CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: KG Living Legend on May 28, 2015, 02:46:53 PM
-
Did you know that the new generation Power forward in the NBA is 6'5.75" tall? Well it's true his mane is Draymond Green. Myself included sometimes get too caught up in measurables. This guy has covered Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis. James Harden. You name it. One of my favorite players in the NBA. And He and Klay Thompson and obviously Steph Currry are all under 6'6" tall without shoes. Barnes is 6'7" without shoes.
What's the point? Get a couple really good Center\ Rim protectors. And surround them with multiple skilled guys that can defend, handle, rebound, shoot and drive kick. Looking at our roster we have a long way to go. Jimmy Butler would be a great start. Smart and Thomas could be a part of this type of rebuild. Turners game fits besides the shooting.
Let's see some examples of the Warriors East. It's going to take some time. But you got to start somewhere. Here we trade Bradley because he cant dribble or pass well enough for a two guard, for Jerian Grant, the best passer not named Russell in this draft. I'd take Looney, closest thing to Draymond in this draft.
Looney
Jimmy Butler
Marcus Smart
Jerian Grant
It's a start. Looney will be extremely valuable as time goes on. Draymond Green avg 3 points per game his freshman year. And although Green is much tougher. Looney will have a similar impact in a couple of years mark my words. His rebounding, defense, he will guard multiple postions. And he has range on his shot. Just no low post game. This team will need more shooters but we have assets to get them, and we still have Isaiah, Kelly, And James Young on the roster.
If you don't like this team post your version Maybe with Love instead.
-
Step 1: Get an MVP-caliber elite scorer
Step 2: Get an elite defensive big man (preferably one who is 7 feet tall and makes the all-defense team)
Step 3: Fill out the roster with lots of top-tier starters and so much depth that you can leave an all-star big man rotting on the bench.
Step 4: Warriors Eastside, baby!
-
Step 1: Get an MVP-caliber elite scorer
Step 2: Get an elite defensive big man (preferably one who is 7 feet tall and makes the all-defense team)
Step 3: Fill out the roster with lots of top-tier starters and so much depth that you can leave an all-star big man rotting on the bench.
Step 4: Warriors Eastside, baby!
Yup, let's get the #7 pick and draft the greatest shooter of all time, who also happens to be a great ball-handler and finisher.
Then, we'll draft one of the best 5 or 6 shooters in the league with the #12 pick, a guy who also happens to be a really good defender with the ability to cover 3 positions.
-
Who are some extremely skilled players we can bring in here. Curry one of the most skilled players you'll ever find. Barnes is a fantastic scorer and shooter, Klay amazing skill as a shooter and he defends, rare find.
-
Who are some extremely skilled players we can bring in here. Curry one of the most skilled players you'll ever find. Barnes is a fantastic scorer and shooter, Klay amazing skill as a shooter and he defends, rare find.
Typically extremely skilled players can't be had.
Kevin Love is probably the most talented player via free agency... we have a tiny shot at him.
We don't have the assets to trade for any even if they were available.
If we got lucky with our tank job last season, we could have landed Wiggins... he could develop into that. That would have just been step 1, though. Minny seems to be adding Step 2 with Townes. Now they just gotta fill out the rest of it, have lots of luck, and hope it all fits together.
-
Come on guys. I know your kidding but hey, they drafted guys other temas passed on with all there players. There is no top 5 pick on there team other than Bogut, Who they signed. So let's get bold and try to find the next Thompson, Barnes or Curry.
I do think Cameron Payne is very skilled. Not really the position we need but throw that out that window if he's a difference maker. Reminds me of Lillard. Come on guys give me one name in this fraft who we could go get!
-
Step 1: Get an MVP-caliber elite scorer
Step 2: Get an elite defensive big man (preferably one who is 7 feet tall and makes the all-defense team)
Step 3: Fill out the roster with lots of top-tier starters and so much depth that you can leave an all-star big man rotting on the bench.
Step 4: Warriors Eastside, baby!
here, let's save even more time and effort. get five HOF quality players in their prime. count championship trophies. ;)
-
I would prefer not to wait 40 years between Finals appearances, thanks.
-
I really liked steph curry coming in and thought he was being really underrated that draft but now people are saying i was just reading he is the greatest shooter ever. These same people were probably the people underrating him before. Now he's overrated imo. Best shooter ever? Come on.
