NBA All Star Weekend Thread: Pistons Edition

[Manocad]

No it isn't. Steve Nash has the same career 3PT % as Curry at 42.8% (and Nash's 2PT % is actually higher at 49.0% vs 47.3%),

Nash was the precursor to Curry's era but he still isn't touching Curry in terms of difficulty and overall volume he's doing this at. When comparing elite shooters, the percentages are a given, it's at that point you look at the raw volume, how contested they are, and how often they're doubled. And so far, Curry is doing everything Nash, Reggie, Allen, Korver can do but on practically the same exact efficiency and far better volume. That's not to even mention that he's doing this while being double teamed on every possession and still making shots despite it. IE, those others shooter aren't shooting 47% from step back jumpers from the 3 point line among other high degree of difficulty shots (source: https://www.nba.com/stats/player/201939/shooting/)

he was much more of a pass first PG than Curry (double the assists Curry has in 50% more career games).

If you're putting up shooting percentages like Curry on high volume and the ability to make shots anywhere on the court, you're going to pass less. That's a given

just a lot fewer attempts because It's become a 3PT shooter's game now so younger players are going to be focusing on that a lot more moving forward rather than the slashing/dunking that was prevalent in the previous generation.

He still played in the era when Nash and Kidd were still stars in the league so it's not like he hasn't had that experience of the slower, less dynamic offense that is opposite of the present. He played for old ass Don Nelson in his rookie years. It's not like he started off as this 3 point phenom looking to shatter records right away. It only really happened back starting in 2015

Curry has consistently been one of the most doubled players in the league from 30 feet on out which he's been the face of. This is partly the reason why he takes such shots from 30+ feet on out since that's really the only day light he's given. The fact that he's regularly taking long balls like this while maintaining Nash, Miller, Allen like TS% efficiency is in another level of its own. He's clearly an outlier and Curry's career TS% (.62) vs Nash (.605) is superior while maintaining high volumes and beating defensive coverage

We will see other shooters that can replicate his volume and high percentages, but it'll likely take a while before we can see it happening to the degree of difficult it's happening. The guy has 36 games to his belt already with making more than 9 three-pointers in a game with the next closest second being at 9 games from James Harden and Lillard. That's just one factoid, he's clearly an anomaly in this league, hell any era of the league

But he's not far ahead of other great shooters in percentages, like Bonds, Aaron and Ruth are above other home run hitters or Nolan Ryan's strikeouts. Curry happens to be the best shooter in the first generation that focused on 3 point shooting as being an offensive strategy so he shoots a lot of them. Kyle Korver actually has a higher career 3PT % than Curry at 42.9%.

Percentages are fine, but once you're an established elite shooter, percentages are just the baseline (40%+) and the discussion more towards overall volume and difficulty. Korver is a great shooter, but he still isn't at to the volume and difficulty Curry's been doing this. He's only made 2450 while Curry is currently at 3083 in 400 less games than Korver ever played. If Curry was only relegated the same role Korver had ie spot up and off ball shooting, then Curry would likely have the same career 3pt% or perhaps better than Korver either way considering they're already close as is with Curry playing a far more nuanced role than Korver ever had. Really, if you took away what would it considered a "bad" shot for Korver (ie a step back 25 footer, pull up from 35 feet) and applied it to Curry, he gets to Korver percentages quite easily

Really, their differences in shot charts is noticeable:
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/stephen-curry-career-shot-chart
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/kyle-korver-career-shot-chart
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/steve-nash-career-shot-chart

Ok, so you see it as difficult that another shooter like Curry could come along "in a while" and I don't. If he was shooting 50+% while all the other guys in NBA history were topping out at 43% it would be a different story. Like Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs which was more than every entire team in MLB other than three the first year he hit 60. That's the kind of stuff that qualifies as "he's in a league by himself and it's not even close" to me and makes me say "It's going to be long time before another person comes along doing this, if ever."

[Cowology]

^ That didn't really address the whole "level of difficulty" argument, which puts the fg% into context.

If you and I both take 10 shots and both make 5 shots, but your 10 shots came against a double team and mine did not, are you still going to conclude that we are equal? What about if my 10 shots came from 5 feet further back? They count the same in the boxscore, but are we equal in terms of our ability?

