RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #24 (Stephen Curry)

[Jordan Syndrome]

Tbf 2014 curry was definately before his breakout breakout year, he was still elite but the typical arguemtns for curry are his other worldly impact numbers and that year they were still elite but bot as other worldly as other years

Otoh, 2014 curry could have done what 2015 curry did im pretty sure so i think thats more on mark jackson

2014 Curry was basically "otherworldly".

TS Add: 211.3
OBPM: 6.3
OWS: 9.3
Ortg On/Off: +16.1 per 100

2008 Kobe Bryant
TS Add: 144.2
OBPM: 5.2
OWS: 9.4
Ortg On/Off: +6.2 per 100

1987 Magic Johnson
TS Add: 203.2
OBPM: 7.5
OWS: 12.1

07 Steve Nash
TS Add: 242.8
OBPM: 6.7
OWS: 10.8
Ortg On/Off: +13.0 per 100

2013 Curry
TS Add: 165.0
OBPM: 5.3
OWS: 8.4
Ortg On/Off: +8.1

Statistically speaking, 2014 Curry is in the Magic/Nash tier of all-time greats as an ultra-efficient scorer, yet Curry scored on higher volume than Magic and Nash. Curry's gravity and impact offensively was certainly popping out at an all-time level as early as 2013 and by 2014 it was definitely a case of "This is the best offensive guard since Peak Nash", which I would categorize as "Otherworldly" myself.

This idea of comparing players TS sounds really good in theory, theres alot it ignores. Your scoring effeciency should be measured through points above expectation not points above average.

Curry naturally is gonna take more high effeciency shots because a large part of his role in the offense is as a shooter beyond his in ball duties, thats naturally gonna be more effecient but it doesnt mean his scoring effeciency is higher neccessarily than someone doing a greater job at a less effecient role, and he wasnt used in a way where his off ball prowess was creating that many looks for his teammates like now. Id be curious what his POE is.

This would be true if we were comparing Rudy Gobert to Kobe Bryant but the fact is Steph Curry being able to take high efficiency shots where at a time they weren't high efficiency shots for anyone else but him is meaningful and impactful.

The Golden State Warriors in 2014 benefited immensely from Curry's off-ball prowess and gravity. The Warriors as a team were shooting 53.9 eFG% with Curry on the court and a mere 45.9 eFG% with Curry not playing--A swing of +8.0 eFG%. For reference, Peak Steve Nash was at +7.6 eFG% and John Stockton in 2001 was +6.1 eFG%.

Of course theres value to him being able to get these oppertunities in the furst place but poe is a far better indicator of "scoring impact" than comparing their ts, there are alot of things wrong with comparing two guys who play similar yet different roles in the offence through raw effeciency

Of course there are things that are wrong when making a comparison using statistics, statistics in and of themselves only capture one aspect of the game. You can keep beating around the bush and push aside "statistics" when they don't align with your ideologies or beliefs but the fact is, when using a variety of difference measures of offensive goodness and impact, Curry compares favorably to Peak Nash and Magic Johnson and ahead of Kobe Bryant. At a certain point you need to be able to put your preconceived notions behind and come to the realization of Steph Curry, in 2014, being an all-time great offensive player.

Im a fan of using raw on off contextually but you cant really raw compare players like that because of lineup variance and things like that, i like it more to compare trends and maybe their on court rating. Its mostly high from his off court rtg being so low, and while alot of people are gonna call it a lack of help, they basically didnt have a guy that could break down a defense or create other than curry, so its unsuprising how bad they werw with him off the court. When you think about offenses built around a star the "on court" rating is about what youd expect from the on court rating of a star in a league average offense, that the team and mark jackson couldnt run a stable offense without their only "off the dribble creator" off the floor isnt reallt indicative of curry having an absurd in court impact more so than the team lackkng in an area curry provides

Okay. Once again, you are doing what you did above--discredit numbers and try to explain why they are so high yet you aren't acknowledging the fact that Curry's numbers are on par with Nash and Magic.

The level Curry reached on court in 2014, +5.2 Rel League Average Offensive Rating, is in the ball-park of other all-time great offensive players.

RE: Bolded
Isn't it even more impressive that Curry was able to maintain an all-time great impact in 2014 without any elite on-ball playmakers? Outside of Klay Thompson and David Lee, no other player on the 2014 Warriors was able to eclipse a positive OBPM. Curry wasn't able to work off-ball with a player like Pau Gasol's skill-set in the post, Curry wasn't in a system designed to maximize his impact like Steve Nash in Phoenix and Curry wasn't playing with a loaded cast against mediocre conference foe's like Magic Johnson--and yet, Curry's impact is matching both Nash and Magic and eclipsing Kobe's.

At a certain point, instead of digging and digging on the beach and turning over every rock trying to disprove statistics or whathaveyou, you need to maybe, just maybe accept the fact that "Hey, maybe Curry was having all-time great impact, maybe the statistics aren't lying and maybe I should go back and watch some film from 2014."

Its also worth noting neither currys npi or pi rapm are near the outlier levels rhat they hit 2015-2020. I think rapm gets a but overhyped in that people forget its a measurement of impact with a fairly large level of noise at an individual level and tend to use it as a definitive ranking, but that, coupled with the fact that it should be crazy high based off of the type of roster he was in, makes me think curry in 2014 being the best offensive guard since peak nash is kinda odd[/b]

You agree that Mark Jackson was using Curry incorrectly in 2014, yes? You said that, yes?

RAPM measures a players impact within a role they play, yes?

You do realize there is a conflict of interest here...on one hand you state "Mark Jackson didn't know what he was doing with the team, Curry included" and on the other you say "Hey, this stat here, it measures how a player did in a role, it says Curry wasn't great in his"...Which one was it?

I get what people are trying to do with TS add to compare players and in general it kind of works for players in very similar roles, but 2 guys being the lead scorers isnt really close enough to being similar roles to use it

You can use TS Add however you want. I use it as a tool just as I use a brush to paint, but you won't find me measuring with a paint brush.