He's definately up there and top 5 elite all time probably. But guys like Bird and Ray Allen and Jerry West might have a bit to say about that.
He's having a great season and probably his best season as a team. Bird like dominated teh league every year at godlike levels.
Some guy actually wrote that though. I can't write it. How can anyone even write that other than looking for attention? Why am i even commenting on that at all? Why do people that stupid live in this world?
-
Step 1: Get an MVP-caliber elite scorer
Step 2: Get an elite defensive big man (preferably one who is 7 feet tall and makes the all-defense team)
Step 3: Fill out the roster with lots of top-tier starters and so much depth that you can leave an all-star big man rotting on the bench.
Step 4: Warriors Eastside, baby!
Yeah, I was going to post a slightly less sarcastic version of this. It's not easy finding a Curry + Thompson + Bogut + Barnes + Green + great bench.
-
Honestly I underrated the hell out of Curry. I never thought he'd be more than an undersized shooting guard in the league...he's proven me so wrong and is one of my favorite players.
-
I really liked steph curry coming in and thought he was being really underrated that draft but now people are saying i was just reading he is the greatest shooter ever. These same people were probably the people underrating him before. Now he's overrated imo. Best shooter ever? Come on.
He's definately up there and top 5 elite all time probably. But guys like Bird and Ray Allen and Jerry West might have a bit to say about that.
He's having a great season and probably his best season as a team. Bird like dominated teh league every year at godlike levels.
Some guy actually wrote that though. I can't write it. How can anyone even write that other than looking for attention? Why am i even commenting on that at all? Why do people that stupid live in this world?
That last paragraph of naval gazing is pretty astonishing. I look forward to reading your newest chapbook of Nietzschean prose.
-
Curry is a very good player. We don't have a shooter like that. He's also having a great season. Putting him on Birds level is silly to me though. Bird used to play down to teams during the regular season and hit clutch shots just to win games when they needed it. It's not even the same. Curry is playing all out this year and is a really great shooter no doubt.
I dont see how we would build that way though because we dont have a player like Curry. He is that team. They have Draymond and Klay but most of that team plays off Curry. He's the guy there.
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
-
I really liked steph curry coming in and thought he was being really underrated that draft but now people are saying i was just reading he is the greatest shooter ever. These same people were probably the people underrating him before. Now he's overrated imo. Best shooter ever? Come on.
He's definately up there and top 5 elite all time probably. But guys like Bird and Ray Allen and Jerry West might have a bit to say about that.
He's having a great season and probably his best season as a team. Bird like dominated teh league every year at godlike levels.
Some guy actually wrote that though. I can't write it. How can anyone even write that other than looking for attention? Why am i even commenting on that at all? Why do people that stupid live in this world?
There is a difference between saying someone is the best shooter ever and the best player ever. Bird was a better overall player than Curry (so far), but Curry is absolutely the best shooter I have ever seen in my life. No one has ever been this efficient on this kind of volume with the 3 ball. It's just insane, especially considering the degree of difficulty of his shots. He's currently a career 44% from 3 on 6.5 attempts per game. This year he was a 44% 3PT shooter on 8.1 attempts. This guy would be shooting 50%+ from the 3PT line if he shot at the volume Bird shot at.
Different eras, I know, but in the modern NBA, no one touches Curry when it comes to shooting. Ray Allen smashed the record for 3s in a season with the modern 3PT line in 05-06 with 269 threes. Since that time, Curry has had seasons with 261, 272, and 286 3s. I have no idea if Curry will have the longevity to beat Ray's 3PT total for his career, but there's really never been someone so potent in their prime.
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
I disagree with you. The NBA is completely different now. Curry is very quick and can shoot with the best of them but the game is much more open now. If you look at the evidence its much more skewed that way. The game is just much faster overall now.
The fact Bird was top of the league at the time every year and dominated it when it was much more physical and taxing on the body, is anything approaching evidence. Curry hasn't done that.
If you look at any professional sport numbers have gone up because the games are more geared that way.
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
I disagree with you. The NBA is completely different now. Curry is very quick and can shoot with the best of them but the game is much more open now. If you look at the evidence its much more skewed that way. The game is just much faster overall now.
