Interesting Kobe vs Curry stats

[dhsilv2]

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.

And even the warriors of 16 only scored 114.9 vs the 108.6 for the 08 lakers. It's not like the warriors are scoring 150 a game or something.

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

When you take into account post season play which is Curry's biggest critique, that statement isn't really true. Curry is "just" a 60 TS% shooter, which in this era isn't that rare. He shot 60 TS% every season from 2014-2016 in the post season.

[clyde21]

Scoring and Overall TS

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

And even the warriors of 16 only scored 114.9 vs the 108.6 for the 08 lakers. It's not like the warriors are scoring 150 a game or something.

Those Lakers had a 108 ORTG without Kobe, the '16 Warriors had a 105 ORTG without Steph.

The notion that somehow Curry's stats are inflated relative to Kobe's are a huge falsehood. And none of this is taking into account that Steph's numbers relative to his peers today are actually deflated due to the fact that he spends half his time off-ball.

If Curry had the touches per game and usage rates of Harden and Westbrook he'd be averaging 35/10 in his sleep.

[mischievous]

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 doesn't answer the question at all, but if in your mind it does then ok.

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.

Hm, after some point yes, once you get higher up there in the wins there is less and less room for error, but if were talking about 2 scenarios in a vacuum its hard to say which was more impressive, because we don't know what other factors were involved. In any case you can't solely credit a player for any amount of wins.

But i'm trying to keep the example in more realistic expectations. The 73 wins from the warriors, took Curry playing out of his mind, excellent team health and some luck to happen. They will not reach that again even though they added Kevin Durant, why? Because it's highly unlikely they see that kind of health with their stars again.

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

But like we already agree, Curry didn't add 20 wins to a team, he was already apart of them so what was the point of saying that?

If you're gonna keep using those silly emojis and not debate like an adult, i'm not going to continue replying to you.

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.

How did i not make a coherent point? You are like usual failing at reading comprehension, and creating responses to stuff made up in your own mind.

Once again, Thekdog said Jordan and Curry were the only players to take a 55 win team to 70. And again, i can't think of too many superstars if any that specifically went to an already 55 win team to have that opportunity. It's not meant as a knock on Curry, all i'm saying is just because other players have't done it doesn't mean they can't if given the opportunity. He went on to agree.

If we already know that Curry didn't go to an already established team, then what are you harping on exactly?

[mischievous]

Because there is much less room for error.

After a point, yes.

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.

But like i've said, how many bonified superstars have gotten that opportunity and had the right luck fall in place for that to happen? You need a lot of luck to win 70-75 games, i don't care how good the supporting cast is.

If a player takes a team from 55 to 70 wins, how much credit do we know to attribute directly to them and not other factors like unusual health, improved coaching etc?

In more scenarios than not you guys are probably right in what you are saying, but what i'm saying is i don't think it's universally true especially when other factors aren't being accounted for aside from just win-loss.

[PCProductions]

David Robinson 5 year peak: 28.2 PER, .586 TS%, .263 WS/48, 9.0 BPM

Hakeem Olajuwon 5 year peak: 25.4 PER, .564 TS%, .191 WS/48, 5.8 BPM

Tells you just about squat.

And isn't the agreement that D-Rob was probably the better player in the regular season? Hakeem made his name in the playoffs, primarily.

[kabstah]

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?

Do you believe in Pythagorean wins and/or SRS?

The exponent used for basketball is 16.5.

Win rate (expressed as a fraction of one) = points scored^16.5 / (points scored^16.5 + points allowed^16.5)

If you hold either points scored (in a season) or points allowed (also in a season) as a constant, and then solve a second order partial differential equation for the other, you can find the inflection point for the original equation. Anywhere past this point is when diminishing returns kick in -- win rate approaches a horizontal asymptote as the slope of the line continually decreases. It takes more points scored (or less points allowed) to get from a 0.75 win rate to a 0.80 win rate than it does from 0.70 to 0.75. The effect is most apparent when comparing differences near the inflection point to differences out near asymptotes.

If you don't understand calculus, then consider the following empirical example from the 2015-2016 season:


The Rockets won 41 games, their expected win total was 42 games.

The Clippers won 53 games, their expected win total was 53 games.

The Spurs won 67 games, their expected win total was 67 games.

Based on those win totals, you'd expect the Clippers to be almost exactly half way between the Spurs and the Rockets. If you look at cumulative point differential for the entire season, however, you get a different story.

Rockets: +16
Clippers: +351
Spurs: +872

The gap from the Spurs to the Clippers is over 1.5x larger than the gap from the Clippers to the Rockets (521 vs 335, respectively). The 14 wins the Spurs have over the Clippers requires a MUCH larger difference in point differential than the 12 wins the Clippers have over the Rockets.

[d00lttle]

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.

Curry dominates all advanced stats. Kobe never did.

Era don't matter.

What about the era without a 3-point line?

[Jaivl]

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.

Quality of prime vs prime? He's not just as good, he's better.

[The-Power]

When you take into account post season play which is Curry's biggest critique, that statement isn't really true. Curry is "just" a 60 TS% shooter, which in this era isn't that rare. He shot 60 TS% every season from 2014-2016 in the post season.

