ADVERTISEMENT

Steph Curry; Phenom or Ball Hog?

mj2k10 said:
And that's, what, unfair somehow?

That is what's known as a self-inflicted wound. And you, apparently, heartily endorse what Kobe always so clearly wanted. All of the credit for the good things, none of the blame for the bad. Kobe's game always reflected his personality- an incredibly stubborn refusal to ever admit that he was wrong about anything. Which was often a strength, but also had downsides (whether you or he as his fan boy rep will ever admit it).

If you work tirelessly to make yourself the center of the galaxy, and have massive snit fits anytime someone doesn't acknowledge your place at the center of the galaxy, then you shouldn't complain when things revolve around you.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you jabbering about now?

Because I think Kobe was at one time the best player in the world, that means I'm giving him all credit and no blame?

That's not how I feel at all, but I'm not sure why I should have to defend a position that you assigned to me.

Kobe is flawed as both a basketball player and a human being. He was also at one time the best basketball player in the world, and one of the driving forces behind 5 championship runs.
 
Aike said:
He was also at one time the best basketball player in the world, and one of the driving forces behind 5 championship runs.
Click to expand...


he was never the best player in the world--though i must admit your personal opinion and quotes from dwyane wade are strong evidence to the contrary--and he was the best player on two championship teams

i'd probably take pippen over him
 
  • Like
Reactions: screwduke
JohnnyGentle said:
he was never the best player in the world--though i must admit your personal opinion and quotes from dwyane wade are strong evidence to the contrary--and he was the best player on two championship teams

i'd probably take pippen over him
Click to expand...

You've made it clear that no one's opinion matters but yours.
 
Aike said:
What on earth are you jabbering about now?

Because I think Kobe was at one time the best player in the world, that means I'm giving him all credit and no blame?

That's not how I feel at all, but I'm not sure why I should have to defend a position that you assigned to me.

Kobe is flawed as both a basketball player and a human being. He was also at one time the best basketball player in the world, and one of the driving forces behind 5 championship runs.
Click to expand...
Kobe was never the best player in the world. Nice extended run of being in the discussion, but never in the clearcut manner of a Jordan or LeBron- exactly because his flaws were far more glaring than any you could find with prime Jordan or LeBron.

The fact that you state that he was as some unequivocal truth, and then get butthurt when someone disputes it reveals everything anyone needs to know about your argument here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: screwduke
mj2k10 said:
Kobe was never the best player in the world. Nice extended run of being in the discussion, but never in the clearcut manner of a Jordan or LeBron- exactly because his flaws were far more glaring than any you could find with prime Jordan or LeBron.

The fact that you state that he was as some unequivocal truth, and then get butthurt when someone disputes it reveals everything anyone needs to know about your argument here.
Click to expand...
mj2k10,

I gotta hand it to you too man . . . you've hung in there with the best of 'em. You and Aike have kept it entertaining FAR longer than I would have ever imagined. You both deserve some kind of medal. There you go . . .

 
mj2k10 said:
Kobe was never the best player in the world. Nice extended run of being in the discussion, but never in the clearcut manner of a Jordan or LeBron- exactly because his flaws were far more glaring than any you could find with prime Jordan or LeBron.

The fact that you state that he was as some unequivocal truth, and then get butthurt when someone disputes it reveals everything anyone needs to know about your argument here.
Click to expand...

You are good at arguing without addressing what was actually said.

Your partner upboard said that Shaq and Duncan were better and "it wasn't particularly close."

I took issue with this characterization. I'll buy that some preferred Shaq or Duncan, or Lebron later. My objection is with the idea that it was clear cut in the other direction.

Just to add spice to the discussion, Shaq actually said he would take prime Kobe over prime Lebron.

But what does he know? Those guys are all idiots who don't understand advanced metrics. Not like he actually PLAYED beside both of them in their primes.
 
Aike said:
You are good at arguing without addressing what was actually said.

Your partner upboard said that Shaq and Duncan were better and "it wasn't particularly close."

I took issue with this characterization. I'll buy that some preferred Shaq or Duncan, or Lebron later. My objection is with the idea that it was clear cut in the other direction.

Just to add spice to the discussion, Shaq actually said he would take prime Kobe over prime Lebron.

But what does he know? Those guys are all idiots who don't understand advanced metrics. Not like he actually PLAYED beside both of them in their primes.
Click to expand...
Now that is a SOLDIER!!! Accepts a medal . . . and goes Straight. Back. To. Work.
 
WildMoon said:
no one said he is perfect. Him taking contested shot is still a decent shot. He's one of those rarified player where bad shots aren't bad anymore.

Greatest example is MJ's fadeaway jump shot. It's a TERRIBLE shot to take, unless you are MJ. I loved watching so many people copy this move and become highly inefficient.