The fact Bird was top of the league at the time every year and dominated it when it was much more physical and taxing on the body, is anything approaching evidence. Curry hasn't done that.
If you look at any professional sport numbers have gone up because the games are more geared that way.
Hmm, no. The 80s was one of the fastest pace'd basketball eras with very lax defense. Defense is much tougher now, and the pace is much slower. Hand-checking is not allowed anymore, but defenses are more sophisticated nowadays than they were in the 80s. The 90s was one of the slowest pace'd eras with very, very physical defense but still meh defensive schemes. The 10s (right now) is pretty much a mix of 80s and 90s basketball. You have teams with the high flying offense of the 80s but also teams with the gritty defense of the 90s (GSW included).
-
It was an open game but its even more open now. The celtics were a halfcourt team with the guys they had and the lakers had showtime. Players are more gifted physically and have it much easier now imo. Players then weren't and the game was more taxing due to a lot of factors.
If you look at the numbers and everything in between and numbers now around the league there still is no comparison. Bird put up better numbers with players on his team that were doing the same. It's not even a debate.
The game is more open now. Teams play faster and they aren't nearly as good.
no offense but it has nothing to do with romanitzing it. Some kids today have it very easy and just aren't as good as their elders. They don't even know how to respect them.
Curry is very good but Bird would have destroyed him in his prime.
Bird has 3 times the numbers, championships, averages and people are saying he is the best ever. That's the problem. It's not even close.
-
It was an open game but its even more open now. The celtics were a halfcourt team with the guys they had and the lakers had showtime. Players are more gifted physically and have it much easier now imo. Players then weren't and the game was more taxing due to a lot of factors.
If you look at the numbers and everything in between and numbers now around the league there still is no comparison. Bird put up better numbers with players on his team that were doing the same. It's not even a debate.
The game is more open now. Teams play faster and they aren't nearly as good.
no offense but it has nothing to do with romanitzing it. Some kids today have it very easy and just aren't as good as their elders. They don't even know how to respect them.
Curry is very good but Bird would have destroyed him in his prime.
Bird has 3 times the numbers, championships, averages and people are saying he is the best ever. That's the problem. It's not even close.
But the point is that the game isn't faster now. Like at all. Pace numbers are way down from the 80s. No offense, but there really is no argument to be made there. It's commonly understood that the 80s was one of the most open games this league has ever seen. You think the Celtics were a half court team in the 80s (and they were), but that was relative to their opponents. The 80s Celtics would be considered a fast break team nowadays with the amount of possessions and pace they played at.
Again, no one is saying Bird is a worse player...like at all. Curry still has a long way to go to prove himself anywhere on all time player lists, but he's done enough to be considered the best shooter ever. No issues with that. You are coupling ideas together and not looking at this objectively. It's why I dislike talking to Celtic fans about Bird sometimes. You say one thing, and the other person takes it in the complete wrong direction then where it was going.
-
It's a generational thing i guess. Everyone is the best ever before they even do it. Bird did that. It's like me as a kid saying Bird is better than Bill Russell. I never said that though. Ive seen both play. Never got to see Russell. But Curry is not better than Bird. Not even close. In ways sure. He is faster and hits shots at a very fast efficient rate because the game is open like that but he still doesnt manage to do what bird did.
There were so many factors back then and conditions these guys were playing in. Everything. I wouldnt say Bird was better than Russell. Bird had to earn that. Today its like greatest ever when he hasnt even done that.
-
It's a generational thing i guess. Everyone is the best ever before they even do it. Bird did that. It's like me as a kid saying Bird is better than Bill Russell. I never said that though. Ive seen both play. Never got to see Russell. But Curry is not better than Bird. Not even close. In ways sure. He is faster and hits shots at a very fast rate because the game is open like that but he still doesnt manage to do what bird did.
Oh my...gosh. Again. Best shooter =/= best player. What are you missing here?
No one is saying Curry is a better player. Just a better shooter, and I'm sorry, but the numbers will never support your cause when it comes to shooting. Curry is a better 3PT shooter than anyone. Unfortunately we will never know where Bird would be on this list because he played an era where the 3 ball was still on the rise.
For single season 3PT totals, Curry is already in the top 5 three times.