[sansterre]

1. John Stockton - I realize he's not a sexy pick, but he actually really good at his peak. Super efficient shooting, high assists, low turnovers, didn't make mistakes . . . I mean, he's just a really good point guard. Stockton's drawbacks? I see two. One, he never scored in volume (and for whatever reason, everybody loves volume scoring). And two, that he played with terminator-like consistency for so long with the same team that kept coming up short corrupts his narrative. Because Utah never won it's easy to dismiss Stockton with "just wasn't good enough, and that he played for so long just makes him not good enough for longer". Was he ever a Top 5 player? I don't think so. But he was almost certainly a Top 10 player for more than a decade. If he'd been the point guard in Chicago for the duration of his career he'd be ranked in the top 20 easy. But he played in Utah with Malone and not a whole lot else to work with. He was really good for really long. And that's enough for me.

2. Scottie Pippen - Basically, name anything that isn't "1st option scoring" and Pippen was amazing at it. Passing? Great. Rebounding? Really great. Defense? Pippen may be the best defensive non-big *ever*. Could he be the first option on an offense? He could, but it wasn't what he was built for. He was built for secondary playmaking, off-ball cutting, board crashing and murderous defense. If Pippen is your first option, you'd better have an amazing team around him to make it work. But if he's your second option . . . you're in a really good position. Pippen could fit on almost any roster ever. '74 Celtics instead of Havlicek? Sure! '90 Pistons instead of Rodman? Sure! He brings everything you could possibly want to the table and then some; Pippen was crazy scalable. He's prone to being underrated because he's not a first option scorer (at a championship level) but he was great at everything else and has a history of excellent postseason play. Do you realize how many roster combinations his skillset unlocks? Scottie Pippen may not be a flashy championship piece, but that doesn't make him less valuable.

3. Clyde Drexler - I know, I know, Drexler above Curry? But seriously. Drexler. He's got a Prime WOWYR comparable to Garnett, Kareem and Russell. He's got a career WOWYR comparable to Larry Bird and Steve Nash. He's a solid high usage scorer with decent efficiency, he's a good rebounder (and one of the best offensive rebounding 2s ever), he's a good passer who doesn't turn it over much and he was a very good defender, posting high steals and blocks totals consistently. Was he a dominant first option? No. But he was good at everything. And he carried the Blazers *hard*. I've looked at that roster: I'm not saying that it was garbage, but that team won the Western Conference twice only because of Drexler. When he was traded the Blazers went from averaging 107 points per game to 101 points per game for the rest of the year; losing him knocked them from being a +6.1 team to a +1.2 team (not adjusted for opposition). He carried a huge load, posting Heliocentrism ratings of 37% and 42% for two Conference Winners (43% and 38% in the playoffs for those years). Did he fall off in the playoffs? Yeah, a little. His volume shrank slightly and his efficiency dropped a bit, but not more than you'd expect against playoff opposition. And his rebounding, passing and defense retained value just fine. It's easy to point to the player with a narrow peak who had one insane skill (if that skill is scoring). Drexler was really good for a long peak (probably an 11-year peak from '87-'97) and he was good at *everything* which means that he'd be a quality addition to most rosters.

Here's Drexler's eleven year peak compared to Curry's eleven year peak (kidding, this is his whole career) (this is per game):

Curry: 23.5 / 4.5 / 6.6, 0.7 offensive rebounds, 1.7 steals, 3.1 turnovers, 62.3% TS, over 699 games
Drexler: 22.5 / 6.7 / 5.8, 2.6 offensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, 2.8 turnovers, 55.2% TS, over 779 games

Curry: 103.2 Win Shares, 0.207 WS/48, +6.4 BPM, 50.7 VORP
Drexler: 112.2 Win Shares, 0.189 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 57.9 VORP

Curry's the better scorer, no doubt. He's a slightly better passer. But Drexler's a much better rebounder and much better defender. And he's played in more games, which gives him more aggregate value (even if all the metrics think that Curry was slightly better per game).

But what about the playoffs?

Curry: 26.5 / 5.4 / 6.3, 0.8 offensive rebounds, 1.6 steals, 3.5 turnovers, 60.9% TS (112 games)
Drexler: 21.6 / 7.2 / 6.2, 2.5 offensive rebounds, 1.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers, 53.9% TS (122 games)

Curry: 17.1 Win Shares, 0.194 WS/48, +6.9 BPM, 9.5 VORP
Drexler: 14.7 Win Shares, 0.146 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 9.9 VORP

So at this point Curry's lead in scoring has expanded (the gap in efficiency is the same, but the volume gap has increased), but now Drexler's a comparable distributer with fewer turnovers, while being the better rebounder (especially offensive), and defender. The aggregate stats think that Curry was better in the playoffs, but not by much.

And let's not forget that Drexler has four more seasons that we're not even considering.

I'm just saying. Clyde Drexler was really good.

I get what youre saying for clyde but comparing their box score metrics ignore their roles, currys the engine but not neccesssarily their lead scorer

The idea is more so currys 5 year peak is so much higher than alot of the other candidates right now, which is fair. Hes not gonna be more important to his team, at least 17-19, because they were stacked as hell.

But given that he was playing with a top 3, maybe top 1 scorer in the league in KD, over his prime he was a good deal better at scoring and raw effeciency than drexler, and while i made the argument about POE for his 2014 year hes utilized in such a way off ball post kerr that theres alot more intrinsic impaxt in those off ball oppertunities over the rs

Also, keep in mind curry sits games early because how much they lead by as well. Its also a stupidly small sample but they were 2-3 without curry pre durant, for what its worth, 138-21 with

Per 36:
Dresler 24.2/6.7/5.9 on 55.9TS
Curry 28.7/5.3/7.1 on 64.8TS

His effeciency didnt go up much with durant either, volume just for obvious reasons isnt gonna be as high

I think that with curry the argument is that his career value isnt gonna be as high because his prime so far is only 5 seasons long.

Otoh though, i do think peak curry is more than a tier higher than the guys that are still on the board and have arguments at this spot

Like ive mentioned his dropoff in the playoffs, but the thing is, that dropoff is still a good deal higher than everyone elses peak, and even though his offensive style lacks consistency in playoff situations i feel, theres gonna be a ton of value in being so good that if you have a short roll big and the team is utilizing you correctly, you will instantly have a top 1-3 offense.

While i get the argument for career value km gonna pick 5 years of curry over alot of guys careers to win me a title

Oh, I'll grant you about Curry's peak being way better than Drexler's peak, but that just means that everything besides those five years for Curry is way worse than what Drexler averaged (since it seems like Curry's career and Drexler's best eleven are comparable). Per 36 aren't really fair, since Drexler played more minutes per game. And you can't really say that Curry's being underrated in the comparison because of his offensive role. Drexler would have given the hair he never had to play with the teammates Curry has had to work with. Do you think playing alongside Durant might have helped Drexler? That seems pretty likely to me.