Compared to the regular season average TS%* , Curry's numbers for the playoffs are as follows:

'14: +5.8 rTS% (7 Games, 27.0 Points per 100)
'15: +7.3 rTS% (21 Games, 36.9 Points per 100)
'16: +6.2 rTS% (18 Games, 36.4 Points per 100)
'17: +10.7 rTS% (17 Games, 38.9 Points per 100)

This still looks pretty elite. Also, it is inaccurate to say that Curry is ‘just a 60% TS shooter in this era‘. I'm not sure why you'd simply leave 2017 out, those are 17 Games or 27% of his entire prime playoff games thus far. Curry's PO TS% for 2014-17 is actually 61.9%, so clearly higher than the 60% you mentioned. How efficient he is, at that volume, is quite clearly still remarkable.

Let's look at Kobe's playoff numbers for 2001-10.

'01: +3.7 rTS% (16 Games, 35.4 Points per 100)
'02: –0.9 rTS% (19 Games, 31.9 Points per 100)
'03: +1.2 rTS% (12 Games, 37.5 Points per 100)
'04: -1.0 rTS% (22 Games, 30.7 Points per 100)
'06: +5.1 rTS% (7 Games, 32.5 Points per 100)
'07: +2.0 rTS% (5 Games, 38.8 Points per 100)
'08: +3.7 rTS% (21 Games, 38.0 Points per 100)
'09: +2.0 rTS% (23 Games, 39.0 Points per 100)
'10: +2.4 rTS% (23 Games, 38.9 Points per 100)

So, I don't want to take anything away from Kobe as a scorer. He was a great scorer with high volume on solid to good efficiency, especially later in his career, which is definitely respectable. But there is still clearly a gap between Kobe and Curry as scorers, even after we adjust for era-differences in TS% and pace.

*basketball-reference.com doesn't seem to list the average TS% in the playoffs, so I decided to use the average RS TS% to save me the trouble of calculating it myself; but that doesn't matter for the comparison unless someone can convincingly outline how the RS-PS-difference in terms of refereeing was much different in those years. And it might even be more interesting how their scoring efficiency holds up in the playoff-environment compared to the RS.

[eminence]

.

Just wanted to say really good job explaining that.

[G35]

Come on its a different era. Why is it we don't take Wilts 50 point season and 25 rebounds as definitive proof he is the greatest all time? It clearly is amazing and no one even comes close.

But with that we understand the context of the game and how it was played then.

The last five years of the NBA is different than it has ever been played and you really should not try to directly compare stats from previous eras.......

[clyde21]

This doesn't answer the question at all, but if in your mind it does then ok.

If you still don't understand it then refer to the posts by Kabstah and Power. They did a much better job of explaining it than I did. The farther away you're deviating away from the mean of the league, the harder it is to start accumulating wins. That's why you'll see a lot more 40 and 50 win teams than 60 and 70 win teams, despite who gets added to who.

Simply put: Curry taking a 50 win team and turning them into a 70 win teams is much more impressive than Player X taking his team from 30 wins to 50 wins, and so on.

Hm, after some point yes, once you get higher up there in the wins there is less and less room for error, but if were talking about 2 scenarios in a vacuum its hard to say which was more impressive, because we don't know what other factors were involved. In any case you can't solely credit a player for any amount of wins

.

No. Under no scenario is it harder, or equal to, to reach 50 wins as it does 70 wins. It just doesn't make any sense given the fact that 50 wins would be much closer to the league average than 70 wins would be in any sketch you're trying to paint.

But i'm trying to keep the example in more realistic expectations. The 73 wins from the warriors, took Curry playing out of his mind, excellent team health and some luck to happen. They will not reach that again even though they added Kevin Durant, why? Because it's highly unlikely they see that kind of health with their stars again.

That still doesn't make any sense in this context. Kobe never played out of his mind? Both Kobe and Shaq played out of their minds on the same team, yet they were never close to breaking that threshold. Why did Steph playing out of his mind break it and no one else, sans Jordan, did? Just a random coincidence?

But like we already agree, Curry didn't add 20 wins to a team, he was already apart of them so what was the point of saying that?

Because you and the other poster are talking about Curry "taking a 55 win team to 60 wins". He didn't take anything. He was that team from the get go so your point doesn't really stand.

Honestly, I think we've deviated enough from the thread. Why are you arguing? That prime Steph isn't as good as Kobe?

[clyde21]

Come on its a different era. Why is it we don't take Wilts 50 point season and 25 rebounds as definitive proof he is the greatest all time? It clearly is amazing and no one even comes close.

But with that we understand the context of the game and how it was played then.

The last five years of the NBA is different than it has ever been played and you really should not try to directly compare stats from previous eras.......

Kobe's prime season was literally 10 seasons ago. Let's not act as if Kobe was playing during segregation.

[G35]

Come on its a different era. Why is it we don't take Wilts 50 point season and 25 rebounds as definitive proof he is the greatest all time? It clearly is amazing and no one even comes close.