-
Curry is not a better shooter than bird. Bird would play down to teams and hit shots so clutch when you needed him too. Thats not romanticizing him. That's how he was. You needed a shot bird would hit it every time.
take curry and bird in horse. Bird you need a shot there would be no contest.
-
Curry is not a better shooter than bird. Bird would play down to teams and hit shots so clutch when you needed him too. Thats not romanticizing him. That's how he was. You needed a shot bird would hit it every time.
take curry and bird in horse. Bird you need a shot there would be no contest.
What does this even mean? You are romanticizing him. You are essentially saying Bird shot worse so he could put daggers in people's hearts. Do you know how odd that sounds?
It's not fair to the 70s and 80s players I guess, but 3PT shooting is how players identify who are the best shooters ever. It's amazing that Bird is commonly in the top 3 shooters of all time despite not playing in a 3PT dependent era, but as long as Curry continues to shoot this way, he will be regarded as the best shooter ever. Like I said, he's already in the top 5 single season 3PT total list 3 times.
Player 3P Season Tm
1. Stephen Curry 286 2014-15 GSW
2. Stephen Curry 272 2012-13 GSW
3. Ray Allen 269 2005-06 SEA
4. Dennis Scott 267 1995-96 ORL
5. Stephen Curry 261 2013-14 GSW
Dennis Scott's season doesn't really count because it was on the shorter line.
Bird is by far the greater player, but I don't think you understand how historic Curry's shooting has already been.
-
I'm not romantizing him. The game was different back then. Bird was much more a clutch shooter. He was a full grown man that way playing a kids game. He was so clutch and ice that way it was ridiculous. It's not romantizing him if it's true. He really was that way. Most times when bird shot it you knew it was going in.
-
He was also a very intelligent shooter. Players today are good but there will never be another player like him more than likely. He was the best shooter ever and probably always will be.
Maybe someone will understand that and better him someday but I don't many players in the league that match him that way. Pierce is extremely clutch and an intelligent shooter.
-
I'm not romantizing him. The game was different back then. Bird was much more a clutch shooter. He was a full grown man that way playing a kids game. He was so clutch and ice that way it was ridiculous. It's not romantizing him if it's true. He really was that way. Most times when bird shot it you knew it was going in.
Okay so you are using who is the most clutch shooter as your qualifier for best shooter ever. I don't really agree with using that as the comparison, but let's go with it. You have to have numbers to back up that statement. If you are calling Bird a much more clutch shooter, show me Bird's shooting numbers for 4th quarter shots 16 feet out. Then show me the numbers for Curry in the 4th quarter 16 feet out.
-
Curry is more like Jerry West imo. Bird as far as a shooter was just the complete package. Pierce is super clutch and intelligent as a shooter. Ray Allen has great form and probably the best ever there. Curry is very good. I'm not knocking him too much. I'd put him up there for sure as far as shooters ive seen.
Bird was something else though. He is the best ever in that regard. As far as winning and taking smart shots it's no contest.
-
Curry is more like Jerry West imo. Bird as far as a shooter was just the complete package. Pierce is super clutch and intelligent as a shooter. Ray Allen has great form and probably the best ever there. Curry is very good. I'm not knocking him too much. I'd put him up there for sure as far as shooters ive seen.
Bird was something else though. He is the best ever in that regard. As far as winning and taking smart shots it's no contest.
Well then show it in numbers. The only numbers that exist are that Bird shot 39.8% from 3PT line on 2.6 attempts from 1984-1992 (when he actually started shooting a higher volume), and Curry with 44% on 6.5 attempts. The main differences are that 3PT defense was pretty much nonexistent in the 80s, while everyone is pretty much in your face nowadays.
If you are going by clutchness...you really can't. No one has tracked those numbers for the players in the 80s, and it's just your opinion at that point even if all the numbers point in the other direction. You can't call Bird a more clutch shooter because I definitely know you don't have any numbers to back that statement up so it makes it almost impossible to argue with you if you continue to ignore any other viable statistic available.
-
Step 1: Get an MVP-caliber elite scorer
Step 2: Get an elite defensive big man (preferably one who is 7 feet tall and makes the all-defense team)
Step 3: Fill out the roster with lots of top-tier starters and so much depth that you can leave an all-star big man rotting on the bench.
Step 4: Warriors Clippers Eastside, baby!
