Offense: 16 Curry v. 18 Harden

[TheGOATRises007]

RS wise, Curry is better.

I don't think a player peaked higher than he did offensively that RS. He was remarkable that season.

Of course if Harden outperforms Curry's poor playoffs by a good amount, might lean 18 Harden.

But it's hard to ignore Harden's playoff struggles and not think the same won't happen.

[dhsilv2]

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.

What if he played more minutes? he was at nearly 32 per 36. I don't see 40, but if he could play 40 minutes a game and was shooting a bit more, I could see 36-38 range being very real.

But it doesn't work that way. Curry played 38 mpg once in his career. He didn't prove he could do that. Besides, more minutes wouldn't make him more efficient. It's not logical, more stress on the body makes you less effective in what you do. Playing 40 minutes on the ball is much different than doing what Curry is doing. I'm not saying it's harder, but it's different and Curry is the best when he can play both on and off the ball.

Also, saying that his TS% would increase because he was more efficient on pull-ups than catch and shoots is funny. Pull-up shot is not always shot created in isolation. Sometimes it's catch, two dribbles and shoot. There is no way that Curry would average 40 ppg on 70% TS. He was not close to that and nobody has ever been. Stop making Curry god, he had one of the best seasons ever but he wasn't that good.

My point was minutes alone would get you into that 36-38 range, and if he shot more which isn't unreasonable the TS% can drop off. He'd still be there.

[clyde21]

What if he played more minutes? he was at nearly 32 per 36. I don't see 40, but if he could play 40 minutes a game and was shooting a bit more, I could see 36-38 range being very real.

But it doesn't work that way. Curry played 38 mpg once in his career. He didn't prove he could do that. Besides, more minutes wouldn't make him more efficient. It's not logical, more stress on the body makes you less effective in what you do. Playing 40 minutes on the ball is much different than doing what Curry is doing. I'm not saying it's harder, but it's different and Curry is the best when he can play both on and off the ball.

Also, saying that his TS% would increase because he was more efficient on pull-ups than catch and shoots is funny. Pull-up shot is not always shot created in isolation. Sometimes it's catch, two dribbles and shoot. There is no way that Curry would average 40 ppg on 70% TS. He was not close to that and nobody has ever been. Stop making Curry god, he had one of the best seasons ever but he wasn't that good.

My point was minutes alone would get you into that 36-38 range, and if he shot more which isn't unreasonable the TS% can drop off. He'd still be there.

Exactly. He was already at 32ppg per 36. People think it's crazy he could average 8 more points if he played more of an on-ball role and took more shots? Come on.

[70sFan]

But it doesn't work that way. Curry played 38 mpg once in his career. He didn't prove he could do that. Besides, more minutes wouldn't make him more efficient. It's not logical, more stress on the body makes you less effective in what you do. Playing 40 minutes on the ball is much different than doing what Curry is doing. I'm not saying it's harder, but it's different and Curry is the best when he can play both on and off the ball.

Also, saying that his TS% would increase because he was more efficient on pull-ups than catch and shoots is funny. Pull-up shot is not always shot created in isolation. Sometimes it's catch, two dribbles and shoot. There is no way that Curry would average 40 ppg on 70% TS. He was not close to that and nobody has ever been. Stop making Curry god, he had one of the best seasons ever but he wasn't that good.

My point was minutes alone would get you into that 36-38 range, and if he shot more which isn't unreasonable the TS% can drop off. He'd still be there.

Exactly. He was already at 32ppg per 36. People think it's crazy he could average 8 more points if he played more of an on-ball role and took more shots? Come on.

It's crazy because you said he would on 70% TS. Not only he would maintain his efficiency, he would improve to the level only GOAT finishers accomplished in the whole history at low volume. This is ridiculous part of your post.

[clyde21]

My point was minutes alone would get you into that 36-38 range, and if he shot more which isn't unreasonable the TS% can drop off. He'd still be there.

Exactly. He was already at 32ppg per 36. People think it's crazy he could average 8 more points if he played more of an on-ball role and took more shots? Come on.

It's crazy because you said he would on 70% TS. Not only he would maintain his efficiency, he would improve to the level only GOAT finishers accomplished in the whole history at low volume. This is ridiculous part of your post.

You do realize that over the last year and a half, Curry is at a 70 TS% without Durant on the floor, right? You know what the tells me? That the more he has the ball in his hands, the more he's THE primary guy, the better and more efficient he actually is.

Based on that information, and the fact that we're talking about a guy had a 67 TS% in '16 and has a 68 TS% in '18, you think it's ridiculous for me to say he could average 70 TS%?