If you're voting for peak, duh, Curry's your first second and third choices. But I think a pretty substantial argument can be made that Drexler's career brought more value than Curry's, even if we're giving extra credit to top years.

The hard part is I think that Golden State's success bleeds into Curry's even and above how good Curry has been, and Portland's struggles bleed into Drexler's reputation, even and above what is merited.

Consider Curry's 2016. It's one of the best seasons ever. But only one in three players in that area of performance won a title: '10 LeBron, '09 LeBron '89 Jordan and '88 Jordan all fell short. About that '15 season? A little bit less likely. My point is, because his best seasons happened when his surrounding talent was also really good, it's easy to think "Oh yeah, Curry was so good he was almost an automatic title". But he really wasn't; historically players that good aren't shoe-ins by a long shot. They're just more likely in that season than anyone else.

Drexler's '92 season? Players within 0.5 of his BPM that year won titles 23% of the time. Seasons in the low 5s? Around 12%. I guess, all I'm saying is that if you take enough all-star level seasons you hit titles with some frequency. For every seven or eight '90 Kevin Johnsons and '02 Dirk Nowitzkis you get your '08 Paul Pierce or your '01 Kobe Bryant.

Curry's peak was awesome. But I actually think that Drexler's overall CORP value is higher. I realize I'm spitting into the wind here, but I think it's a more reasonable discussion than some might think.

[Joey Wheeler]

1-Dywane Wade

Incredible force at his peak, one of the best Finals performances ever. Could be much higher if not for injuries/longevity. He's one of the greatest forces ever attacking the rim.

Since Curry seems the favorite to take this spot, why Wade over Curry? Better peak, better longevity still. Wade's performance deep in the 2006 playoffs is well beyond what Curry is capable of in that stage. Longevity tends to be an issue for Wade, but in comparison with Curry it's actually an advantage.

2-Isiah Thomas

Clear cut best player on a dynastic-type team (back to back champions, would have 3-peated if not for an egregious call + injury, 5 ECFs in a row) that overcame Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers. He lacks the individual dominance of other guys who were clear cut best players in dynastic type teams, but this is about the range where he belongs. Great floor general, could really ramp up his scoring when necessary and elevated his game in the playoffs. Also of course great intangibles, he was the captain of the team and set the tone for the "Bad Boy" culture.

3-TBD.

My instinct says Kawhi Leonard here, he lacks longevity compared to other candidates but at the same time I feel like he's proved enough in the playoffs for me to feel comfortable ranking him ahead of guys like Curry and Harden, despite their edge in longevity. Drexler is an interesting player here too, santerre makes a very compelling case for him.

[Magic Is Magic]

Curry has total of 7 prime seasons. In two of them (2013 and 2014) he arguably wasn't top 5 in the league. That gives us 5 all-time seasons, which include:

1. 2016 when Curry missed one and a half round in playoffs.
2. 2018 when Curry missed 31 games in RS and 6 playoff games.

That gives us 3 complete seasons, one when he missed significant time in playoffs and one when he didn't play large amount of both RS and playoffs. It's completelt fair to have Curry higher when your criteria are more about peak or if you don't care about durability. It's also perfectly fine to have Curry outside of top 25 if you do value these things.

I don't think Curry is that much better than someone like Steve Nash who has 12 such seasons (2001-12) vs Curry's 7. Nash missed total of 46 games in this period (less than 4 games per season), which is less than Curry missed in 2019 alone.

When you add that it's arguable if Curry is better than Nash at all, then what is the reason to call having Curry below Nash a farce? Because Curry won rings, right?

I'm curious how many guys do you think are still left to rank that are close to Curry's achievements:

5x Finals
3x Rings
2x MVPs
1x Scoring Title
1x 50/40/90 season on 30 ppg
1x Unanimous MVP (1st and only, yes I know)
-and 5 of the top 10 most made 3-pointers in RS (including #1, #3, and #4)

[MyUniBroDavis]

This would be true if we were comparing Rudy Gobert to Kobe Bryant but the fact is Steph Curry being able to take high efficiency shots where at a time they weren't high efficiency shots for anyone else but him is meaningful and impactful.

The Golden State Warriors in 2014 benefited immensely from Curry's off-ball prowess and gravity. The Warriors as a team were shooting 53.9 eFG% with Curry on the court and a mere 45.9 eFG% with Curry not playing--A swing of +8.0 eFG%. For reference, Peak Steve Nash was at +7.6 eFG% and John Stockton in 2001 was +6.1 eFG%.
.

Why do people use their full names lul

Again this is ignoring the nature of the shots they take. The idea that your role = quality of shots your taking isnt true, the quality of shots you take = the quality of shots you take. Harden takes more quality shots than kuzma for example despite having a much larger role

He obviously wasnt a spot up shooter or anything and his shots werent all jokes easy, but you cant compare someones TS where a large component of his game is his off ball shooting vs someone who doesnt have the component.

Its like looking at a volume scorer who scores mostly in transition vs a volume scorer who only operates in halfcourt and not seeing the problem in comparing their effeciency raw.

Theres two components to scoring value

Effeciency of shots you take vs an average guy in that role

The amount of high quality oppertunities your skillset creates

If youre creating transition oppertunities at a higher value vs the average guy that huves value, if your not doing that and your taking up transition oppertunities for a more effecient guy, and not being that effecient youre losing value

Make sense?

Currys skillset obviously does create high quality oppertunities that arent gonna be there for other players and hes better than the average guy in his position, but comparing their raw TS ignores the intricacies of how they score.

Lemme put it this way, if currys TS was the same as a guy like kobe or wades, thatd be pretty bad considering a large part of how he gets his points should be higher quality oppertunities

Its not arguing he isnt more effecient but comparing their raw TS is pretty lazy lol

Of course there are things that are wrong when making a comparison using statistics, statistics in and of themselves only capture one aspect of the game. You can keep beating around the bush and push aside "statistics" when they don't align with your ideologies or beliefs but the fact is, when using a variety of difference measures of offensive goodness and impact, Curry compares favorably to Peak Nash and Magic Johnson and ahead of Kobe Bryant. At a certain point you need to be able to put your preconceived notions behind and come to the realization of Steph Curry, in 2014, being an all-time great offensive player.

