a lot of that is due to Curry's impact on the game) so we are seeing higher TS%. Curry still has a much higher TS% compared to league average, but that would be a more fair way to compare Kobe and Curry's offense.

[clyde21]

Curry plays in an era where a guy like Harden puts up raw numbers that blow everyone since the 60's out of the water and teams are scoring 90 points at the half.

Except Curry also puts up massive impact while Harden doesn't.

Like Jordan, he's the only guy to make a 55 win team into a 70 win team.

And unlike most people, he has a supporting cast that can get that many wins on their own.

How many players can take 55 win teams and turn them into 73 win teams, then?

[mischievous]

Except Curry also puts up massive impact while Harden doesn't.

Like Jordan, he's the only guy to make a 55 win team into a 70 win team.

And unlike most people, he has a supporting cast that can get that many wins on their own.

How many players can take 55 win teams and turn them into 73 win teams, then?

How many players have had that opportunity?

[clyde21]

And unlike most people, he has a supporting cast that can get that many wins on their own.

How many players can take 55 win teams and turn them into 73 win teams, then?

How many players have had that opportunity?

Irrelevant. A 20 game increase is a 20 game increase. In fact, the more wins you accumulate, the harder it is to win more. It's much easier going from 10 wins to 30 wins than going from 50 to 70. So to answer my own question, not many.

Furthermore, not sure what this has to do with anything. When were the Warriors a 55 win team before Curry came on board?

[WarriorGM]

Curry plays in an era where a guy like Harden puts up raw numbers that blow everyone since the 60's out of the water and teams are scoring 90 points at the half.

This. Inflated stats and 130 point games are real.

67-73-67-win seasons inflated too?

[Ballerhogger]

Eh doesn’t tell me much other than we’re in high scoring era

[dhsilv2]

Eh doesn’t tell me much other than we’re in high scoring era

Which of those stats would go up if the era is higher scoring?

[mischievous]

In fact, the more wins you accumulate, the harder it is to win more. It's much easier going from 10 wins to 30 wins than going from 50 to 70.

I always see this repeated, and the last time i asked where's the evidence to this? Where's the proof that for example its' easier to drag a 20 win team to 40 wins, than a 45 wins to 65?

Btw, how can you say that after saying this below?

Irrelevant. A 20 game increase is a 20 game increase.

So which is it? Is it irrelveant how its done and 20 games is 20 games or is it more impressive when the team's already good or great? It can't be both, must be one or the other Clyde.

When were the Warriors a 55 win team before Curry came on board?

I wasn't the one that said they were. Thekdog said he and Jordan were the only guys to make a 55 win team a 70 win team. You then asked how many guys can do that? Well again, not many superstars including Curry actually went to an already assembled 55 win team.

[thekdog34]

Delete

[mischievous]

.

[thekdog34]

And unlike most people, he has a supporting cast that can get that many wins on their own.

How many players can take 55 win teams and turn them into 73 win teams, then?

How many players have had that opportunity?

Good point, I'm just saying we know Curry has that kind of impact while Kobe didn't.

There are many players who don't have the opportunity to show if they can.

[bledredwine]

Curry plays in an era where a guy like Harden puts up raw numbers that blow everyone since the 60's out of the water and teams are scoring 90 points at the half.

This. Inflated stats and 130 point games are real.

67-73-67-win seasons inflated too?

Well, if you really want to know? There have been an absurd amount of crappy and young starting line-ups in the league, hence the Bulls going on a win streak this year

We all know that this league is top and bottom heavy.

And the 130 point games is enough proof of inflation in stats. I've only seen excuses for it, not a valid reason.

[bledredwine]

Eh doesn’t tell me much other than we’re in high scoring era

Bingo.

[Ballerhogger]

Eh doesn’t tell me much other than we’re in high scoring era

Which of those stats would go up if the era is higher scoring?

Scoring and Overall TS

[thekdog34]

How many players have had that opportunity?

Why are you requoting me? I know what i said.

It was an accident, I meant to agree with you

[clyde21]

Eh doesn’t tell me much other than we’re in high scoring era

Which of those stats would go up if the era is higher scoring?

Scoring and Overall TS

Average TS% hasn't gone up that much since the prime Kobe seasons.

[The-Power]

I always see this repeated, and the last time i asked where's the evidence to this? Where's the proof that for example its' easier to drag a 20 win team to 40 wins, than a 45 wins to 65?

Because there is much less room for error. There is a reason why no 60 win team has ever increased their winning record by 15 to get to 75 while there are literally hundreds of instances when teams with worse records improve their record by 15+ wins within a year or two. There is a reason why 70+ win seasons are so damn rare, even when really good teams add more talent they fail to get there. Even if the player you add can produce 15 additional wins on an otherwise 30-win team, this player is not going to add 15 additional wins when traded to a 55-60 win team. This much seems obvious and should answer the question as it clearly appears to be a linear function for which a clear logicial conclusion follows (i.e. if you agree that leading a 70-win team to 80 wins is more difficult than leading a 20-win team to 30 wins, you must say the same about a 30/40/50-win team compared to the 20-win team, even though the difference in difficulty obviously decreases or increases relative to the gaps).

It's also more valuable to add 20 wins to an already good team than doing the same on a bad team, because going from 45 to 65 wins means going from a lower-half playoff-team to having HCA for (almost) the entire playoffs; or you could say instead of being a borderline playoff your team is a legitimate contender. Improving your team from 20 wins to 40 wins gets you from nowhere to being a first-round playoff exit or not making the playoffs at all.

This is not to say that the latter achievement is not or cannot be impressive or valuable or exciting. But ultimately every player should be concerned about, and jugded by, his ability to make an impact on good teams because every player should play with the goal of being on a successful team with deep playoff runs in mind. And I think it's pretty obvious that the impact you need to make is different when you improve an already good team compared to leading a bad team with all freedom and responsibility – and not every player is able to produce in both settings equally well, which is why we can often read about floor- and ceiling-raisers.

[clyde21]

I always see this repeated, and the last time i asked where's the evidence to this? Where's the proof that for example its' easier to drag a 20 win team to 40 wins, than a 45 wins to 65?

What do you mean? You can't get to 2 wins without winning 1. You can't get to 3 wins without winning two first. The more wins accumulate that harder it is to get that extra win. This is why pushing a team from 50 wins to 70 is intrinsically harder to do than pushing a team from 10 to 30.

This is why when you put LeBron on a 25 win team, he'll take them to 50 wins, but he won't take a 50 win team to 75 wins.

So which is it? Is it irrelveant how its done and 20 games is 20 games or is it more impressive when the team's already good or great? It can't be both, must be one or the other Clyde.

I was expanding further on the point? I was literally following up on it in the same paragraph.

I wasn't the one that said they were. Thekdog said he and Jordan were the only guys to make a 55 win team a 70 win team. You then asked how many guys can do that? Well again, not many superstars including Curry actually went to an already assembled 55 win team.

Then what's the issue if Curry himself didn't go to a 55 win team? You're still failing to make a coherent point.

[clyde21]

I don't understand why people are having such a tough time comprehending that Curry might actually be just as good as Kobe. It's really not that surprising.

[The-Power]

By the way, PER is a stat calculated relative to the peers and Curry's rTS% is clearly better than Kobe's compared to his peers as well. So even if we assume that scoring in today's league is easier because of the rules (and not because today's players are simply better at understanding efficiency and develop skills more conducive to efficient basketball, even though that certainly applies to some extent with Curry being one of the most important revolutionaries in this regard): Curry's in-era dominance is still greater than Kobe's, imo, and that makes arguments with solely based on the fact they played in a different era by default insufficient.