Steph Curry is shooting 50% on 10.8 3pt attempts per game, 52% overall

[eagereyez]

It's pretty crazy where his efficiency stands up. He's doing this while putting up 30ppg. You have to drop down to 18.5ppg and 1982 by Artis Gilmore to find someone who was more efficient than Curry. No one in the history of the NBA has been a 20 point scorer and matched Curry's efficiency, let alone 30 points per game.

Curry is the only player in NBA history to lead the league in both scoring and efficiency (2016). He is arguably the greatest scorer to ever play the game.

[Impuniti]

Im not saying to not mention context. You arent trying to bring in context, youre trying to completely ignore numbers and stats. I could get what youre saying if your argument was Curry played really well, his numbers probably are a bit exagerated because of the team he's on. I may not agree with that 100%, but I could get that. That would be trying to put some context to the numbers. But youre not saying that, youre saying those numbers mean nothing, theyre a farce.

There just happens to be an excuse every time Curry has good stats, Cleveland was too hurt, GS was too good. Im also never one to give Curry a pass for the 2016 finals. I think Kyrie outplayed him straight up. I think Curry had a bad finals, Im not arguing that. I thought after game 4, Kyrie and LeBron just played harder and better than GS. I dont care about Curry's injury or the suspensions or Bogut, Kyrie and LeBron just outplayed GS stars. But one bad finals doesnt erase his other 3 great finals performances and his dominance during the rest of the playoffs for his entire career.

Chicago had a massive advantage in talent over Seattle. Chicago had 3 HOF players vs 1. 2 top 25 players vs 0, plus arguably the GOAT. What about the Lakers 3 peat in the early 2000s. The Pacers, Sixers and Nets were obviously out matched. What about early Lakers with 4 HOFers plus Norm Nixon and Michael Cooper vs the Sixers. Again the history of the NBA is filled with stacked super teams.

That's a fair take, and I agree I may be too harsh with completely writing off what he has done. He is without a doubt a top tier talent and superstar; it is just a shame Durant had to get involved or we wouldn't even be having this debate at all and Curry would probably have a well deserved FMVP/ring. It would definitely be alot easier to give credence to his performances

I agree with that. Ive stated many times already this season I really wouldnt mind if KD went elsewhere this summer. Not necessarily for bumping Curry's numbers or anything, but strictly just the joy of the game. I thought 2016 Curry was the most entertaining thing Ive personally saw in the NBA. The OKC game where he pulls up from 35 to win it. In the background you see Kanter just shrugging knowing it was going in from that deep. That was just so freaking fun. I think Curry probably has 2 more years of being able to do that and I would like to see it again.

pre-wetspot 2016 Steph is prime Federer. Greatest joy in the game with complete dominance to follow up.

[The4thHorseman]

No its considered a mid range shot and yes some mid range shots are long 2s. Most places that I can find that say a definition of a mid range shot is a shot outside of the key and inside the 3pt arc. So by their definition a mid range shot is 15ft<3. Ive also seen any 2pt shot that isnt a layup or dunk. Hard to find anywhere that says a mid range shot is basically from the free throw line and in.

Again I just find it a weird premise that Curry is elite everywhere on the court, but just because only 7% of his shots come from 10-16ft, that takes him out of the best shooter conversation. Only 8% of Dirks shots came from 3-10ft. So by your definition he didnt use the whole floor as part of his arsenal, therefore he shouldnt be lumped in with the rest of the elite shooters either, but you lumped him in. KD has had multiple seasons where only 10% or less of his shots came from the 3-10ft range, his career is only 12% of his shots come from that range. Does that take him out of the running as well?

How can one of the measuring barometers (the 3pt line) of the mid-range shot be considered a mid-range shot?? Why does the term "long 2" even exist if a 20 footer or a foot on the 3pt line line is consider mid-range??

Here's how 82games.com breaks down the distances when they were figuring out what wins in terms of shot selection distances

Here is how we split up the shots:
Non-Measured - a certain percentage (around 8%) of shots did not get measured.