Curry is the same deal. He's making people think what he does is good for themselves. What Curry does, is great for Curry only. He really doesn't take bad shot. He takes decent shots, good shots, and great shots.
Click to expand...

This is correct.
 
LineSkiCat14 said:
Because he's not a two-way player. Curry gets burned so many times, and relinquishes tough defensive assignments to a top15 defender in Thompson. You think Curry would have as strong of legs to shoot if he actually puts heavy emphasis on defense? If anything, that's more indicative of a SG (or combo guards) profile than anything against Curry. Do one thing, and do it well.

We'll see how good he is when (if) GSW gets a few set backs on injury, if he ever losses Thompson as a running mate, when teams figure out how to play GSW, or even when teams start to emulate them .. I think he'll still be a top10-15 player when the above happens, but he won't be the best in the league.
Click to expand...
What player, currently in the NBA, is a team's leading scorer, while also guarding the other team's best player the entire game? LeBron didn't even do that when he was in Miami.
 
Hoskins91 said:
Shaq's opinion on anything shouldn't be taken seriously, especially since it's pretty easy to prove that he would have a bias. Count me as someone who would take Duncan and LeBron over him without hesitating. I'd say most NBA players who were peers of all three would agree.
Click to expand...

You would say that, huh? Thanks for your opinion about what top NBA players think.
 
fatguy87 said:
Former players are amazing at measuring performance. It's why Michael Jordan is the best owner in the NBA.
Click to expand...

He isn't the worst. And there are constraints to ownership beyond ability to evaluate talent.

I get tired of people trying to use statistics to re-write history. They are tools and measures but not the end all be all.

There is a lot to be said for the opinions of people who have first hand experience.
 
Hoskins91 said:
What player, currently in the NBA, is a team's leading scorer, while also guarding the other team's best player the entire game? LeBron didn't even do that when he was in Miami.
Click to expand...

I'm not actively watching GSW this year, but Thompson has ALWAYS guarded the best player on GSW, not Curry. I can't imagine that changed. I know Klay has been guarding Harden since day one until their first meeting this year.

Don't think Curry is guarding anyone.. and when he does play defense, he gets burned.. But the second B/R puts up a post about it, they make another 5 about him hitting uncontested 3pters from 30ft out... ohhweee...
 
Aike said:
He isn't the worst. And there are constraints to ownership beyond ability to evaluate talent.

I get tired of people trying to use statistics to re-write history. They are tools and measures but not the end all be all.

There is a lot to be said for the opinions of people who have first hand experience.
Click to expand...
One of which is that they are completely unobjective, subject to all kinds of biases, personal agendas, and huge gaps in knowledge.

None of which can be said for statistics. Which are used not in an attempt to rewrite history, but in an attempt to analyze it in a more objective manner. More objective than, say, a retired player talking about an ex-teammate.
 
LineSkiCat14 said:
I'm not actively watching GSW this year, but Thompson has ALWAYS guarded the best player on GSW, not Curry. I can't imagine that changed. I know Klay has been guarding Harden since day one until their first meeting this year.

Don't think Curry is guarding anyone.. and when he does play defense, he gets burned.. But the second B/R puts up a post about it, they make another 5 about him hitting uncontested 3pters from 30ft out... ohhweee...
Click to expand...
If Curry doesn't guard anyone, then how in the hell is Golden State's defense so good? It's usually pretty difficult for a team to compensate for a completely incompetent defender to the point where they're 22-0 and 5th in the league in FG% defense.

And what in the hell does "him hitting uncontested 3pters from 30 feet out... ohhweee..." mean, exactly? Are you implying that other guys out there would make that shot as consistently as Curry (where are those guys hiding)? Are you implying that Curry is benefiting from his team's greatness by getting open looks...from 30 feet out? I really hope that's not what you mean, because that would be really, really, truly, spectacularly dumb.
 
Dude was never a good defender.. always on the poor side. They have defensive specialists who can handle that task.

Hitting 30-footers is great, hey if the other team can't stop it.. keep doing it. It's just funny listening to Curry fans. HE JUST PULLED UP FOR A 30-FOOTER WITH NO ONE AROUND HIM.. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS!?! Best shooter ever.. better than Jesus and Miller combined!

He's not good on defense, and without looking, I'll bet he's not going toe-to-toe with the best scorer, that's Thompsons job (he didn't since Klay has been on that team, not sure if that changed). No shame in that, he's a shooter, that's what shooters do. But don't try and tell me he's a two-way player. He's been burned plenty of times this year. Sorry, he's not the best in every facet of the game..
 