But with that we understand the context of the game and how it was played then.

The last five years of the NBA is different than it has ever been played and you really should not try to directly compare stats from previous eras.......

Kobe's prime season was literally 10 seasons ago. Let's not act as if Kobe was playing during segregation.

So teams play the same in 2007 as they do now? What about in 2012?


Does Curry even play the same way he played in 2012 as he plays right now......

[WarriorGM]

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.

Excuses you say? The excuse is suggesting the Warriors wins record is inflated because of the league is "top and bottom heavy".
Who is the best player in the league? I say it is Curry but people out there keep saying it is LeBron. Okay so explain why LeBron has not led his teams to similarly impressive wins records? Or how about the Thunder when two commonly touted top 5 players in Durant and Westbrook were on the same team? Or how about that terrific Spurs dynasty led by all-time great Duncan that gave chase to the Warriors to try and get the first seed but had to settle for 67-wins? LeBron and Duncan have played in the same era and failed to rack up the same number of wins as the Warriors.

When the Bulls had their 120 point games with Jordan you saying we should just write it off as inflation too? It's easy to come up with valid reasons to explain the higher scores. More teams are shooting threes and are playing more efficient basketball. Curry is probably the most efficient high volume scorer in history and his team plays with pace to maximize that advantage. One would expect higher scores to follow.

Regarding why improving a good team by the same amount as a bad team is more impressive maybe a free throw shooting analogy would be illustrative. Is improving a free throw % from 0% to 10% easier or harder than improving it from 90% to 100%?

[clyde21]

Come on its a different era. Why is it we don't take Wilts 50 point season and 25 rebounds as definitive proof he is the greatest all time? It clearly is amazing and no one even comes close.

But with that we understand the context of the game and how it was played then.

The last five years of the NBA is different than it has ever been played and you really should not try to directly compare stats from previous eras.......

Kobe's prime season was literally 10 seasons ago. Let's not act as if Kobe was playing during segregation.

So teams play the same in 2007 as they do now? What about in 2012?


Does Curry even play the same way he played in 2012 as he plays right now......

Pace has not changed that much nor has the league's average TS% since then, so I'm not really sure what you're going on about. Furthermore, there's a lot more talent in the league now, especially at the guard positions, so you'd have to also factor that in. Lastly, Steph's numbers are largely deflated due to the fact that he spends half his time off-the-ball unlike other guards like Harden and Westbrook.

If the argument you're trying to make is that these numbers are close because of the "era", it's a wrong one.

[1993Playoffs]

Like I said in the OP I didn't expect to see such a big difference in efficiency, Is Kobe's defense enough to say he is definitely better a better player than Curry like some guys ITT are insinuating? Im not sure to be honest, especially as curry's prime continues. ......I'll just leave it at that.

[G35]

Kobe's prime season was literally 10 seasons ago. Let's not act as if Kobe was playing during segregation.

So teams play the same in 2007 as they do now? What about in 2012?


Does Curry even play the same way he played in 2012 as he plays right now......

Pace has not changed that much nor has the league's average TS% since then, so I'm not really sure what you're going on about. Furthermore, there's a lot more talent in the league now, especially at the guard positions, so you'd have to also factor that in. Lastly, Steph's numbers are largely deflated due to the fact that he spends half his time off-the-ball unlike other guards like Harden and Westbrook.

If the argument you're trying to make is that these numbers are close because of the "era", it's a wrong one.

Not talking about pace.

Curry 3PA
2012 - 4.7
2018 - 9.8

Why have his 3PA doubled and that isn't even his highest. He was at 11.2 in 2016, that has nothing to do with pace, but that change in thinking in how the game is played.

Furthermore:

NBA TS% average
2012 - .527
2018 - .568

The entire league is more efficient...why?........

[clyde21]

So teams play the same in 2007 as they do now? What about in 2012?


Does Curry even play the same way he played in 2012 as he plays right now......

Pace has not changed that much nor has the league's average TS% since then, so I'm not really sure what you're going on about. Furthermore, there's a lot more talent in the league now, especially at the guard positions, so you'd have to also factor that in. Lastly, Steph's numbers are largely deflated due to the fact that he spends half his time off-the-ball unlike other guards like Harden and Westbrook.

If the argument you're trying to make is that these numbers are close because of the "era", it's a wrong one.

Not talking about pace.

Curry 3PA
2012 - 4.7
2018 - 9.8

Why have his 3PA doubled and that isn't even his highest. He was at 11.2 in 2016, that has nothing to do with pace, but that change in thinking in how the game is played.

Furthermore:

NBA TS% average
2012 - .527
2018 - .568

The entire league is more efficient...why?........

You do realize that Curry is a huge reason why this current era has evolved and developed into the way it is, right? You can't possibly use that against him. He's revolutionized the game from that standpoint.

As for offenses being more efficient, that's not just because of the 3PT line. It's because offenses are getting more sophisticated with the ball movement and are generating better and better looks for themselves. Furthermore, the different between Curry's TS and today's league average is wider than Kobe's and his league's average considerably, so your argument doesn't hold much water in that regard.