Offense: 16 Curry v. 18 Harden

[MisterHibachi]

I think we've seen enough of Harden to make this is a worthwhile topic. Who's the better offensive player, 2016 Curry or 2018 Harden?

Question inspired by the following tweets:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Some other key stats:

Code: Select all

Curry v. Harden:

On-court ORtg: 119.1 v. 119.3
ORtg on/off: +13.8 v. +7.6
eFG%: 63.0 v. 54.7
TS%: 66.9 v. 62.5
Individual ORtg: 125 v. 122
PP/100: 42.5 v. 43.1
Assists/100: 9.4 v. 12.0
TOV/100: 4.7 v. 5.9

[mischievous]

Still Curry for regular season.

[Jim Naismith]

I think we've seen enough of Harden to make this is a worthwhile topic. Who's the better offensive player, 2016 Curry or 2018 Harden?

Well Curry had only 22.3 PER in the playoffs.

It's somewhat close in the RS, so if Harden has 26 PER or higher in the postseason over a significant stretch, I'd say Harden is better.

[mihail_petkov]

Curry 2016 is the GOAT offensive season ever for me. Of course until the injuries in the playoffs. Then he was not the same player anymore. Harden is great but his supporting case is much better than Curry's in 2016 and Curry was simply better.

Warriors with Curry 119.1 ORTG, without Curry: 105.3
Rockets with Harden 119.3 ORTG, without Harden 111.3

Rockets talent outside of Harden is much better and not even close to the offensive talent outside of Steph on 2016 Warriors. Except Steph no other player could create his own shot on Warriors - Iggy, Draymond, Bogut, Barnes, Ezeli, Livingston as core rotation. The only good offensive player is Klay who is 3&D type of player on steroids and also couldn't create own shot.
Rockets have Eric Gordon who is on similar level as Klay on offense + Ariza who is on similar level as Barnes and Capela on similar level/impact as Draymond (just on different role). But they also have GOAT level PG in Chris Paul so yeah, I don't think it's even close.

Curry - 42.5 pp100, 9.4 apg, 4.7 tp100, 125 ORTG, 31.5 PER, 66.9% TS, .318 WS/48, 12.4 OBPM, +17.9 on, -4.5 off, + 22.2 on/off
Harden - 43.1 pp110, 12.0 apg, 5.9 tp100, 122 ORTG, 30.6 PER, 62.5% TS, .302 WS/48, 10.2 OBPM, +11.3 on, +4.5 off, +6.8 on/off

[clyde21]

Harden has been a monster but '16 Curry is the GOAT offensive RS for me.

Also keep in mind '18 Harden spends a lot more time on-ball than Curry. '16 Curry had 46% of his shots assisted vs. 17% for Harden this year.

Curry could've scored 40 a game in his sleep that season had he played on-ball as much as Harden.

[MisterHibachi]

Harden has been a monster but '16 Curry is the GOAT offensive RS for me.

Also keep in mind '18 Harden spends a lot more time on-ball than Curry. '16 Curry has 46% of his shots assisted vs. 17% for Harden this year.

Curry could've scored 40 a game in his sleep that season.

On-ball v. off-ball isn't really a big difference when they're both producing 119 ORtg on-court. If Curry could've done better than what he did if he played more on-ball, he should've.

[clyde21]

Harden has been a monster but '16 Curry is the GOAT offensive RS for me.

Also keep in mind '18 Harden spends a lot more time on-ball than Curry. '16 Curry has 46% of his shots assisted vs. 17% for Harden this year.

Curry could've scored 40 a game in his sleep that season.

On-ball v. off-ball isn't really a big difference when they're both producing 119 ORtg on-court. If Curry could've done better than what he did if he played more on-ball, he should've.

I'm not saying it makes a difference in ORTG. I'm saying it makes a difference in raw stats. Curry would've posted 40ppg easily had he saw a more on-ball role.