Fixed
-
I'm not romantizing him. The game was different back then. Bird was much more a clutch shooter. He was a full grown man that way playing a kids game. He was so clutch and ice that way it was ridiculous. It's not romantizing him if it's true. He really was that way. Most times when bird shot it you knew it was going in.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/romanticize
-
I'm not romantizing him. The game was different back then. Bird was much more a clutch shooter. He was a full grown man that way playing a kids game. He was so clutch and ice that way it was ridiculous. It's not romantizing him if it's true. He really was that way. Most times when bird shot it you knew it was going in.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/romanticize
In birds case the point is it's not really romanticizing although maybe it is. But just look at the benches of opposing teams as Bird would shoot it sometimes. It's just true. Yeah I love Larry Bird. But truth and romanticize can be one in the same sometimes.
-
Lets get back on track now. Curry vs Bird thread. Nonsense! Bird would have choked Curry outside after the game thrown him in the dumpster and blamed in on Laimbeer. Sadly Curry would have died from the Bird attack. And Larry would have gained more shooting prowess thanks to the sacrifice to the basketball Gods. The End.
-
Getting back on topic. The point is, this may be the new way to build a team. One Center and guards slash Draymond Green.
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
Isiah... is that you?
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
-
Well in order for GSW to have that team they had to draft very smart. We have no chance at making a GSW team by next year or the year after. What we need to do is get rid of the role players that can fetch us assets and draft players we have scouted throughout the year or years.
Also we should take on undesirable contracts for picks again. Maybe do that this summer and next.
We should have a record that is bottom 1-7...still being competitive but playing our picks and the guys teams dump on us.
Maybe we have the next Klay Thompson 2.0 in James Young. I think the top 3's next year will be better than Barnes IMO....esp Ingram. Smart could be Chauncey Billups type. If we draft Turner and Upshaw we could have a very good front-court.
.......THEN WE SIGN THE BIG PLAYERS ALA ANTHONY DAVIS :)
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
Reading this post made me dumber.
-
Step 1: Get an MVP-caliber elite scorer
Step 2: Get an elite defensive big man (preferably one who is 7 feet tall and makes the all-defense team)
Step 3: Fill out the roster with lots of top-tier starters and so much depth that you can leave an all-star big man rotting on the bench.
Step 4: Warriors Eastside, baby!
(http://i.imgur.com/00VM7JA.gif)
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
Reading this post made me dumber.
Just trying to bring you closer to our status quo.
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
Larry Bird is most favourite player of all time,I travelled half way around the world to see him play in the old Boston Garden. Have around 140 of his playoff games in my collection.250 regular season games as well.
Bring on the hate, the League needs white guys to market to the Fans, heck even Bird has said so himself.
Just a tad over rated in my book.
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
::)
I hate to rain on your parade, here, but you do realize that as incredible of a shooter that Bird was in the NBA that he was actually much better in college? Ask Jackie Mac if you don't believe me. He severely injured his right index finger during a game of softball before his rookie year, and to this day it cannot bend straight.
(http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BG&Date=20070224&Category=SPORTS04&ArtNo=702240380&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Bird-admits-incidents-take-toll)
Therefore, given his already ridiculous shooting numbers in spite of that injury, can you imagine what he would have shot, percentage-wise, without it? :o Even if you don't take that into account, Bird is the better shooter, but when you factor that in, it's not even an argument.
Curry is a much better ball handler, sure, although people tend to drastically underrate Bird's ability to create his own shot, but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time in said category. Is he an all-time great? Yes, but he's not even the best shooter in the history of his own franchise. Has everyone forgotten about Rick Barry? I hate the guy, personally, but he was incredible. He's not better than Jerry West, Steve Nash, or, as momma there goes that man ::) has said in comparing Curry to guys from the past, Mark Price, and Price had the ball handling, quickness and speed that Curry could only dream of, and Mark's release was probably the quickest of all time.
Don't forget about Pete Maravich or Joe Dumars, either, and Joe not only had a great handle, but was a fantastic shooter, except, unlike Steph, he could actually guard people, and some of the toughest guys in the league, I might add, and we haven't even gotten to Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Dirk, yet . Curry is certainly among the best shooters of all time, but he's not at the top of the list. At least, imo.