The Babe Ruth analogy seems a little skewed as well because it's presumptive that in that instance everybody is facing the same competition, yes? You aren't designing defensive schemes and throwing entire teams at him. It's still the same 1 v 1 that ever other player has to face, unlike the NBA.

[Manocad]

^ That didn't really address the whole "level of difficulty" argument, which puts the fg% into context.

If you and I both take 10 shots and both make 5 shots, but your 10 shots came against a double team and mine did not, are you still going to conclude that we are equal? What about if my 10 shots came from 5 feet further back? They count the same in the boxscore, but are we equal in terms of our ability?

The Babe Ruth analogy seems a little skewed as well because it's presumptive that in that instance everybody is facing the same competition, yes? You aren't designing defensive schemes and throwing entire teams at him. It's still the same 1 v 1 that ever other player has to face, unlike the NBA.

Not all of Curry's shots come against double teams, they're not all from 35 feet out, and you have no way of knowing whether or not he'd shoot a higher percentage shooting the so-called "easier" shots that apparently everyone else but him shoots.

The Babe Ruth analogy is a perfect example of being otherworldly better than your peers BECAUSE it was the same comparative matchups. He was facing the same pitchers as everyone else using a regulation bat and hitting the same regulation baseballs as everyone else, and the first year he hit 60 home runs he himself hit more than all but three ENTIRE TEAMS. The previous career HR record was 138 and Ruth broke that during his 4th full season in the league batting full time (he had started as a pitcher and thus only batted in games he played).

If you think Curry is doing something that no one else will be capable of doing for a while, have at it. I simply don't see it because while Curry will put together a career resume that will be very impressive and tough to duplicate, it's not like he's doing things right now that are so far beyond his peers, like shooting 50% vs 43%, or making the equivalent of 60 HR's in makes (so far this season he's hit 251 3's while FVV has the second most 3's at 201) that you'd never expect someone to do it again.

[Cowology]

^ That didn't really address the whole "level of difficulty" argument, which puts the fg% into context.

If you and I both take 10 shots and both make 5 shots, but your 10 shots came against a double team and mine did not, are you still going to conclude that we are equal? What about if my 10 shots came from 5 feet further back? They count the same in the boxscore, but are we equal in terms of our ability?

The Babe Ruth analogy seems a little skewed as well because it's presumptive that in that instance everybody is facing the same competition, yes? You aren't designing defensive schemes and throwing entire teams at him. It's still the same 1 v 1 that ever other player has to face, unlike the NBA.

Not all of Curry's shots come against double teams, they're not all from 35 feet out, and you have no way of knowing whether or not he'd shoot a higher percentage shooting the so-called "easier" shots that apparently everyone else but him shoots.

I assumed we'd both recognize that my example was symbolic and not literal. Obviously not every shot was 35 ft away and facing a double team, so arguing against that is a bit disingenuous. It still doesn't address the core argument that Curry faces more difficult shots than your other examples such as Korver & Nash. If you want to argue that's not an easily quantifiable distinction I'll agree 100%. That was sort of my point; you really can't quantify it by looking at a shooting %.

The Babe Ruth analogy is a perfect example of being otherworldly better than your peers BECAUSE it was the same comparative matchups. He was facing the same pitchers as everyone else using a regulation bat and hitting the same regulation baseballs as everyone else, and the first year he hit 60 home runs he himself hit more than all but three ENTIRE TEAMS. The previous career HR record was 138 and Ruth broke that during his 4th full season in the league batting full time (he had started as a pitcher and thus only batted in games he played).

Great argument within the context of the same sport. Yes, it's a great example for Ruth when compared to other baseball players. That doesn't explain why you think it translate to another sport where that is NOT possible.

If you think Curry is doing something that no one else will be capable of doing for a while, have at it. I simply don't see it because while Curry will put together a career resume that will be very impressive and tough to duplicate, it's not like he's doing things right now that are so far beyond his peers, like shooting 50% vs 43%, or making the equivalent of 60 HR's in makes (so far this season he's hit 251 3's while FVV has the second most 3's at 201) that you'd never expect someone to do it again.

If you continue to build arguments on the fallacy that fg% are equitable regardless of condition and that your ability to statistically quantify excellence between sport is possible through direct comparison, despite vastly different circumstance then I guess I don't really have a response to that. *shrug* So be it.

[Manocad]

^ That didn't really address the whole "level of difficulty" argument, which puts the fg% into context.