As far as i know bpm is a box score estimate using multiple regressions to estimate rapm, to say that it works pretty well in an overall sense is fine. On an individual sense it can be pretty crazy innaccurate.

I dont think i need to meantion win shares, ts added already explained the caveats

Neither npi or pi rapm have 2014 curry as best since nash, although hes pretty elite. Given that he was their only playmaker youd expect his impact to be overstated in the first place compared to his level of play

But best since nash is a huge stretch. TS add/box plus minus/win shares dont even use an impact component in their measurement, using them as your basis of indicidual evidence is weak. To blame me for handwaving the stats away when im doing this because of how they are caluclated is kinda odd lol

Okay. Once again, you are doing what you did above--discredit numbers and try to explain why they are so high yet you aren't acknowledging the fact that Curry's numbers are on par with Nash and Magic.

The level Curry reached on court in 2014, +5.2 Rel League Average Offensive Rating, is in the ball-park of other all-time great offensive players.

"Hey ur putting raw net rtg into context stop it!"

Theres a pretty substantial difference between best since nash and in the ball park of other great offensive players. While the team around him sucked, he was literally their only ball handler, of course theyre gonna suck without him

RE: Bolded
Isn't it even more impressive that Curry was able to maintain an all-time great impact in 2014 without any elite on-ball playmakers? Outside of Klay Thompson and David Lee, no other player on the 2014 Warriors was able to eclipse a positive OBPM. Curry wasn't able to work off-ball with a player like Pau Gasol's skill-set in the post, Curry wasn't in a system designed to maximize his impact like Steve Nash in Phoenix and Curry wasn't playing with a loaded cast against mediocre conference foe's like Magic Johnson--and yet, Curry's impact is matching both Nash and Magic and eclipsing Kobe's.

At a certain point, instead of digging and digging on the beach and turning over every rock trying to disprove statistics or whathaveyou, you need to maybe, just maybe accept the fact that "Hey, maybe Curry was having all-time great impact, maybe the statistics aren't lying and maybe I should go back and watch some film from 2014."[/b]

Imagine saying its suprising for a ball handler to have high impact on a team that has no other ball handlers to substitute in for him.

Yeah nah if curry played with like lillard he would have asked lillard to playmake him into a pick and roll

The inly thing that might have been marginalized is his off ball impact, which again only makes sense if you think playmaking is defined as not being able to execute set plays which any highschool level guy can do

Its not me denying stats lmfao its me understanding how to use them. You cant just pull them out not explain or now how to use them. Trying to say its MORE impressive curry has high impact on a team eithout a backup point guard shows that

You agree that Mark Jackson was using Curry incorrectly in 2014, yes? You said that, yes?

RAPM measures a players impact within a role they play, yes?

You do realize there is a conflict of interest here...on one hand you state "Mark Jackson didn't know what he was doing with the team, Curry included" and on the other you say "Hey, this stat here, it measures how a player did in a role, it says Curry wasn't great in his"...Which one was it?

I like how youre putting words in my mouth

I said that comparing raw TS isnt as effective as measuring how good they did in their role. I NEVER said curry didnt do great in his role.

Curry did amazing in his role. Mark jackson didnt know what he was doing and was using curry suboptimally compared to how kerr did.

Make sense?

Ive literally said Curry could do what he did in 2015 lol, but saying he, actually looking back in it, saying hes MORE impactful than nash or magic isnt true

You can use TS Add however you want. I use it as a tool just as I use a brush to paint, but you won't find me measuring with a paint brush.

No, you pulled out a stat threw a cancel card and when i explained why those stats are misleading in context you went "nah fam u biased"

Curry in 2014 could do what he did un 2015. In his role he didnt so he wasnt as impactful. His impact is going to be overstated because he was the only ball handler on his team. And despite that out of the plus minus metrics, both rapms have him in the 3-8 range offensively.

Using raw on-off, without mentioning their on or off court values or putting them into context...

Like how tf did u expect them to do without a ball handler of course theyre gonna suck lol

Looking through your saying he was as impactful as nash.

Imagine using a box score estimate of rapm, WIN SHARES, and raw on off without the on-off court rtgs to measure nash's impact, and then NOT mention rapm

I dont know what the heck this cringey brush BS is but ur brush has been revoked lol. You cant use impact data and then try to say its MORE impressive because he was their only playmaker/ball handler and then say im the one ignoring stats because i know how to use them

[eminence]

Umm... Drexler did almost all of his work off-ball, don't understand the focus on Curry as an off-ball guy in this particular comparison. Especially '14 Curry, who actually had a dang low Ast% on his shots (lower than '06 Wade for example and lower than all Kobe seasons that I can think off of the top of my head).

[freethedevil]

Title teams typically can survive the first round without their best player,a dn sometimes can survive the second round. This is why missing the conference and finals round is penalized much more heavily.

Not really. We saw the Blazers losing in 1978 without Walton. We've seen the #1 seed Bulls in 2012 lose without D Rose in the 1st round.
You wouldn't be referring to that bulls teams that lost 4-1 to a weaker version of the cavs WITH rose after having the best record in the league and winning 61 games? I wouldn't call that a title level team.. 79 Blazers are fair but I think its fair to consider that a anamoly given the team they lost to quite literally came a game of the title.

Or 2000 Spurs that lost in the first round without Duncan.
The 2000 spurs were a +5.92 srs team, being signifcantly worse in the rs than their 99 selves. Moreover the next season a vastly better versio of this team plpaying 63 win basketball got SWEPT in the conference final. Calling the 2000 spurs a title team i sa stretch.

Only the teams that are historically on the highest tier could be competitive in the second round without their best player.


->2016-2018 warriors, 2019 raptors, 12-13 heat, 9, 10 lakers are all teams I think could ghave survived the first round(especially as the first seed which is a credit to curry mind you) and been 'competitive' in round 2..

Dont think its the anamoly u think, ESPECIALLY, when your best player grants you the top seed.

->

[Jordan Syndrome]

This would be true if we were comparing Rudy Gobert to Kobe Bryant but the fact is Steph Curry being able to take high efficiency shots where at a time they weren't high efficiency shots for anyone else but him is meaningful and impactful.