I'm here willing to say that Curry is THE most efficient scorer of all time. Do you disagree?

[dhsilv2]

My view is that for curry to increase shots per minute on the floor (not just increase minutes) he'd generate more gravity and the shots would increase in difficulty. 40 is possible. I don't see 70% TS.

[70sFan]

Exactly. He was already at 32ppg per 36. People think it's crazy he could average 8 more points if he played more of an on-ball role and took more shots? Come on.

It's crazy because you said he would on 70% TS. Not only he would maintain his efficiency, he would improve to the level only GOAT finishers accomplished in the whole history at low volume. This is ridiculous part of your post.

You do realize that over the last year and a half, Curry is at a 70 TS% without Durant on the floor, right? You know what the tells me? That the more he has the ball in his hands, the more he's THE primary guy, the better and more efficient he actually is.

Based on that information, and the fact that we're talking about a guy had a 67 TS% in '16 and has a 68 TS% in '18, you think it's ridiculous for me to say he could average 70 TS%?

I'm here willing to say that Curry is THE most efficient scorer of all time. Do you disagree?

It's ridiculous to say that Curry could average 40 ppg on 70% TS. He never averaged 70% TS and samples without Durant are much smaller than the whole season. Moreover, he never came close to 40 ppg. You don't realize how much tougher is to average 40 ppg on great efficiency ccompared to 30 and minutes is not the only problem.

He's one of the most efficient scorers ever, that's sure. 40 ppg on 70% TS is something nobody came close to accomplish though. I'd also point out that Dantley was as efficient in terms of raw efficiency and some players are on the same level due to differences in league averages (Oscar, Kareem).

[Joey Wheeler]

Similar level. Both seemingly unstoppably dominant in the regular season and both not nearly as effective in the playoffs. though still great. I guess it's premature to say that about Harden as the playoffs only begin next month, but history strongly suggests he'll take a backseat offensively to the likes of Lebron, Durant... come playoff time.

[clyde21]

It's crazy because you said he would on 70% TS. Not only he would maintain his efficiency, he would improve to the level only GOAT finishers accomplished in the whole history at low volume. This is ridiculous part of your post.

You do realize that over the last year and a half, Curry is at a 70 TS% without Durant on the floor, right? You know what the tells me? That the more he has the ball in his hands, the more he's THE primary guy, the better and more efficient he actually is.

Based on that information, and the fact that we're talking about a guy had a 67 TS% in '16 and has a 68 TS% in '18, you think it's ridiculous for me to say he could average 70 TS%?

I'm here willing to say that Curry is THE most efficient scorer of all time. Do you disagree?

It's ridiculous to say that Curry could average 40 ppg on 70% TS. He never averaged 70% TS and samples without Durant are much smaller than the whole season. Moreover, he never came close to 40 ppg. You don't realize how much tougher is to average 40 ppg on great efficiency ccompared to 30 and minutes is not the only problem.

He's one of the most efficient scorers ever, that's sure. 40 ppg on 70% TS is something nobody came close to accomplish though. I'd also point out that Dantley was as efficient in terms of raw efficiency and some players are on the same level due to differences in league averages (Oscar, Kareem).

Okay dude, whatever. I don't think this discussion even matters in terms of this thread.

Like I said, '16 Curry is quite a ways ahead of most people offensively. I think '18 Harden should be rated against '18 Curry instead.

[70sFan]

You do realize that over the last year and a half, Curry is at a 70 TS% without Durant on the floor, right? You know what the tells me? That the more he has the ball in his hands, the more he's THE primary guy, the better and more efficient he actually is.

Based on that information, and the fact that we're talking about a guy had a 67 TS% in '16 and has a 68 TS% in '18, you think it's ridiculous for me to say he could average 70 TS%?

I'm here willing to say that Curry is THE most efficient scorer of all time. Do you disagree?

It's ridiculous to say that Curry could average 40 ppg on 70% TS. He never averaged 70% TS and samples without Durant are much smaller than the whole season. Moreover, he never came close to 40 ppg. You don't realize how much tougher is to average 40 ppg on great efficiency ccompared to 30 and minutes is not the only problem.

He's one of the most efficient scorers ever, that's sure. 40 ppg on 70% TS is something nobody came close to accomplish though. I'd also point out that Dantley was as efficient in terms of raw efficiency and some players are on the same level due to differences in league averages (Oscar, Kareem).

Okay dude, whatever. I don't think this discussion even matters in terms of this thread.

Like I said, '16 Curry is quite a ways ahead of most people offensively. I think '18 Harden should be rated against '18 Curry instead.