If you and I both take 10 shots and both make 5 shots, but your 10 shots came against a double team and mine did not, are you still going to conclude that we are equal? What about if my 10 shots came from 5 feet further back? They count the same in the boxscore, but are we equal in terms of our ability?

The Babe Ruth analogy seems a little skewed as well because it's presumptive that in that instance everybody is facing the same competition, yes? You aren't designing defensive schemes and throwing entire teams at him. It's still the same 1 v 1 that ever other player has to face, unlike the NBA.

Not all of Curry's shots come against double teams, they're not all from 35 feet out, and you have no way of knowing whether or not he'd shoot a higher percentage shooting the so-called "easier" shots that apparently everyone else but him shoots.

I assumed we'd both recognize that my example was symbolic and not literal. Obviously not every shot was 35 ft away and facing a double team, so arguing against that is a bit disingenuous. It still doesn't address the core argument that Curry faces more difficult shots than your other examples such as Korver & Nash. If you want to argue that's not an easily quantifiable distinction I'll agree 100%. That was sort of my point; you really can't quantify it by looking at a shooting %.

The Babe Ruth analogy is a perfect example of being otherworldly better than your peers BECAUSE it was the same comparative matchups. He was facing the same pitchers as everyone else using a regulation bat and hitting the same regulation baseballs as everyone else, and the first year he hit 60 home runs he himself hit more than all but three ENTIRE TEAMS. The previous career HR record was 138 and Ruth broke that during his 4th full season in the league batting full time (he had started as a pitcher and thus only batted in games he played).

Great argument within the context of the same sport. Yes, it's a great example for Ruth when compared to other baseball players. That doesn't explain why you think it translate to another sport where that is NOT possible.

If you think Curry is doing something that no one else will be capable of doing for a while, have at it. I simply don't see it because while Curry will put together a career resume that will be very impressive and tough to duplicate, it's not like he's doing things right now that are so far beyond his peers, like shooting 50% vs 43%, or making the equivalent of 60 HR's in makes (so far this season he's hit 251 3's while FVV has the second most 3's at 201) that you'd never expect someone to do it again.

If you continue to build arguments on the fallacy that fg% are equitable regardless of condition and that your ability to statistically quantify excellence between sport is possible through direct comparison, despite vastly different circumstance then I guess I don't really have a response to that. *shrug* So be it.

The Babe Ruth example has nothing to do with which sport it's in. It's the fact that what he did was so far beyond what anyone else doing that he instantly qualified as being someone within his sport that was multitudes better than those around him (which he then of course continued for a career). Curry is not putting up stats that are multitudes better than those around him. Better, for sure. But not multitudes better. To disqualify the analogy as being inapplicable relative to what constitutes being so much better than your peers that your feats will be extremely difficult to duplicate, if ever, is disingenuous on your part.

Stick to addressing the argument and let's stay away from addressing the poster, shall we? Hypocrisy is a stinky cologne.

[Cowology]

Not all of Curry's shots come against double teams, they're not all from 35 feet out, and you have no way of knowing whether or not he'd shoot a higher percentage shooting the so-called "easier" shots that apparently everyone else but him shoots.

I assumed we'd both recognize that my example was symbolic and not literal. Obviously not every shot was 35 ft away and facing a double team, so arguing against that is a bit disingenuous. It still doesn't address the core argument that Curry faces more difficult shots than your other examples such as Korver & Nash. If you want to argue that's not an easily quantifiable distinction I'll agree 100%. That was sort of my point; you really can't quantify it by looking at a shooting %.

The Babe Ruth analogy is a perfect example of being otherworldly better than your peers BECAUSE it was the same comparative matchups. He was facing the same pitchers as everyone else using a regulation bat and hitting the same regulation baseballs as everyone else, and the first year he hit 60 home runs he himself hit more than all but three ENTIRE TEAMS. The previous career HR record was 138 and Ruth broke that during his 4th full season in the league batting full time (he had started as a pitcher and thus only batted in games he played).

Great argument within the context of the same sport. Yes, it's a great example for Ruth when compared to other baseball players. That doesn't explain why you think it translate to another sport where that is NOT possible.

If you think Curry is doing something that no one else will be capable of doing for a while, have at it. I simply don't see it because while Curry will put together a career resume that will be very impressive and tough to duplicate, it's not like he's doing things right now that are so far beyond his peers, like shooting 50% vs 43%, or making the equivalent of 60 HR's in makes (so far this season he's hit 251 3's while FVV has the second most 3's at 201) that you'd never expect someone to do it again.

If you continue to build arguments on the fallacy that fg% are equitable regardless of condition and that your ability to statistically quantify excellence between sport is possible through direct comparison, despite vastly different circumstance then I guess I don't really have a response to that. *shrug* So be it.

The Babe Ruth example has nothing to do with which sport it's in. It's the fact that what he did was so far beyond what anyone else doing that he instantly qualified as being someone within his sport that was multitudes better than those around him (which he then of course continued for a career). Curry is not putting up stats that are multitudes better than those around him. Better, for sure. But not multitudes better. To disqualify the analogy as being inapplicable relative to what constitutes being so much better than your peers that your feats will be extremely difficult to duplicate, if ever, is disingenuous on your part.

Stick to addressing the argument and let's stay away from addressing the poster, shall we? Hypocrisy is a stinky cologne.

I was actually trying really hard to have a civil conversation with you.

[Manocad]

I assumed we'd both recognize that my example was symbolic and not literal. Obviously not every shot was 35 ft away and facing a double team, so arguing against that is a bit disingenuous. It still doesn't address the core argument that Curry faces more difficult shots than your other examples such as Korver & Nash. If you want to argue that's not an easily quantifiable distinction I'll agree 100%. That was sort of my point; you really can't quantify it by looking at a shooting %.
Great argument within the context of the same sport. Yes, it's a great example for Ruth when compared to other baseball players. That doesn't explain why you think it translate to another sport where that is NOT possible.
If you continue to build arguments on the fallacy that fg% are equitable regardless of condition and that your ability to statistically quantify excellence between sport is possible through direct comparison, despite vastly different circumstance then I guess I don't really have a response to that. *shrug* So be it.

The Babe Ruth example has nothing to do with which sport it's in. It's the fact that what he did was so far beyond what anyone else doing that he instantly qualified as being someone within his sport that was multitudes better than those around him (which he then of course continued for a career). Curry is not putting up stats that are multitudes better than those around him. Better, for sure. But not multitudes better. To disqualify the analogy as being inapplicable relative to what constitutes being so much better than your peers that your feats will be extremely difficult to duplicate, if ever, is disingenuous on your part.

Stick to addressing the argument and let's stay away from addressing the poster, shall we? Hypocrisy is a stinky cologne.

I was actually trying really hard to have a civil conversation with you.

By accusing me of being disingenuous? Sure.

You're making a statement of fact that Curry's shots have a higher level of difficulty than his peers. What's the measure you're using which establishes Curry as shooting at a higher level of difficulty? To do so would require watching all shots by all players, assigning each a value of difficulty (in and of itself yet another measure), then compiling all the results. Please provide that data.

[Cowology]

The Babe Ruth example has nothing to do with which sport it's in. It's the fact that what he did was so far beyond what anyone else doing that he instantly qualified as being someone within his sport that was multitudes better than those around him (which he then of course continued for a career). Curry is not putting up stats that are multitudes better than those around him. Better, for sure. But not multitudes better. To disqualify the analogy as being inapplicable relative to what constitutes being so much better than your peers that your feats will be extremely difficult to duplicate, if ever, is disingenuous on your part.

Stick to addressing the argument and let's stay away from addressing the poster, shall we? Hypocrisy is a stinky cologne.

I was actually trying really hard to have a civil conversation with you.

By accusing me of being disingenuous? Sure.

You're making a statement of fact that Curry's shots have a higher level of difficulty than his peers. What's the measure you're using which establishes Curry as shooting at a higher level of difficulty? To do so would require watching all shots by all players, assigning each a value of difficulty (in and of itself yet another measure), then compiling all the results. Please provide that data.

And that's another perfect example of a disingenuous argument. You set parameters and then demand an answer contingent upon those parameters, when I'm under no obligation to do so. I've already stated it's not easily quantifiable with numbers and what I've argued against is that it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. It's an extremist & unreasonable argument. "Well, if you can make that shot then go ahead and make it 100 times in a row to prove it!" DBC10 has also already provided some pretty compelling data, which supported this argument.

Most reasonable people on this board would agree that Steph takes more difficult shots than Kyle Korver. Why are we really even arguing about this?