The Golden State Warriors in 2014 benefited immensely from Curry's off-ball prowess and gravity. The Warriors as a team were shooting 53.9 eFG% with Curry on the court and a mere 45.9 eFG% with Curry not playing--A swing of +8.0 eFG%. For reference, Peak Steve Nash was at +7.6 eFG% and John Stockton in 2001 was +6.1 eFG%.
.

Why do people use their full names lul

I enjoy using full names and it is a habit of working in the professional landscape for decades.

Again this is ignoring the nature of the shots they take. The idea that your role = quality of shots your taking isnt true, the quality of shots you take = the quality of shots you take. Harden takes more quality shots than kuzma for example despite having a much larger role

He obviously wasnt a spot up shooter or anything and his shots werent all jokes easy, but you cant compare someones TS where a large component of his game is his off ball shooting vs someone who doesnt have the component.

Its like looking at a volume scorer who scores mostly in transition vs a volume scorer who only operates in halfcourt and not seeing the problem in comparing their effeciency raw.

Theres two components to scoring value

Effeciency of shots you take vs an average guy in that role

The amount of high quality oppertunities your skillset creates

If youre creating transition oppertunities at a higher value vs the average guy that huves value, if your not doing that and your taking up transition oppertunities for a more effecient guy, and not being that effecient youre losing value

Make sense?

Currys skillset obviously does create high quality oppertunities that arent gonna be there for other players and hes better than the average guy in his position, but comparing their raw TS ignores the intricacies of how they score.

Lemme put it this way, if currys TS was the same as a guy like kobe or wades, thatd be pretty bad considering a large part of how he gets his points should be higher quality oppertunities

I'll just say this because this discourse isn't productive.

Steph Curry's shot profile is far more impactful than someone like Kobe. Curry's skill-set and shot selection contorted defenses in a larger way than what Kobe Bryant was able to given the range and playmaking Steph Curry possessed in 2014.

I like how youre putting words in my mouth

I said that comparing raw TS isnt as effective as measuring how good they did in their role. I NEVER said curry didnt do great in his role.

Curry did amazing in his role. Mark jackson didnt know what he was doing and was using curry suboptimally compared to how kerr did.

Make sense?

Ive literally said Curry could do what he did in 2015 lol, but saying he, actually looking back in it, saying hes MORE impactful than nash or magic isnt true

You are lost. You said RAPM isn't high on Curry in 2014. You also said Curry was used sub-optimally in 2014. RAPM is directly correlated to how a player performs in a given role.

I'll connect the dots--Curry was used sub-optimally in 2014 thus his RAPM is a poor reflection of his impact in 2014.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Umm... Drexler did almost all of his work off-ball, don't understand the focus on Curry as an off-ball guy in this particular comparison. Especially '14 Curry, who actually had a dang low Ast% on his shots (lower than '06 Wade for example and lower than all Kobe seasons that I can think off of the top of my head).

If youre responding to me, I wasnt comparing him to drexler though, i was responding to someone else about 14 curry being on par with peak nash and magic in impact

On assist percentages, im pretty sure the guys were comapring to him, nash, paul, kobe, all had lower ones in terms of percentage of points

[Cavsfansince84]

Oh, I'll grant you about Curry's peak being way better than Drexler's peak, but that just means that everything besides those five years for Curry is way worse than what Drexler averaged (since it seems like Curry's career and Drexler's best eleven are comparable). Per 36 aren't really fair, since Drexler played more minutes per game. And you can't really say that Curry's being underrated in the comparison because of his offensive role. Drexler would have given the hair he never had to play with the teammates Curry has had to work with. Do you think playing alongside Durant might have helped Drexler? That seems pretty likely to me.

If you're voting for peak, duh, Curry's your first second and third choices. But I think a pretty substantial argument can be made that Drexler's career brought more value than Curry's, even if we're giving extra credit to top years.

The hard part is I think that Golden State's success bleeds into Curry's even and above how good Curry has been, and Portland's struggles bleed into Drexler's reputation, even and above what is merited.

I just want to say I think you are very low on Drexler's teammates and the degree to which Clyde carried those Blazer teams. I've always felt those were very talented and deep teams aided by being coached with one of the best hc's of that era. Porter was a great pg, Kersey fit the up tempo style of that team very well and Buck Williams was perfect fit for that team as a very good rebounding/defensive pf. Its also worth noting I think that from 90-92(the best Blazer teams that Clyde played on) Porter actually led those teams in both rs and ps win shares in 90 & 91 and in ps ws in 92. In short, I don't think Clyde actually carried those teams that much. He was the star player but not doing a LeBron circa 08-10 carry job.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I enjoy using full names and it is a habit of working in the professional landscape for decades.

Random flex lol

I'll just say this because this discourse isn't productive.
Steph Curry's shot profile is far more impactful than someone like Kobe. Curry's skill-set and shot selection contorted defenses in a larger way than what Kobe Bryant was able to given the range and playmaking Steph Curry possessed in 2014.

While thats a fair statement it also doesnt respond to the idea if comparing raw TS among players with different shot profiles not making sense

Kobes shot profile was partially inneffective because of the fact he operated less in transition than other wing stars of his era. Iirc his actual effeciency in the halfcourt from 08-10 was a good deal higher than both wade and brons in that span. The fact that la were simultaneously a top transition team implies that kobe was deferring transition oppertunites rather thab missing out on then

There are other factors but going into them would take awhile so ill save that for its own topic

You are lost. You said RAPM isn't high on Curry in 2014. You also said Curry was used sub-optimally in 2014. RAPM is directly correlated to how a player performs in a given role.

I'll connect the dots--Curry was used sub-optimally in 2014 thus his RAPM is a poor reflection of his impact in 2014.

i had a giant paragraph of pure slander because this sentence gave me an anuerism, but i dont wanna get warned, so let me rewrite this so you realize how ridiclous this sounds

You are lost. You said IMPACT isn't high on Curry in 2014. You also said Curry was used sub-optimally in 2014. IMPACT is directly correlated to how a player performs in a given role.

I'll connect the dots--Curry was used sub-optimally in 2014 thus his IMPACT is a poor reflection of his impact in 2014.

[eminence]

Umm... Drexler did almost all of his work off-ball, don't understand the focus on Curry as an off-ball guy in this particular comparison. Especially '14 Curry, who actually had a dang low Ast% on his shots (lower than '06 Wade for example and lower than all Kobe seasons that I can think off of the top of my head).

If youre responding to me, I wasnt comparing him to drexler though, i was responding to someone else about 14 curry being on par with peak nash and magic in impact

On assist percentages, im pretty sure the guys were comapring to him, nash, paul, kobe, all had lower ones in terms of percentage of points

"The idea if comparing raw TS among players with different shot profiles not making sense"

You were talking about comparing his shooting percentages to Kobe/Wade sorts and how that couldn't be done due to role. '14 Curry did approximately the same amount of on-ball work as Wade ever did, and notably more than Kobe.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Umm... Drexler did almost all of his work off-ball, don't understand the focus on Curry as an off-ball guy in this particular comparison. Especially '14 Curry, who actually had a dang low Ast% on his shots (lower than '06 Wade for example and lower than all Kobe seasons that I can think off of the top of my head).

If youre responding to me, I wasnt comparing him to drexler though, i was responding to someone else about 14 curry being on par with peak nash and magic in impact

On assist percentages, im pretty sure the guys were comapring to him, nash, paul, kobe, all had lower ones in terms of percentage of points

"The idea if comparing raw TS among players with different shot profiles not making sense"

You were talking about comparing his shooting percentages to Kobe/Wade sorts and how that couldn't be done due to role. '14 Curry did approximately the same amount of on-ball work as Wade ever did, and notably more than Kobe.

But shot profiles isnt the same as on ball role, im regetting my synergy subscription so i dont have access to it atm, but from what i remember small guards like curry/nash/paul are assisted less than wings are because of the nature of how they get their offense inside the arc off more pick and roll play compared to the other three, in the sense that isolation/post play is gonna more offen be cateogrized as assisted because if you catch, hold for a sexond and turn and rise over its an "assisted shot" That doesnt necessarily mean theyre more or less effecient, their style of play gravitates more towards a certain play type.

If we went by how many of their points were "functionally" assistedid be prettu suprised if a higher percentage of kobe/wade's points were assisted over the other currys.

I would agree that curry had the same or more of an on ball role than both but i dont neccessarily think he created more shots for himself if that makes sense

While i get this sounds cop out ish, this looks doubly true when looking at the assist rates of guys like nash and paul being extremely low as well, both being assisted 10% of their inaide the arc possessions.

Ex, im fairly sure wings like kobe bron and wade would be used more as iso bailout options, which would count as an assist but functionally not really be one.

But when comparing curry and other guys effeciencies, you have to keep in mind hes gonna have a good amount of possessions as that coming off of screens or spot up three type. Theres a to of value in having the ability for the offense to get these oppwrtunities but its not fair to compare this to guys that arent playing like that. Its like the idea of transition vs halfcourt but more granular, granted there are other things coming into play like wings being able to have more cutting players and curry not being able to do that, i dont quite think that evens it out.

Its not really as much so as currys TS is a lie or anything, its more so that alot of others are probably more effecient then their TS would indicate given their role in the offense as more bailout or mid shotclock iso when action is done type.

[No-more-rings]

1. John Stockton - I realize he's not a sexy pick, but he actually really good at his peak. Super efficient shooting, high assists, low turnovers, didn't make mistakes . . . I mean, he's just a really good point guard. Stockton's drawbacks? I see two. One, he never scored in volume (and for whatever reason, everybody loves volume scoring). And two, that he played with terminator-like consistency for so long with the same team that kept coming up short corrupts his narrative. Because Utah never won it's easy to dismiss Stockton with "just wasn't good enough, and that he played for so long just makes him not good enough for longer". Was he ever a Top 5 player? I don't think so. But he was almost certainly a Top 10 player for more than a decade. If he'd been the point guard in Chicago for the duration of his career he'd be ranked in the top 20 easy. But he played in Utah with Malone and not a whole lot else to work with. He was really good for really long. And that's enough for me.

2. Scottie Pippen - Basically, name anything that isn't "1st option scoring" and Pippen was amazing at it. Passing? Great. Rebounding? Really great. Defense? Pippen may be the best defensive non-big *ever*. Could he be the first option on an offense? He could, but it wasn't what he was built for. He was built for secondary playmaking, off-ball cutting, board crashing and murderous defense. If Pippen is your first option, you'd better have an amazing team around him to make it work. But if he's your second option . . . you're in a really good position. Pippen could fit on almost any roster ever. '74 Celtics instead of Havlicek? Sure! '90 Pistons instead of Rodman? Sure! He brings everything you could possibly want to the table and then some; Pippen was crazy scalable. He's prone to being underrated because he's not a first option scorer (at a championship level) but he was great at everything else and has a history of excellent postseason play. Do you realize how many roster combinations his skillset unlocks? Scottie Pippen may not be a flashy championship piece, but that doesn't make him less valuable.

3. Clyde Drexler - I know, I know, Drexler above Curry? But seriously. Drexler. He's got a Prime WOWYR comparable to Garnett, Kareem and Russell. He's got a career WOWYR comparable to Larry Bird and Steve Nash. He's a solid high usage scorer with decent efficiency, he's a good rebounder (and one of the best offensive rebounding 2s ever), he's a good passer who doesn't turn it over much and he was a very good defender, posting high steals and blocks totals consistently. Was he a dominant first option? No. But he was good at everything. And he carried the Blazers *hard*. I've looked at that roster: I'm not saying that it was garbage, but that team won the Western Conference twice only because of Drexler. When he was traded the Blazers went from averaging 107 points per game to 101 points per game for the rest of the year; losing him knocked them from being a +6.1 team to a +1.2 team (not adjusted for opposition). He carried a huge load, posting Heliocentrism ratings of 37% and 42% for two Conference Winners (43% and 38% in the playoffs for those years). Did he fall off in the playoffs? Yeah, a little. His volume shrank slightly and his efficiency dropped a bit, but not more than you'd expect against playoff opposition. And his rebounding, passing and defense retained value just fine. It's easy to point to the player with a narrow peak who had one insane skill (if that skill is scoring). Drexler was really good for a long peak (probably an 11-year peak from '87-'97) and he was good at *everything* which means that he'd be a quality addition to most rosters.