My Rockets went to the WCF as a #2 seed, with injuries out the ass, and HARDEN playing defense the whole game, covering the best guard while also dealing with double or triple teams. That's NUTS! He's terrible on defense (has gotten better though). But it also means that, yes, you can have wildly incompetent defenders and still win games.
 
mj2k10 said:
One of which is that they are completely unobjective, subject to all kinds of biases, personal agendas, and huge gaps in knowledge.

None of which can be said for statistics. Which are used not in an attempt to rewrite history, but in an attempt to analyze it in a more objective manner. More objective than, say, a retired player talking about an ex-teammate.
Click to expand...

I think it all matters. There are sometimes intangible qualities that lead to winning games and championships.

And statistics are used to rewrite history, or at least attempt to.

For example, Kobe spent a good stretch of his career being considered the best player in the game by his contemporaries and many fans.

When a statistician comes along a decade later and says, "but his efficiency..." - and uses that stat to explain to us why our eyes deceived us - they are attempting to rewrite history.

If they said, "Kobe was considered the best, but XYZ statistic actually favored Dwyane Wade..." - fine with me.

But when they say, "Dwyane Wade was actually the best player. Nobody realized it at the time, but now that we have access to XYZ stat - we know better than we knew at the time..." - that's revisionist history.

And the whole thing is funny because the stats guys can have agendas too and can construct their models to confirm their own bias.

Stats are also routinely ignored when they don't fit agendas.

Nobody seems to care that Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and now Tim Duncan never had as high a PER as Kobe's best season.

Oh that's right, win shares and VORP are more important.

To me, they are all brilliant players, and ranking them is just splitting hairs. I don't really mind stats being used to split those hairs. But all the talk about so and so was CLEARLY better, blah blah - I'm not feeling it.

But I do give just as much weight to somebody like Shaq, MJ, Jerry West saying, "That's the guy I want with the game on the line" as I do to the numbers alone.
 
Aike said:
I think it all matters. There are sometimes intangible qualities that lead to winning games and championships.

And statistics are used to rewrite history, or at least attempt to.

For example, Kobe spent a good stretch of his career being considered the best player in the game by his contemporaries and many fans.

When a statistician comes along a decade later and says, "but his efficiency..." - and uses that stat to explain to us why our eyes deceived us - they are attempting to rewrite history.

If they said, "Kobe was considered the best, but XYZ statistic actually favored Dwyane Wade..." - fine with me.

But when they say, "Dwyane Wade was actually the best player. Nobody realized it at the time, but now that we have access to XYZ stat - we know better than we knew at the time..." - that's revisionist history.

And the whole thing is funny because the stats guys can have agendas too and can construct their models to confirm their own bias.

Stats are also routinely ignored when they don't fit agendas.

Nobody seems to care that Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and now Tim Duncan never had as high a PER as Kobe's best season.

Oh that's right, win shares and VORP are more important.

To me, they are all brilliant players, and ranking them is just splitting hairs. I don't really mind stats being used to split those hairs. But all the talk about so and so was CLEARLY better, blah blah - I'm not feeling it.

But I do give just as much weight to somebody like Shaq, MJ, Jerry West saying, "That's the guy I want with the game on the line" as I do to the numbers alone.
Click to expand...
You want permission to be a fan boy, without your objectivity being questioned. You're looking in the wrong place.

I know, you don't see it that way, and I know, you're "not really arguing", but the reality is that you are. You go out of your way to diminish all the objective factors that say that what Curry is doing right now is a lot better than anything Kobe ever did (because Kobe was never a great shooter, and could never stop taking bad shots). You want to act like your doing so is somehow more objective than the conclusions that other people are drawing based on statistics (and, BTW, on the fact that Curry is far and away the best player on a defending champ that is about to go 22-0 to start this season). You bought into the Kobe narrative, and you want to make the argument that the narrative, not the stats, was the true story. In essence, you're arguing for mythology as being as important a part of reality as cold, hard numbers.

Which is why history sometimes needs to be rewritten (analyzed being the better term) from a more objective viewpoint. People have likes and dislikes, people have faulty memories, people exaggerate, people get caught up in the moment, people inflate their heroes to Olympian proportions. Stats do none of that. If stats have "an agenda", as you claim, you can be damn sure that someone will come along and, rightfully, question the methodology.

You say that Kobe spent a good part of his career being considered the best player in the game. Explain this, then- 1 MVP.

Which, barring injury, will be one less than what Steph Curry has after this season.

The reality that I will certainly acknowledge is that Kobe spent a good part of his career being considered AMONG the best players in the game. But not THE best. Him being THE best, the alpha dog, the dominator, is the narrative that he wanted the public to buy into. You did, but history, in all kinds of ways, statistical and otherwise, says that wasn't really true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKcats1988
mj2k10 said:
You want permission to be a fan boy, without your objectivity being questioned. You're looking in the wrong place.