Close Shots - the smorgasboard of close-in action, including dunks, layups, tips, etc.
6 to 11 feet - what we are referring to as Short Two's
12 to 17 feet - perhaps the true mid-range shot distance
18 to the three point line - aka Long Two's
3 Point Shots - the shots from behind the line

http://www.82games.com/comm51.htm

As far as Dirk and KD go, they shoot more 2pa than they do 3pa. They're money from just about anywhere on the floor, (including crazy turnaround fadeaways etc) to where it's the opposite with Steph. He shoots more 3pa than 2pa. He does so because he's money outside the arc. But from 3-16ft, he just hasn't shot enough from there in his career to be comfortable taking those shots. You would think he'd take more mid-range when they have blowout games to show his arsenal and that he's not just a 3pt shooter. Like with MJ. I consider him the greatest shooter inside the arc cause he proved (with high efficiancy) he could hit from anywhere inside the arc. Yet when it came to 3pa ,he barely took any cause he knew (for the most part) it was outside his range.

Its just describing the kind of mid range shot. They track deep 3s now, that doesnt mean a deep 3 isnt a 3pt shot, its just a subcategory of a 3pt shot. Just like they track catch and shoot 3s and pull up 3s, but theyre still considered 3s.

When it comes to the Dirk and KD thing. Youre just moving goal posts now. First it was 7% of his shots from a certain distance wasnt a big enough sample, once it gets known Dirk has an almost identical % from another spot on the floor and KD is close, its now that KD and Dirk shoot more 2pa than 3pa. But even by that distinction that wouldnt eliminate Curry because Curry has attempted over 700 more 2pa than 3pa in his career. And also now instead of using 10-16ft which you started off saying, now youre saying 3-16ft is the barometer. Youre really moving the goalposts on this one, its hard to keep up with the new requirements that youre setting.

And to say Curry isnt comfortable enough with those shots is crazy to say. They just are the worst shots for him to take, not because that is his least skilled area, its just because 10-16ft are the worst shots to take in general. And if he were more comfortable with them he would show it off during blowouts? Really?

We're talking distinct distances, not types of shots. There's no specific range distance for long 3's, pull up 3's etc... compared to 2pt shots. They term mid is used for describing the mid-way point (or close to it) of something. If there's 3mins left in a 12min. quarter of a sporting event, the announcer isn't going to say "we're at (or close to) the midway point of the quarter" because it wouldn't be true. In shooting terms, mid-range is for the distance between the basket and the 3pt line. If it wasn't, then there would be no need for any terms. Everything would just be called a 2pt'er. So in a round about way, 10-17ft is considered mid-range. It's a specific distance being described. You can't refer to a distance being long ( a long 2) and it be considered mid as in "near the middle." at the same time. It's past near the middle, therefore it's referred to as long, with a specific range distance tagged to it.

I'm not moving the goalposts. The reason I use amount of 2pa and 3pa is that people (just in the last year or so, not his whole career) have been calling Steph the greatest shooter ever. Since the 2016 season, he's been taking more 3pa than 2pa. His career he's avg. one more 2pa than 3pa per season My argument is that we haven't seen the 2pa conversion consistency from him like we have the 3pa. It's not saying he can't do it, that it's just we haven't seen it on a consistent basis. With KD and Dirk we have (anywhere inside the arc) along with a bit of 3pt consistency.

Yes, I went from 10-16ft to 3-16ft to show that there's another area Steph barely shoots from (3-10ft) compared to KD and Dirk. Yes, they may not take a big percentage of shots from 3-10 feet, but it's still more than Steph's 2pa percentage from that area and other areas. They've used more of the floor inside the arc than Steph has in their respected careers so far.

It's no knock saying he's the greatest 3pt / long distance shooter ever, I just haven't seen enough conversion from inside the arc to give him the label of "greatest shooter ever.."

[The4thHorseman]

He shot 60% from mid range last season, and is constantly in high 60s at the rim, and has led the league in FT% four different times. But you want him to take more mid range shots to prove he's the best shooter of all time?

From 10-16ft,(close to true mid-range) he shot 53%, but only .073% of his FGA were from that distance. Hardly enough attempts to lump him in with other great shooters, past or present.

In order to call someone the best shooter of all time, his arsenal should be from anywhere on the floor, like Bird, Dirk or KD. Guys who can get their shot off form just about anywhere w/o needing screens.