Here's Drexler's eleven year peak compared to Curry's eleven year peak (kidding, this is his whole career) (this is per game):

Curry: 23.5 / 4.5 / 6.6, 0.7 offensive rebounds, 1.7 steals, 3.1 turnovers, 62.3% TS, over 699 games
Drexler: 22.5 / 6.7 / 5.8, 2.6 offensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, 2.8 turnovers, 55.2% TS, over 779 games

Curry: 103.2 Win Shares, 0.207 WS/48, +6.4 BPM, 50.7 VORP
Drexler: 112.2 Win Shares, 0.189 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 57.9 VORP

Curry's the better scorer, no doubt. He's a slightly better passer. But Drexler's a much better rebounder and much better defender. And he's played in more games, which gives him more aggregate value (even if all the metrics think that Curry was slightly better per game).

But what about the playoffs?

Curry: 26.5 / 5.4 / 6.3, 0.8 offensive rebounds, 1.6 steals, 3.5 turnovers, 60.9% TS (112 games)
Drexler: 21.6 / 7.2 / 6.2, 2.5 offensive rebounds, 1.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers, 53.9% TS (122 games)

Curry: 17.1 Win Shares, 0.194 WS/48, +6.9 BPM, 9.5 VORP
Drexler: 14.7 Win Shares, 0.146 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 9.9 VORP

So at this point Curry's lead in scoring has expanded (the gap in efficiency is the same, but the volume gap has increased), but now Drexler's a comparable distributer with fewer turnovers, while being the better rebounder (especially offensive), and defender. The aggregate stats think that Curry was better in the playoffs, but not by much.

And let's not forget that Drexler has four more seasons that we're not even considering.

I'm just saying. Clyde Drexler was really good.

Up until this project I don’t think i’ve ever seen Drexler ranked ahead of Wade. And rarely Pippen, can you explain that?

[Jordan Syndrome]

I enjoy using full names and it is a habit of working in the professional landscape for decades.

Random flex lol

I'll just say this because this discourse isn't productive.
Steph Curry's shot profile is far more impactful than someone like Kobe. Curry's skill-set and shot selection contorted defenses in a larger way than what Kobe Bryant was able to given the range and playmaking Steph Curry possessed in 2014.

While thats a fair statement it also doesnt respond to the idea if comparing raw TS among players with different shot profiles not making sense

Kobes shot profile was partially inneffective because of the fact he operated less in transition than other wing stars of his era. Iirc his actual effeciency in the halfcourt from 08-10 was a good deal higher than both wade and brons in that span. The fact that la were simultaneously a top transition team implies that kobe was deferring transition oppertunites rather thab missing out on then

I'm not comparing Curry to inferior offensive players in the half-court like Wade--I was comparing Curry to guys like Magic and Nash.

Curry was great at controlling pace, even in 2014.

I will also say Kobe could never replicate Curry's shot profile and Curry's shot profile and off-ball gravity out-weighed Kobe's.

I simply look at Curry's 2014 season and walk away with the conclusion of it being in the lower end of the GOAT tier of offensive seasons--something Kobe never approached.

If you don't think Curry's value was "outlandish" then perhaps you could point me in the direction of what you classify as "outlandish".

[MyUniBroDavis]

I enjoy using full names and it is a habit of working in the professional landscape for decades.

Random flex lol

I'll just say this because this discourse isn't productive.
Steph Curry's shot profile is far more impactful than someone like Kobe. Curry's skill-set and shot selection contorted defenses in a larger way than what Kobe Bryant was able to given the range and playmaking Steph Curry possessed in 2014.

While thats a fair statement it also doesnt respond to the idea if comparing raw TS among players with different shot profiles not making sense

Kobes shot profile was partially inneffective because of the fact he operated less in transition than other wing stars of his era. Iirc his actual effeciency in the halfcourt from 08-10 was a good deal higher than both wade and brons in that span. The fact that la were simultaneously a top transition team implies that kobe was deferring transition oppertunites rather thab missing out on then

I'm not comparing Curry to inferior offensive players in the half-court like Wade--I was comparing Curry to guys like Magic and Nash.

Curry was great at controlling pace, even in 2014.

I will also say Kobe could never replicate Curry's shot profile and Curry's shot profile and off-ball gravity out-weighed Kobe's.

I simply look at Curry's 2014 season and walk away with the conclusion of it being in the lower end of the GOAT tier of offensive seasons--something Kobe never approached.

If you don't think Curry's value was "outlandish" then perhaps you could point me in the direction of what you classify as "outlandish".

*ignores bron and only mentions wade

Its fine to say currys skillset offensively in 2014 was in the lower toer of goat offensive tier based on hkm being the same guy he was in 2015 mostly

If youre arguing that his actual level of play in 2014 is on that goat tier level thats different. His impact which is naturally inflated is still around that 3-10 range in pi and npi rapm, his on court offensive rtg is good for a superstar offensive guy, not great, and the off court offensive rtg is gonna be inflated.

Like how you skimmed over the fact you dont know what impact means

I dont know why youre continuing to bring up kobe lol. Is it really just cuz i mentioned im high on kobe in response to another post completely unrelated to curry?

2014 curry is a top tier all time offensive player. His level of play because he was used sub optimally was not, but it was still pretty high elite tier, and amonf the best in the league

What makes this so hard to understand

I consider outlandish when its outlier levels. Nashs impact numbers stood out from the crowd, currys are in line with the top members of the crowd


Outlandish is when someone is outlier level. Being one of the top guys in the league in impact isnt outlandish, its elite

[Jordan Syndrome]

If youre responding to me, I wasnt comparing him to drexler though, i was responding to someone else about 14 curry being on par with peak nash and magic in impact

On assist percentages, im pretty sure the guys were comapring to him, nash, paul, kobe, all had lower ones in terms of percentage of points

"The idea if comparing raw TS among players with different shot profiles not making sense"

You were talking about comparing his shooting percentages to Kobe/Wade sorts and how that couldn't be done due to role. '14 Curry did approximately the same amount of on-ball work as Wade ever did, and notably more than Kobe.

But shot profiles isnt the same as on ball role, im regetting my synergy subscription so i dont have access to it atm, but from what i remember small guards like curry/nash/paul are assisted less than wings are because of the nature of how they get their offense inside the arc off more pick and roll play compared to the other three, in the sense that isolation/post play is gonna more offen be cateogrized as assisted because if you catch, hold for a sexond and turn and rise over its an "assisted shot" That doesnt necessarily mean theyre more or less effecient, their style of play gravitates more towards a certain play type.