I agree that 2016 Curry is quite ahead in this comparison. I think it's closer than you think, but I have Curry comfortably. I just disagree that Curry can be much superior in Harden's role. They are different, Curry plays healthier basketball in my opinion.

[clyde21]

It's ridiculous to say that Curry could average 40 ppg on 70% TS. He never averaged 70% TS and samples without Durant are much smaller than the whole season. Moreover, he never came close to 40 ppg. You don't realize how much tougher is to average 40 ppg on great efficiency ccompared to 30 and minutes is not the only problem.

He's one of the most efficient scorers ever, that's sure. 40 ppg on 70% TS is something nobody came close to accomplish though. I'd also point out that Dantley was as efficient in terms of raw efficiency and some players are on the same level due to differences in league averages (Oscar, Kareem).

Okay dude, whatever. I don't think this discussion even matters in terms of this thread.

Like I said, '16 Curry is quite a ways ahead of most people offensively. I think '18 Harden should be rated against '18 Curry instead.

I agree that 2016 Curry is quite ahead in this comparison. I think it's closer than you think, but I have Curry comfortably. I just disagree that Curry can be much superior in Harden's role. They are different, Curry plays healthier basketball in my opinion.

I'm not saying Curry will be much superior in Harden's role. I'm saying Curry, with a more on-ball role, would post even better box score numbers than his current iteration.

We're both in agreement that Curry's role is what enables the Warriors to be so dangerous, so I'm not clamoring for a change there.

[ronnymac2]

2016 Curry. His precision and timing were from the matrix. There were articles detailing how Curry trained his nervous system to react more quickly to on-court situations. You look at 2015 Curry compared to 2016 Curry...2015 Curry looks like a man stuck in mud.

What Harden is doing is great, don't get me wrong, but I'm taking Steph here.

[LeBird]

Curry and it ain''t close. Doesn't need 15ft per game either.

[Impuniti]

It's Curry and it's not close. It's nice when you can make 4 baskets and still get 21 points, but Curry was shooting from half court at better % than Harden is shooting.

Ok maybe it is not a massive difference, but Curry's is #1 all time, Harden is top 10.

[clyde21]

It's Curry and it's not close. It's nice when you can make 4 baskets and still get 21 points, but Curry was shooting from half court at better % than Harden is shooting.

Ok maybe it is not a massive difference, but Curry's is #1 all time, Harden is top 10.

'
Curry led the Warriors team to 73 wins. That's how good he was offensively. People still keep forgetting that happened.

[Nbafanatic]

We should probably be comparing Harden's '18 to Curry's 18. 16 Curry is just on another level.

When healthy how is 18 Curry not better than 16? He's a comparable shooter, a little worse percentages on less volume but still the same threat and a better driver and finisher. 18 Curry is clearly better than 18 Harden and 16 Curry.

I don't buy this. He may be a more "complete" player today, with a better in-between game and getting more to the free throw line, but his 3 point shooting was nuclear that season in an even higher volume, and that was the key. That slightly greater agility he had to get his shot off really made the difference. He showed that he can get to that level in spurts this season, but can't sustain the same way. Of course I'm talking about his RS version, as he was visibly discounted by the injury in the playoffs. 2016 RS Curry is a better offensive player than 2018 Harden by a substantial margin.

[Young_Star11]

Curry won unanimous MVP and there was a reason for it. Curry.

[AdagioPace]

let's keep it warmed up for the WCF

Biggest Pro for Curry: his combination of on and off ball playing allows his teams to reach higher highs. No friction

Biggest pro for Harden: ISO monster, less dependability on screen setting. Cheat code that in theory should work vs any defense/defender. More prone to complete black-outs than Curry though

I still pick Curry.
Harden could in theory catch him depending on the playoffs. Defeating Golden State would be a ticket to immortality for Harden (even though playing with an all-time offensive player like CP3 will stimulate future considerations on the weighting)

[clyde21]

Here's a question: which team was more talented, '18 Houston or '16 Golden State?

[MisterHibachi]

let's keep it warmed up for the WCF

Biggest Pro for Curry: his combination of on and off ball playing allows his teams to reach higher highs. No friction

Biggest pro for Harden: ISO monster, less dependability on screen setting. Cheat code that in theory should work vs any defense/defender. More prone to complete black-outs than Curry though

I still pick Curry.
Harden could in theory catch him depending on the playoffs. Defeating Golden State would be a ticket to immortality for Harden (even though playing with an all-time offensive player like CP3 will stimulate future considerations on the weighting)

Wouldn't say Harden is less dependent on screen setting. He iso's against the weakest defender on the court and it's all made possible because of screens forcing switches.