And to be clear; stating that an argument is disingenuous and explaining why is not the same thing as attacking you personally. I'm attacking your argument.

[Manocad]

I was actually trying really hard to have a civil conversation with you.

By accusing me of being disingenuous? Sure.

You're making a statement of fact that Curry's shots have a higher level of difficulty than his peers. What's the measure you're using which establishes Curry as shooting at a higher level of difficulty? To do so would require watching all shots by all players, assigning each a value of difficulty (in and of itself yet another measure), then compiling all the results. Please provide that data.

And that's another perfect example of a disingenuous argument. You set parameters and then demand an answer contingent upon those parameters, when I'm under no obligation to do so. I've already stated it's not easily quantifiable with numbers and what I've argued against is that it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. It's an extremist argument. "Well, if you can make that shot then go ahead and make it 100 times in a row to prove it!"

Most reasonable people on this board would agree that Steph takes more difficult shots than Kyle Korver. Why are we really even arguing about this?

And to be clear; stating that an argument is disingenuous and explaining why is not the same thing as attacking your personally. I'm attacking your argument.

A statement of opinion was made and I gave a differing opinion. I never argued that Steph doesn't take more difficult shots. I simply gave an opinion that I don't agree he's so far beyond his peers that it may be a long time before we see someone do the same thing. The fact that you can in no way, shape or form logically argue that it WILL be a long time before someone else duplicates what he's doing is the epitome of a disingenuous argument (side note back to Babe Ruth--it took almost 40 years for his home run record to be broken so it absolutely played out that he WAS multitudes better than his peers because no one in his era came remotely close). I didn't demand an answer; I asked you to justify your statement of fact and gave a very reasonable explanation of how it could be justified. The fact that you can't do it or don't have the data doesn't make it an extreme requirement. If I claim I can jump over the Grand Canyon and someone asks for video evidence I can't say "That's extreme; I'm in Detroit and the Grand Canyon is over 2000 miles away."

Notice that difference..."is a disingenuous argument" vs "you're being disingenuous." Now, I don't care. You can call me anything under the sun and I don't give a hoot. But given some of your previous posts of course I'm going to call you out if you violate your own standards. Like the scorpion said to the frog..."I can't help it. It's in my nature."

[Cowology]

By accusing me of being disingenuous? Sure.

You're making a statement of fact that Curry's shots have a higher level of difficulty than his peers. What's the measure you're using which establishes Curry as shooting at a higher level of difficulty? To do so would require watching all shots by all players, assigning each a value of difficulty (in and of itself yet another measure), then compiling all the results. Please provide that data.

And that's another perfect example of a disingenuous argument. You set parameters and then demand an answer contingent upon those parameters, when I'm under no obligation to do so. I've already stated it's not easily quantifiable with numbers and what I've argued against is that it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. It's an extremist argument. "Well, if you can make that shot then go ahead and make it 100 times in a row to prove it!"

Most reasonable people on this board would agree that Steph takes more difficult shots than Kyle Korver. Why are we really even arguing about this?

And to be clear; stating that an argument is disingenuous and explaining why is not the same thing as attacking your personally. I'm attacking your argument.

A statement of opinion was made and I gave a differing opinion. I never argued that Steph doesn't take more difficult shots. I simply gave an opinion that I don't agree he's so far beyond his peers that it may be a long time before we see someone do the same thing. The fact that you can in no way, shape or form logically argue that it WILL be a long time before someone else duplicates what he's doing is the epitome of a disingenuous argument (side note back to Babe Ruth--it took almost 40 years for his home run record to be broken so it absolutely played out that he WAS multitudes better than his peers because no one in his era came remotely close). I didn't demand an answer; I asked you to justify your statement of fact and gave a very reasonable explanation of how it could be justified. The fact that you can't do it or don't have the data doesn't make it an extreme requirement. If I claim I can jump over the Grand Canyon and someone asks for video evidence I can't say "That's extreme; I'm in Detroit and the Grand Canyon is over 2000 miles away."

Notice that difference..."is a disingenuous argument" vs "you're being disingenuous." Now, I don't care. You can call me anything under the sun and I don't give a hoot. But given some of your previous posts of course I'm going to call you out if you violate your own standards. Like the scorpion said to the frog..."I can't help it. It's in my nature."

... OK.

[vege]

Read on Twitter

/photo/1