If we went by how many of their points were "functionally" assistedid be prettu suprised if a higher percentage of kobe/wade's points were assisted over the other currys.

I would agree that curry had the same or more of an on ball role than both but i dont neccessarily think he created more shots for himself if that makes sense

While i get this sounds cop out ish, this looks doubly true when looking at the assist rates of guys like nash and paul being extremely low as well, both being assisted 10% of their inaide the arc possessions.

Ex, im fairly sure wings like kobe bron and wade would be used more as iso bailout options, which would count as an assist but functionally not really be one.

But when comparing curry and other guys effeciencies, you have to keep in mind hes gonna have a good amount of possessions as that coming off of screens or spot up three type. Theres a to of value in having the ability for the offense to get these oppwrtunities but its not fair to compare this to guys that arent playing like that. Its like the idea of transition vs halfcourt but more granular, granted there are other things coming into play like wings being able to have more cutting players and curry not being able to do that, i dont quite think that evens it out.

Its not really as much so as currys TS is a lie or anything, its more so that alot of others are probably more effecient then their TS would indicate given their role in the offense as more bailout or mid shotclock iso when action is done type.

One of the hallmarks of the 2014 Golden State Warriors was their lack of late shot clock shots. The team averaged 4.8 FGA/G in the 0-4 second time period (6.0% of their total shots). The Warriors have led the league multiple times since then, in large part due to the teams (Curry) ability to score early in the shot clock.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Outlandish is when someone is outlier level. Being one of the top guys in the league in impact isnt outlandish, its elite

I see. I consider Curry outlandish because I believe his level of play and impact to be on the Nash/Magic level in 2014--you don't.

[MyUniBroDavis]

"The idea if comparing raw TS among players with different shot profiles not making sense"

You were talking about comparing his shooting percentages to Kobe/Wade sorts and how that couldn't be done due to role. '14 Curry did approximately the same amount of on-ball work as Wade ever did, and notably more than Kobe.

But shot profiles isnt the same as on ball role, im regetting my synergy subscription so i dont have access to it atm, but from what i remember small guards like curry/nash/paul are assisted less than wings are because of the nature of how they get their offense inside the arc off more pick and roll play compared to the other three, in the sense that isolation/post play is gonna more offen be cateogrized as assisted because if you catch, hold for a sexond and turn and rise over its an "assisted shot" That doesnt necessarily mean theyre more or less effecient, their style of play gravitates more towards a certain play type.

If we went by how many of their points were "functionally" assistedid be prettu suprised if a higher percentage of kobe/wade's points were assisted over the other currys.

I would agree that curry had the same or more of an on ball role than both but i dont neccessarily think he created more shots for himself if that makes sense

While i get this sounds cop out ish, this looks doubly true when looking at the assist rates of guys like nash and paul being extremely low as well, both being assisted 10% of their inaide the arc possessions.

Ex, im fairly sure wings like kobe bron and wade would be used more as iso bailout options, which would count as an assist but functionally not really be one.

But when comparing curry and other guys effeciencies, you have to keep in mind hes gonna have a good amount of possessions as that coming off of screens or spot up three type. Theres a to of value in having the ability for the offense to get these oppwrtunities but its not fair to compare this to guys that arent playing like that. Its like the idea of transition vs halfcourt but more granular, granted there are other things coming into play like wings being able to have more cutting players and curry not being able to do that, i dont quite think that evens it out.

Its not really as much so as currys TS is a lie or anything, its more so that alot of others are probably more effecient then their TS would indicate given their role in the offense as more bailout or mid shotclock iso when action is done type.

One of the hallmarks of the 2014 Golden State Warriors was their lack of late shot clock shots. The team averaged 4.8 FGA/G in the 0-4 second time period (6.0% of their total shots). The Warriors have led the league multiple times since then, in large part due to the teams (Curry) ability to score early in the shot clock.

For 2014

It was actually 7.6FGA/G and 9.8% of his shots, which was 6th least the league

7-4 seconds is at 12.2%, 9.7, 4th most in the league, so idk if that hypothesis holds up

[Jordan Syndrome]

But shot profiles isnt the same as on ball role, im regetting my synergy subscription so i dont have access to it atm, but from what i remember small guards like curry/nash/paul are assisted less than wings are because of the nature of how they get their offense inside the arc off more pick and roll play compared to the other three, in the sense that isolation/post play is gonna more offen be cateogrized as assisted because if you catch, hold for a sexond and turn and rise over its an "assisted shot" That doesnt necessarily mean theyre more or less effecient, their style of play gravitates more towards a certain play type.

If we went by how many of their points were "functionally" assistedid be prettu suprised if a higher percentage of kobe/wade's points were assisted over the other currys.

I would agree that curry had the same or more of an on ball role than both but i dont neccessarily think he created more shots for himself if that makes sense

While i get this sounds cop out ish, this looks doubly true when looking at the assist rates of guys like nash and paul being extremely low as well, both being assisted 10% of their inaide the arc possessions.

Ex, im fairly sure wings like kobe bron and wade would be used more as iso bailout options, which would count as an assist but functionally not really be one.

But when comparing curry and other guys effeciencies, you have to keep in mind hes gonna have a good amount of possessions as that coming off of screens or spot up three type. Theres a to of value in having the ability for the offense to get these oppwrtunities but its not fair to compare this to guys that arent playing like that. Its like the idea of transition vs halfcourt but more granular, granted there are other things coming into play like wings being able to have more cutting players and curry not being able to do that, i dont quite think that evens it out.

Its not really as much so as currys TS is a lie or anything, its more so that alot of others are probably more effecient then their TS would indicate given their role in the offense as more bailout or mid shotclock iso when action is done type.

One of the hallmarks of the 2014 Golden State Warriors was their lack of late shot clock shots. The team averaged 4.8 FGA/G in the 0-4 second time period (6.0% of their total shots). The Warriors have led the league multiple times since then, in large part due to the teams (Curry) ability to score early in the shot clock.

For 2014

It was actually 7.6FGA/G and 9.8% of his shots, which was 6th least the league

7-4 seconds is at 12.2%, 9.7, 4th most in the league, so idk if that hypothesis holds up

NBA.com must be lying to me then. The stats I see are 4.8 FGA and 6.0% of total shots in the 4-0 range. Are you sure you are on the correct tab?