Sooooooo, if someone like Shaq dunk over people 80%, but shoots only 20% of layups and hook shots, he is not the most dominating force inside? If a math wiz skip algebra/calculus and go directly to college/master math courses, he isn't a math wiz, because he didn't go through easier courses? Curry takes 3 point shots, because 3>2. There is no point of shooting long 2, when he can knock down 3 pointers better than anybody in the league, and that's why less than 10% of his shot are long 2. Players like Dirk, Bird, KD shoots more long 2 than Curry, not because they are better mid range shooter than Curry, but because they can't knock down 3 like Curry. I think it's pretty common knowledge...

When talking "close to the basket shots"like dunks, since when are layups NOT included? They're not considered an inside shot???

I didn't specifically say, "long 2." Steph actually takes more long 2's than he does mid-range or close 2's. Not sure why you're focused on long 2's when that distance was never specified alone.

[clyde21]

It's pretty crazy where his efficiency stands up. He's doing this while putting up 30ppg. You have to drop down to 18.5ppg and 1982 by Artis Gilmore to find someone who was more efficient than Curry. No one in the history of the NBA has been a 20 point scorer and matched Curry's efficiency, let alone 30 points per game.

Curry is the only player in NBA history to lead the league in both scoring and efficiency (2016). He is arguably the greatest scorer to ever play the game.

No, I want to see him shoot more mid range shots. Preferably double-teamed. I want to see him make bad decisions before I can reach that conclusion.

[WarriorGM]

It's no knock saying he's the greatest 3pt / long distance shooter ever, I just haven't seen enough conversion from inside the arc to give him the label of "greatest shooter ever.."

Who is the greatest shooter ever then? Let's take the greatest long distance shooter (who you admit is Steph) and put him up against who? Bird? Jordan? Nowitzki? Durant? What makes any of them the better shooter? I'd love to hear the logic.

I think if you try to argue this out you'll find yourself starting to make a case that they are better scorers and if that is the case I would welcome it because we can then start dropping the narrative pretense that has been built up by some people that Steph is only a shooter. He's the best scorer too.

[Jaqua92]

It's pretty crazy where his efficiency stands up. He's doing this while putting up 30ppg. You have to drop down to 18.5ppg and 1982 by Artis Gilmore to find someone who was more efficient than Curry. No one in the history of the NBA has been a 20 point scorer and matched Curry's efficiency, let alone 30 points per game.

Can someone explain? Curry is shooting 52% from the field. Jordan has eclipsed this while scoring over 30ppg. What are you referring to? TS%? that factors in free throws too right? Cause from the floor, no, Curry is not the most effecient 30 ppg scorer ever.

I mean, if another player scores over 30ppg, shooting better from the field than Curry, doesnt that mean said player is more effecient?

Curry is still a top 3 offensive peak player ever. But lets not act like we havent seen 30ppg on 50%+ effeciency..

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[LarryJoeDuncan]

Curry is so good offensively. He makes shots that should not go in. It does not make sense. Sometimes I sit there and watch him and I turn into Draymond with my mouth open like a donkey. I just don't understand how someone can shoot like that. I also think Curry is underrated as a leader. He brings calm to that squad and they look to him to be a leader.

[Egg Nog]

It's pretty crazy where his efficiency stands up. He's doing this while putting up 30ppg. You have to drop down to 18.5ppg and 1982 by Artis Gilmore to find someone who was more efficient than Curry. No one in the history of the NBA has been a 20 point scorer and matched Curry's efficiency, let alone 30 points per game.

Can someone explain? Curry is shooting 52% from the field. Jordan has eclipsed this while scoring over 30ppg. What are you referring to? TS%? that factors in free throws too right? Cause from the floor, no, Curry is not the most effecient 30 ppg scorer ever.

I mean, if another player scores over 30ppg, shooting better from the field than Curry, doesnt that mean said player is more effecient?

Curry is still a top 3 offensive peak player ever. But lets not act like we havent seen 30ppg on 50%+ effeciency..

Comparing Steph and MJ's most efficient seasons (including possessions that ended in free throws):

Steph attempted to score on ~22 possessions and scored 30.2 points
Jordan attempted to score on ~26 possesions and scored 32.5 points

Which one is more efficient?

[WarriorGM]

It's pretty crazy where his efficiency stands up. He's doing this while putting up 30ppg. You have to drop down to 18.5ppg and 1982 by Artis Gilmore to find someone who was more efficient than Curry. No one in the history of the NBA has been a 20 point scorer and matched Curry's efficiency, let alone 30 points per game.