-
ahh first it's "let's be Atlanta"!!! now it's "let's be Golden State"!!!
how 'bout we go be a team that's won something?
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
Reading this post made me dumber.
Just trying to bring you closer to our status quo.
Forget it kid. When it comes to Latin nomenclature you are out of your water.
Same when it comes to your writing.
-
@Beat LA
Yeah, but Bird is white, so if you like Bird it must be because he is white, therefore you are a racist.
Anyway, TP to you to have the patience to answer with arguments.
I'm out of this thread.
-
ahh first it's "let's be Atlanta"!!! now it's "let's be Golden State"!!!
how 'bout we go be a team that's won something?
tp.
-
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
It's totally realistic to say that he got the MVPs in part because he was white, but to say "it had nothing to do with actual performance on the court'? Are you kidding? If anything, it had more to do with him being entertaining to watch than his pure numbers.
I'd rank the factors like this:
1.) Most entertaining player to watch in the league by a wide margin
2.) His stats
3.) Being white
4.) The lack of a true statistical behemoth challenger, especially the second time
-
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
It's totally realistic to say that he got the MVPs in part because he was white, but to say "it had nothing to do with actual performance on the court'? Are you kidding? If anything, it had more to do with him being entertaining to watch than his pure numbers.
I'd rank the factors like this:
1.) Most entertaining player to watch in the league by a wide margin
2.) His stats
3.) Being white
4.) The lack of a true statistical behemoth challenger, especially the second time
I was under the impression being white worked against you in the league as it is automatically assumed you arent very athletic and are most fit as a role-player.
-
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
It's totally realistic to say that he got the MVPs in part because he was white, but to say "it had nothing to do with actual performance on the court'? Are you kidding? If anything, it had more to do with him being entertaining to watch than his pure numbers.
I'd rank the factors like this:
1.) Most entertaining player to watch in the league by a wide margin
2.) His stats
3.) Being white
4.) The lack of a true statistical behemoth challenger, especially the second time
You may of mistaken my quote, I agree that Nash's performance in those MVP seasons was tremendous, his defense on the other hand ::)
What I am saying is that from a marketing standpoint when the vast majority of your paying customers are white it is a bonus to sell that to the fans, I believe that the league's attendance was going through a down swing in that period, you had the Palace brawl that gave the league a big black eye , so it has a 'Happy' story for the league.
-
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
It's totally realistic to say that he got the MVPs in part because he was white, but to say "it had nothing to do with actual performance on the court'? Are you kidding? If anything, it had more to do with him being entertaining to watch than his pure numbers.
I'd rank the factors like this:
1.) Most entertaining player to watch in the league by a wide margin
2.) His stats
3.) Being white
4.) The lack of a true statistical behemoth challenger, especially the second time
I was under the impression being white worked against you in the league as it is automatically assumed you arent very athletic and are most fit as a role-player.
Well duh (sarcasm), lol ;D. Don't you remember that line from undercover brother, "the NBA really instituted the 3 point shot to give white boys a chance?" Ahaha ;D, I love that movie.
http://www.anyclip.com/movies/undercover-brother/conspiracy-theory/#!quotes/
-
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
It's totally realistic to say that he got the MVPs in part because he was white, but to say "it had nothing to do with actual performance on the court'? Are you kidding? If anything, it had more to do with him being entertaining to watch than his pure numbers.
I'd rank the factors like this:
1.) Most entertaining player to watch in the league by a wide margin
2.) His stats
3.) Being white
4.) The lack of a true statistical behemoth challenger, especially the second time
I was under the impression being white worked against you in the league as it is automatically assumed you arent very athletic and are most fit as a role-player.
I am talking about from a marketing standpoint, being able to sell that to the fans, the actual paying customers who are white is close 80 percent, so having a marketable white guy when that the fans can relate to is huge.When you have a star 'White' guy in makes it that much easier.
There is a reason so many teams have white stiffs rotting on the bench of league rosters.
-
ahh first it's "let's be Atlanta"!!! now it's "let's be Golden State"!!!
how 'bout we go be a team that's won something?
Next thing you will hear is "Let's be the next Cavs and recruit Lebron" ;D
-
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
It's totally realistic to say that he got the MVPs in part because he was white, but to say "it had nothing to do with actual performance on the court'? