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

[GYK]

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

Below 20 FGA? Just Dantley.

[WarriorGM]

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

Adrian Dantley 3 times and Karl Malone once.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=fga_per_g&c2comp=lt&c2val=20&order_by=ws

[Ontario]

He's incredible, the greatest shooter eve rand the cornerstone of the greatest offence ever.

If he were a mediocre shooter however the rest of his game would not justify him getting minutes in the NBA. If you had him switch places with his dad in the 90's he would only marginally be a better version of his dad.

The freedom of movement rules have been a disaster and the league needs to at least take away the corner three, it's just a jump shooting contest at this point.

[Hindenburg]

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

Below 20 FGA? Just Dantley.

Yes below 20 FGA/game. I honestly can't think of any recently. Curry is crazy efficient.

[GYK]

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

Below 20 FGA? Just Dantley.

Yes below 20 FGA/game. I honestly can't think of any recently. Curry is crazy efficient.

No I'm telling you it's Adrian Dantley

[The4thHorseman]

And to think some people still believe he's not the best shooter to play the game. Insanity.

He's the best "3pt / long distance" shooter to play the game. That's why he chooses to take more 3pa than 2pa. He doesn't take enough shots from various spots inside the arc to say he's the best "shooter" of all time.

Possibly the worst post I've ever read on this board, and I've read a lot of bad posts.

Yet you weren't able to refute any of it.

Good job

[The4thHorseman]

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

Adrian Dantley 3 times and Karl Malone once.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&season_start=1&season_end=-1&lg_id=NBA&age_min=0&age_max=99&is_playoffs=N&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=30&c2stat=fga_per_g&c2comp=lt&c2val=20&order_by=ws

How many of Dantley's and Malone's 30pts were from 3pt FGA?

[dhsilv2]

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

Below 20 FGA? Just Dantley.

Yes below 20 FGA/game. I honestly can't think of any recently. Curry is crazy efficient.

Dantley and Karl Malone

[Duke4life831]

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

Yes I was referring to TS. And yes that factors in FTs. If you want a stat that looks at just efficiency on the floor, eFG% is a more accurate stat. That weighs 3pt shots more than 2pt shots.

So for example

MJ goes 5/10 from the field and gets 10 points he would have a 50 fg%

Steph goes by 4/10 from the field but all his shots are from 3 so he ends up with 12 points. His fg% would only be 40% but he would have a eFG% of 60%.

Both took the same amount of shots, but Steph was more efficient by getting 12 points off of the 10 shots.

When looking at that Steph's career eFG% is 58%, while having 3 seasons above 60% and a career high of 63% (65% currently). MJ's career eFG% is 51% and had a career high of 55%. Both guys also have a career 2pt career FG% of 51%. Curry has the two best peak seasons as well in that category. Anyway you slice it. Curry is the more efficient scorer.

[GYK]

Below 20 FGA? Just Dantley.

Yes below 20 FGA/game. I honestly can't think of any recently. Curry is crazy efficient.

Dantley and Karl Malone

Sorry went =<19 FGA. forgot decimal points between 19 and 20.

[Raps in 4]

He's the best "3pt / long distance" shooter to play the game. That's why he chooses to take more 3pa than 2pa. He doesn't take enough shots from various spots inside the arc to say he's the best "shooter" of all time.

Possibly the worst post I've ever read on this board, and I've read a lot of bad posts.

Yet you weren't able to refute any of it.

Good job

There is nothing to refute. The post doesn't make sense.

[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..

Yeah, he means TS%...the one that makes sense to use when comparing efficiency.

What we've never seen is 30ppg on ~70% TS%, which Curry is doing. Jordan's most efficient season was 32.5ppg on 61.4 TS%.

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 ~27 possesions and scored 32.5 points

Which one is more efficient?

Yes, I get that. But there is overlap into games. And what makes that more reliable in determining how effecient a scorer is than the basic stat of percentage of shots made over the course of a game?

An NBA game is 4 12 minute quarters. The game ends when time is up, not after a certain number of posessions. Over those 48 minutes, various factors can influence the number of posession numbers per game, as well touches.

Now, let me explain the analytical error I see here, as I see it. Advanced numbers that are calculated, that can be influenced by context are what I like to refer as layered statistics. More complicated, so they need a more complicated analysis. Advanced numbers are there simulate a players skill within a particular context to an accurate number. Unfortunately, concluding someone is individually a more effecient scorer because they have a higher TS% is not how to reach a conclusion with statistics like these. It's more of an intellectualization than a conclusion.

As omeone who has worked in research and statistics, I understand that when measuring the reliability of a statistic that is influenced by other measurable variables and contexts in order to ultimately make a conclusion, you need to measure the influence of these statistical variables BEFORE concluding the realiability of a the initial statistic that validates a claim (TS% is more reliable than FG%). Without doing so, the statistic may not be reliable to support your conclusion, which is why I can't quite look at certain advance statistics as conclusive proof. I've come to notice this methodology is ignored in advanced statistics in sports, and when fans use it. Even though I assume it should correlate..I may be wrong. Maybe there is a reason, and something within these numbers that would make a proper analysis reduntant, in that, they already take account for it.

If I am, I'd love for someone to explain why it wouldnt be necessary. Cause I always beat this dead horse, and if it's redundant, I'd like to know, so I can just role with it lol but as of now, I've put time and energy into working around these things in psychology, so I have a hard time just accepting that these numbers are "the answers", its just not how I have been taught to approach statistics, and genuinly feel fans use them incorrectly. Case in point, this entire little rant of mine here XD

So in light of this..I'm genuinly asking, not being smug, genuinly asking and trying to understand what makes TS% and TS% per certain # of posessions more reliable than a player's percentage of shots made in a game when it comes to effeciency. There is no complexicity, because its shots made/shots attempted. Simple..well, unless a player plays off ball. Like Curry does. Which is a skill, which would obvioisly even impact fg%.

Ah, what the hell. I'll accept any answer. I realize I'm personalizing this. Curry is still the most exciting player I've seen the last 15 years, and at his best, is a GOAT level offensive player and imo, is the best player in the game and a top 10 player all time. I think whats truly important is that we get to witness someone who is part of Nba history.

Also, lol at my change of mindset over the course of this message.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Egg Nog]

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..

Yeah, he means TS%...the one that makes sense to use when comparing efficiency.

What we've never seen is 30ppg on ~70% TS%, which Curry is doing. Jordan's most efficient season was 32.5ppg on 61.4 TS%.

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 ~27 possesions and scored 32.5 points

Which one is more efficient?

Yes, I get that. But there is overlap into games. And what makes that more reliable in determining how effecient a scorer is than the basic stat of percentage of shots made over the course of a game?

An NBA game is 4 12 minute quarters. The game ends when time is up, not after a certain number of posessions. Over those 48 minutes, various factors can influence the number of posession numbers per game, as well touches.

Now, let me explain the analytical error I see here, as I see it. Advanced numbers that are calculated, that can be influenced by context are what I like to refer as layered statistics. More complicated, so they need a more complicated analysis. Advanced numbers are there simulate a players skill within a particular context to an accurate number. Unfortunately, concluding someone is individually a more effecient scorer because they have a higher TS% is not how to reach a conclusion with statistics like these. It's more of an intellectualization than a conclusion.

As omeone who has worked in research and statistics, I understand that when measuring the reliability of a statistic that is influenced by other measurable variables and contexts in order to ultimately make a conclusion, you need to measure the influence of these statistical variables BEFORE concluding the realiability of a the initial statistic that validates a claim (TS% is more reliable than FG%). Without doing so, the statistic may not be reliable to support your conclusion, which is why I can't quite look at certain advance statistics as conclusive proof. I've come to notice this methodology is ignored in advanced statistics in sports, and when fans use it. Even though I assume it should correlate..I may be wrong. Maybe there is a reason, and something within these numbers that would make a proper analysis reduntant, in that, they already take account for it.

If I am, I'd love for someone to explain why it wouldnt be necessary. Cause I always beat this dead horse, and if it's redundant, I'd like to know, so I can just role with it lol but as of now, I've put time and energy into working around these things in psychology, so I have a hard time just accepting that these numbers are "the answers", its just not how I have been taught to approach statistics, and genuinly feel fans use them incorrectly. Case in point, this entire little rant of mine here XD

So in light of this..I'm genuinly asking, not being smug, genuinly asking and trying to understand what makes TS% and TS% per certain # of posessions more reliable than a player's percentage of shots made in a game when it comes to effeciency. There is no complexicity, because its shots made/shots attempted. Simple..well, unless a player plays off ball. Like Curry does. Which is a skill, which would obvioisly even impact fg%.

Ah, what the hell. I'll accept any answer. I realize I'm personalizing this. Curry is still the most exciting player I've seen the last 15 years, and at his best, is a GOAT level offensive player and imo, is the best player in the game and a top 10 player all time. I think whats truly important is that we get to witness someone who is part of Nba history.

Also, lol at my change of mindset over the course of this message.

Haha I love the overanalysis and the mindset change

Actual scoring efficiency is just how many points you produced relative to how many times you tried to score. Raw FGM/FGA is faulty because it ignores that some possessions end in free throws and also forgets that 3 > 2.

But you realize that already, so it's all good.

A hypothetical player could shoot 21-of-21 from the line every game, go 3-for-3 from deep every game, but then miss 10 shots from 2 every game. His "raw stats" would be vomit-inducing (career 30ppg on 23% shooting) but he'd actually be the GOAT scorer, which is exactly what TS% (and the ol' "eye test") would tell you. (And despite his scoring prowess, I'm sure at some point this guy's coach would ask him to stop shooting twos )

[Lenneth]

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.

Alright. Let me explain again. Dunking over people is arguably harder than making a layup or shooting a hookshot. But, if somebody is so dominating in the middle, and he is dunking over people 80% times, that alone should be able to prove that that person is the most dominating inside player in the league even though he shoots minimum number of easier inside shots. The same logic goes to Curry. 3 point is the hardest shot, and Curry is the best 3 point shooter in the history in terms of %/volume. And last time I check, 3 is 1.5 times more than 2. There is really no reason for Curry to shoot easier and inefficient midrange/long range 2 pointers when he can shoot 3, and that's why 55%+ shots are coming from behind the arc, and 75% of shoots are coming from either close range or behind arc. Other players like Bird, Dirk, KD didn't/couldn't shoot 3 like Curry, because they know they won't be as efficient if they shoot 55%+ from behind arc. Otherwise, they would shoot more 3 pts, because 3 is more than 2. Saying Curry is not the best shooter because he is not shooting enough easier/inefficient shots are... against common sense...

[michaelm]

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.

Do you think it is vaguely possible that Steph might be fairly good at getting to the position for the shot which is most efficient for him ?. Why the hell would he take a mid range shot if he can take a 3 point shot at high efficiency on the way to being in a position to take a mid range 2, or blow by the defence and get to the rim when he reaches that position?. He takes mid range shots when there is no alternative, and given his close to unmatched ability to find alternatives he hence takes few of them.

[ahmetmekin]

I don't know how mid range shots is a part of the argument If you know the meaning of fractions and percentages. He is shooting 50% behind the 3pt line this year and 50*3/2=75. Since shooting 75%+ from the mid range is almost impossible then he shouldn't take them unless it is necessary. Even if you replace 50%+ by 42%+ then the corresponding number for two point percentage is 63%+.

[michaelm]

Trying to rationalize it? Dude all Ive been doing is referencing stats. I dont know what to tell you, should we not look at MJ's post season stats because he was on an unbelievably stacked team? Should we not look at LeBron's final stats with Miami when he was on unbelievably stacked teams? Should we not look at any LeBron playoff stats not including the finals because his teams were so much more stacked than any other East team once the Miami era started?

Im referencing stats, youre using narratives. Id much rather use stats than narratives in an argument. This is a pointless conversation if no matter what numbers and stats I present, your argument is it doesnt fit your narrative so the numbers and stats dont matter. And again if you want to make the argument we shouldnt look at his stats when hes on a stacked team, we will be erasing a ton of NBA history and records because the NBA's history is loaded with unfairly stacked teams.

So mentioning stats with no context is all you need to be correct? Alright how are these stats:

Kevin Durant career avg: 27/7/4
Curry career avg: 23/4/6

Already we can see that KD is clearly superior to Curry.

...The Bulls were immensely talented but that was not due to having an all star team. Their composition was comparable to the competition as evidenced by hard fought series against the Sonics, Suns, and Jazz, and going to game 7s against the Knicks and Pacers.

The only remotely competitive series the KD warriors had was houston who only had 2 all stars and GSW still needed one to get injured.

There's a difference between being dominant in a balanced setting versus an advantaged one.

Where was Curry's 27/8/8 in 2016 finals? OH YEA, he was injured right? Just not when he was dropping 45 on portland and declaring "im back"

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.

I think you can blame Curry for not going to an alternative tactic/being able to up his own scoring (excluding injury excuses which it is reasonable to exclude) in the 2016 finals when passing it to Barnes wasn't working with Barnes shooting 25% or whatever on open shots. I don't think you can blame him for not being able to protect the rim against 2 guys who are other worldly at getting to the rim and at the rim when they get there when Ezeli and Varejao couldn't do so.

[michaelm]

I don't know how mid range shots is a part of the argument If you know the meaning of fractions and percentages. He is shooting 50% behind the 3pt line this year and 50*3/2=75. Since shooting 75%+ from the mid range is almost impossible then he shouldn't take them unless it is necessary. Even if you replace 50%+ by 42%+ then the corresponding number for two point percentage is 63%+.

The only argument I can see is that if you can manage to restrict say KD to midrange shots he will make them at a rate as good or better than anyone in history and damage the opposition team doing do.

I guess we don’t know if Steph can do that but unless he can be restricted to mid range shots it is not very relevant that I can see. There is certainly absolutely no reason he himself should choose to restrict himself to such shots/take them preferentially as you say.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

I thought curry might have his best season by shooting really good from 2 and getting back to near his 3 point levels. But he's just crushing from 3 instead.

[Heej]

He's incredible, the greatest shooter eve rand the cornerstone of the greatest offence ever.

If he were a mediocre shooter however the rest of his game would not justify him getting minutes in the NBA. If you had him switch places with his dad in the 90's he would only marginally be a better version of his dad.

The freedom of movement rules have been a disaster and the league needs to at least take away the corner three, it's just a jump shooting contest at this point.

His ability to handle the ball, set screens, contest for rebounds, play help defense, and finish inside wouldn't even keep him in the league if he played in the 60s. Am I doing it right?