Can someone explain? Curry is shooting 52% from the field. Jordan has eclipsed this while scoring over 30ppg. What are you referring to? TS%? that factors in free throws too right? Cause from the floor, no, Curry is not the most effecient 30 ppg scorer ever.

I mean, if another player scores over 30ppg, shooting better from the field than Curry, doesnt that mean said player is more effecient?

Curry is still a top 3 offensive peak player ever. But lets not act like we havent seen 30ppg on 50%+ effeciency..

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Per 100 possessions Jordan does not have an advantage. Curry should be able to meet the gap by taking more shots. Considering that he spent many fourth quarters in 2016 sitting out it is not an unreasonable adjustment to factor in. We already saw a game this year where he had 51 points in only 3 quarters. I don't know why you want to bring free throws into it. Curry of all 20+ ppg scorers in history (aside from Donovan Mitchell last year) has the lowest free throw rate. Steph is the only player ever to have a 50 point game with one free throw or less.

[Jaqua92]

Currys the most impactful player in the league, it makes people so mad too

I mean, even without KD, they still probably win championships. He's the 2nd best player since MJ. Steph really may end up being a top 10 player all time

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[The4thHorseman]

It's no knock saying he's the greatest 3pt / long distance shooter ever, I just haven't seen enough conversion from inside the arc to give him the label of "greatest shooter ever.."

Who is the greatest shooter ever then? Let's take the greatest long distance shooter (who you admit is Steph) and put him up against who? Bird? Jordan? Nowitzki? Durant? What makes any of them the better shooter? I'd love to hear the logic.
hat's what
I think if you try to argue this out you'll find yourself starting to make a case that they are better scorers and if that is the case I would welcome it because we can then start dropping the narrative pretense that has been built up by some people that Steph is only a shooter. He's the best scorer too.

Best shooters are the ones who've proven they can convert more often when using the majority of the floor, not just the majority of one area. That's what Bird, MJ, Dirk and KD did / do. If you're one of the best shooters, that should mean you're also one of the best scorers. When Steph gets mentioned, the first thing fans will usually think of is "greatest 3pt shooter they've ever seen. When calling someone the greatest shooter ever, then their arsenal from all around the court should've been displayed for those to remember. Players like Dirk, Bird and KD will be remembered more for that. Steph will be remembered more for his 3pt shooting (which by no means is a bad thing)

[Jaqua92]

It's pretty crazy where his efficiency stands up. He's doing this while putting up 30ppg. You have to drop down to 18.5ppg and 1982 by Artis Gilmore to find someone who was more efficient than Curry. No one in the history of the NBA has been a 20 point scorer and matched Curry's efficiency, let alone 30 points per game.

Can someone explain? Curry is shooting 52% from the field. Jordan has eclipsed this while scoring over 30ppg. What are you referring to? TS%? that factors in free throws too right? Cause from the floor, no, Curry is not the most effecient 30 ppg scorer ever.

I mean, if another player scores over 30ppg, shooting better from the field than Curry, doesnt that mean said player is more effecient?

Curry is still a top 3 offensive peak player ever. But lets not act like we havent seen 30ppg on 50%+ effeciency..

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Per 100 possessions Jordan does not have an advantage. Curry should be able to meet the gap by taking more shots. Considering that he spent many fourth quarters in 2016 sitting out it is not an unreasonable adjustment to factor in. We already saw a game this year where he had 51 points in only 3 quarters. I don't know why you want to bring free throws into it. Curry of all 20+ ppg scorers in history (aside from Donovan Mitchell last year) has the lowest free throw rate. Steph is the only player ever to have a 50 point game with one free throw or less.

The free throw thing was a question. Lol

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[WarriorGM]

It's no knock saying he's the greatest 3pt / long distance shooter ever, I just haven't seen enough conversion from inside the arc to give him the label of "greatest shooter ever.."

Who is the greatest shooter ever then? Let's take the greatest long distance shooter (who you admit is Steph) and put him up against who? Bird? Jordan? Nowitzki? Durant? What makes any of them the better shooter? I'd love to hear the logic.
hat's what
I think if you try to argue this out you'll find yourself starting to make a case that they are better scorers and if that is the case I would welcome it because we can then start dropping the narrative pretense that has been built up by some people that Steph is only a shooter. He's the best scorer too.