[clyde21]

Btw--I think Harden's season this year is more comparable to Curry's this year, rather than '16.

Curry '18: 125 ORTG
Harden '18: 122 ORTG

Curry '18 TS%: 67.5%
Harden '18 TS%: 62.5%

Curry '18 OBPM: 9.7
Harden '18 OBPM: 10.2

Curry '18 ORPM: 6.92 (#2)
Harden '18 ORPM: 7.28 (#1)

If Curry hadn't gotten hurt like a turd every other game this season he might have a better offensive season than Harden THIS year.

[MisterHibachi]

Harden has been a monster but '16 Curry is the GOAT offensive RS for me.

Also keep in mind '18 Harden spends a lot more time on-ball than Curry. '16 Curry has 46% of his shots assisted vs. 17% for Harden this year.

Curry could've scored 40 a game in his sleep that season.

On-ball v. off-ball isn't really a big difference when they're both producing 119 ORtg on-court. If Curry could've done better than what he did if he played more on-ball, he should've.

I'm not saying it makes a difference in ORTG. I'm saying it makes a difference in raw stats. Curry would've posted 40ppg easily had he saw a more on-ball role.

First off, Curry could not have posted 40 ppg, that's ridiculous.

Second, Curry posting 40 ppg only matters to the extent that it improves the team offense from 119. So again, if Curry being more on ball would've resulted in a better offense, he should've done that.

[70sFan]

Harden has been a monster but '16 Curry is the GOAT offensive RS for me.

Also keep in mind '18 Harden spends a lot more time on-ball than Curry. '16 Curry had 46% of his shots assisted vs. 17% for Harden this year.

Curry could've scored 40 a game in his sleep that season had he played on-ball as much as Harden.

I'm not saying that Harden is better offensive player overall than Curry (he's not in my opinion) but it doesn't work that way. Curry is not better on ball and he's not capable of recreating what Harden is doing now. He doesn't have to, as you said he's much better off ball player which makes him more portable player but Steph is not as good
Isolation scorer as Harden, he doesn't have Harden size and he can't draw as much fouls. He's also lesser playmaker, though not as much as assists numbers suggest.

[Jim Naismith]

A whole bunch of people ignoring Curry's playoffs.

He should be downgraded there.

[MisterHibachi]

Still Curry for regular season.

Do you think it's close?

[mischievous]

Still Curry for regular season.

Do you think it's close?

Oh definitely yeah. I don’t see how someone can think it’s not close.

[clyde21]

On-ball v. off-ball isn't really a big difference when they're both producing 119 ORtg on-court. If Curry could've done better than what he did if he played more on-ball, he should've.

I'm not saying it makes a difference in ORTG. I'm saying it makes a difference in raw stats. Curry would've posted 40ppg easily had he saw a more on-ball role.

First off, Curry could not have posted 40 ppg, that's ridiculous.

Second, Curry posting 40 ppg only matters to the extent that it improves the team offense from 119. So again, if Curry being more on ball would've resulted in a better offense, he should've done that.

How is that ridiculous? Curry dropped 31 points in 34 minutes while playing off-ball half the time. His TS% was actually even higher when shooting off-the-dribble vs. off-the-catch, so his efficiency would've even been BETTER on top of taking more shots.

And no, he didn't need to do that because his off-ball prowess is what makes/made the Warriors so good. It's what allows the Warriors to trot out the Death Lineup and other dangerous sets.

[clyde21]

Harden has been a monster but '16 Curry is the GOAT offensive RS for me.

Also keep in mind '18 Harden spends a lot more time on-ball than Curry. '16 Curry had 46% of his shots assisted vs. 17% for Harden this year.

Curry could've scored 40 a game in his sleep that season had he played on-ball as much as Harden.

I'm not saying that Harden is better offensive player overall than Curry (he's not in my opinion) but it doesn't work that way. Curry is not better on ball and he's not capable of recreating what Harden is doing now. He doesn't have to, as you said he's much better off ball player which makes him more portable player but Steph is not as good
Isolation scorer as Harden, he doesn't have Harden size and he can't draw as much fouls. He's also lesser playmaker, though not as much as assists numbers suggest.