I know, you don't see it that way, and I know, you're "not really arguing", but the reality is that you are. You go out of your way to diminish all the objective factors that say that what Curry is doing right now is a lot better than anything Kobe ever did (because Kobe was never a great shooter, and could never stop taking bad shots). You want to act like your doing so is somehow more objective than the conclusions that other people are drawing based on statistics (and, BTW, on the fact that Curry is far and away the best player on a defending champ that is about to go 22-0 to start this season). You bought into the Kobe narrative, and you want to make the argument that the narrative, not the stats, was the true story. In essence, you're arguing for mythology as being as important a part of reality as cold, hard numbers.

Which is why history sometimes needs to be rewritten (analyzed being the better term) from a more objective viewpoint. People have likes and dislikes, people have faulty memories, people exaggerate, people get caught up in the moment, people inflate their heroes to Olympian proportions. Stats do none of that. If stats have "an agenda", as you claim, you can be damn sure that someone will come along and, rightfully, question the methodology.

You say that Kobe spent a good part of his career being considered the best player in the game. Explain this, then- 1 MVP.

Which, barring injury, will be one less than what Steph Curry has after this season.

The reality that I will certainly acknowledge is that Kobe spent a good part of his career being considered AMONG the best players in the game. But not THE best. Him being THE best, the alpha dog, the dominator, is the narrative that he wanted the public to buy into. You did, but history, in all kinds of ways, statistical and otherwise, says that wasn't really true.
Click to expand...

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

1 MVP was because it was voted by the media. He nearly lost that one to Chris Paul.

Shaq also only won one. Steve Nash got two. How bout that?

If anything, the narrative, perpetuated by the media, was that Kobe wasn't necessarily the best.

I didn't buy into any narrative. I watched the games. I listened to what his peers said.

And oh yeah, the stats weren't bad either. 5 Titles. 35/5/5 in his best year with 28 PER and 15.3 win share. I know, pedestrian.

Curry is awesome. So was Kobe, in diferent ways and a different era. Sorry if you missed it, or just didn't appreciate it because you were waiting for the stats to be advanced enough to explain what you were watching.

How about Bird? Magic? Are they ok in your book or does their efficiency bum you out.

And really, stop with the fanboy nonsense. It's childish. Are you a child? Would explain a lot.
 
Steph is having a GOAT season; however, we are 22 games in. To be fair, Kobe faced double teams every night, whereas defenders are on their own against Curry. Curry is too good of a passer, and he has four guys that can make you pay for the double team. Kobe forced a lot of bad shots, something Curry doesn't do too much of. I would rather take a 28-foot poorly contested shot over a heavily contested 15-footer any day. Curry feels the same way. Curry can take a defender out of the picture in a hurry.
 
Aike said:
How about Bird? Magic? Are they ok in your book or does their efficiency bum you out.
Click to expand...

What are you blabbering about now? Magic and Bird were productive and efficient.

Career Offensive rating:

Magic - 121
Bird - 115
Bryant - 111

Magic also gave you double digit assists per 100 possessions.

Perhaps you want to limit the discussion to only their prime, top seasons. Here are their offensive ratings in their 3 best seasons:

Magic - 124, 125, 126
Bird - 117, 121, 121
Bryant - 115, 115, 115

In the realm of offensive efficiency, Bryant lags behind the likes of Bird and Magic even during their respective primes.
 
fatguy87 said:
What are you blabbering about now? Magic and Bird were productive and efficient.

Career Offensive rating:

Magic - 121
Bird - 115
Bryant - 111

Magic also gave you double digit assists per 100 possessions.

Perhaps you want to limit the discussion to only their prime, top seasons. Here are their offensive ratings in their 3 best seasons:

Magic - 124, 125, 126
Bird - 117, 121, 121
Bryant - 115, 115, 115

In the realm of offensive efficiency, Bryant lags behind the likes of Bird and Magic even during their respective primes.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I was blabbering about PER. Maybe stat nerds should stop listing that since it apparently is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TNCatfanforever

Evolution or De-Evolution

Replies
9
Views
615
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
NociHTTP
NociHTTP
ukfan1622

All of Kentucky's losses have one thing in common(besides the other team scoring more points).

Replies
64
Views
4K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
GoAndRunIsGoneAndDone
G
D

Go BBN

Replies
3
Views
427
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
bthaunert
bthaunert
BlueWorldOrder74

Is this the worst 1-0 team ever?

Replies
37
Views
3K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
catman15
C
JPFisher

OT: Fixing the NBA

Replies
109
Views
3K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
BC_Wader
BC_Wader
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back