Best shooters are the ones who've proven they can convert more often when using the majority of the floor, not just the majority of one area. That's what Bird, MJ, Dirk and KD did / do. If you're one of the best shooters, that should mean you're also one of the best scorers. When Steph gets mentioned, the first thing fans will usually think of is "greatest 3pt shooter they've ever seen. When calling someone the greatest shooter ever, then their arsenal from all around the court should've been displayed for those to remember. Players like Dirk, Bird and KD will be remembered more for that. Steph will be remembered more for his 3pt shooting (which by no means is a bad thing)

You're still avoiding the question: Who is the better shooter? Whoever you name I will say they are decidedly at a disadvantage in comparison to Curry shooting from the three point line and beyond. And when you say "all around the court" shouldn't we include heaves into that? Use that logic and Curry is a better shooter than any of those mentioned from 75% of the court.

https://gfycat.com/UntimelyPlumpBluet

[balrog27]

can curry average 30/50/50/90 this season?

[hongdayuan]

Bogut was out for 2 games, Draymond was suspended for 1 game, Iguodala had back spasms and was on minutes restriction, Curry sustained an MCL sprain and an elbow injury against the Rockets and Thunder the two series before.

Anything else you wanna get wrong in this thread?

You still didn't answer me if anyone was out like Kyrie and Love were in 2015 finals. Why are you sidestepping the question?

This was the team Warriors played against.

I literally just answered you. Bogut missed two games, Green missed one game, Iguodala was put on restriction because of back spasms, Curry was coming off TWO injuries he sustained in those same playoffs, including an MCL sprain.

So, if you think the Cavs win in '15, I'm sure you think the Warriors win in '16. But you don't seem like you're arguing in good faith here so I'm sure you're just going to continue with the BS.

iggy goes from worthy FMVP over steph to insignificant injury to the team in ONE year. let's just let that sink in.

this warriors team is either team of 6 all stars or bunch of overrated scrubs depending on which thread of realgm u r in.

[cpower]

can curry average 30/50/50/90 this season?

i dont think so. to maintain 50% from 3p is insane...

[GYK]

The last three seasons been amazing. His volume at his efficiency is unreal. He turned shooter into scorer. It's amazing. Not to mention the low number of possessions needed to dominate a game. He's my GOAT of things going well. When things aren't going well and the game is from start to finish with someone needed to take over he's not close to who I would pick.

[Hindenburg]

Unreal. I wonder how many players in NBA history put up at-least 30 PPG on less than 20 FGA?

[The4thHorseman]

Who is the greatest shooter ever then? Let's take the greatest long distance shooter (who you admit is Steph) and put him up against who? Bird? Jordan? Nowitzki? Durant? What makes any of them the better shooter? I'd love to hear the logic.
hat's what
I think if you try to argue this out you'll find yourself starting to make a case that they are better scorers and if that is the case I would welcome it because we can then start dropping the narrative pretense that has been built up by some people that Steph is only a shooter. He's the best scorer too.

Best shooters are the ones who've proven they can convert more often when using the majority of the floor, not just the majority of one area. That's what Bird, MJ, Dirk and KD did / do. If you're one of the best shooters, that should mean you're also one of the best scorers. When Steph gets mentioned, the first thing fans will usually think of is "greatest 3pt shooter they've ever seen. When calling someone the greatest shooter ever, then their arsenal from all around the court should've been displayed for those to remember. Players like Dirk, Bird and KD will be remembered more for that. Steph will be remembered more for his 3pt shooting (which by no means is a bad thing)

You're still avoiding the question: Who is the better shooter? Whoever you name I will say they are decidedly at a disadvantage in comparison to Curry shooting from the three point line and beyond. And when you say "all around the court" shouldn't we include heaves into that? Use that logic and Curry is a better shooter than any of those mentioned from 75% of the court.

https://gfycat.com/UntimelyPlumpBluet

I've already stated before.

Inside the arc, I'll take MJ. Outside the arc, I'll take Steph. From all around. I'll take Bird, Dirk or KD.

People who hear "shots taken from all around the court" when talking in game basketball shots, knows that the entire court is NOT being referenced.