Harden is a better on-ball player based on what, exactly?

[MisterHibachi]

I'm not saying it makes a difference in ORTG. I'm saying it makes a difference in raw stats. Curry would've posted 40ppg easily had he saw a more on-ball role.

First off, Curry could not have posted 40 ppg, that's ridiculous.

Second, Curry posting 40 ppg only matters to the extent that it improves the team offense from 119. So again, if Curry being more on ball would've resulted in a better offense, he should've done that.

How is that ridiculous? Curry dropped 31 points in 34 minutes while playing off-ball half the time. His TS% was actually even higher when shooting off-the-dribble vs. off-the-catch, so his efficiency would've even been BETTER on top of taking more shots.

And no, he didn't need to do that because his off-ball prowess is what makes/made the Warriors so good. It's what allows the Warriors to trot out the Death Lineup and other dangerous sets.

Because you're talking about a 9 ppg increase for a guy already taking 20 shots a game with 32% usage. Are you serious with this?

[mischievous]

Curry could’ve averaged 50 ppg on 70 ts% if he played on ball guys, didn’t you know?

[clyde21]

First off, Curry could not have posted 40 ppg, that's ridiculous.

Second, Curry posting 40 ppg only matters to the extent that it improves the team offense from 119. So again, if Curry being more on ball would've resulted in a better offense, he should've done that.

How is that ridiculous? Curry dropped 31 points in 34 minutes while playing off-ball half the time. His TS% was actually even higher when shooting off-the-dribble vs. off-the-catch, so his efficiency would've even been BETTER on top of taking more shots.

And no, he didn't need to do that because his off-ball prowess is what makes/made the Warriors so good. It's what allows the Warriors to trot out the Death Lineup and other dangerous sets.

Because you're talking about a 9 ppg increase for a guy already taking 20 shots a game with 32% usage. Are you serious with this?

Curry's TS% was higher when he was shooting off-the-dribble vs. when he was shooting off-the-catch. More time on-ball = a higher TS% for Curry, and also more shots per game on average. He could've gotten to 40ppg easily if he wanted to or if the scheme changed to have him play on-ball more.

[clyde21]

Curry could’ve averaged 50 ppg on 70 ts% if he played on ball guys, didn’t you know?

I know you're being sarcastic, but considering Steph Curry is already averaging 68 TS% while playing off-ball literally half the time he's on the court, 70 TS% seems pretty realistic for him.

Do you disagree?

[MisterHibachi]

How is that ridiculous? Curry dropped 31 points in 34 minutes while playing off-ball half the time. His TS% was actually even higher when shooting off-the-dribble vs. off-the-catch, so his efficiency would've even been BETTER on top of taking more shots.

And no, he didn't need to do that because his off-ball prowess is what makes/made the Warriors so good. It's what allows the Warriors to trot out the Death Lineup and other dangerous sets.

Because you're talking about a 9 ppg increase for a guy already taking 20 shots a game with 32% usage. Are you serious with this?

Curry's TS% was higher when he was shooting off-the-dribble vs. when he was shooting off-the-catch. More time on-ball = a higher TS% for Curry, and also more shots per game on average. He could've gotten to 40ppg easily if he wanted to or if the scheme changed to have him play on-ball more.

I hope you realize this is absolutely ridiculous.

Curry already took 20 shots a game. Say he bumps it to 24 shots a game (extremely difficult on its own and Curry has shown no capability of shouldering this kind of load), and 7 FT a game (again, no hint that he's capable of drawing fouls like this) from his 5.1 that season to score 40. That requires 74 TS%. You're saying he's capable of managing such a load at such an efficiency? Or is he keeping his shots and free throws at the level they are and shooting 90 TS%? Show me how he's gonna manage 40 ppg.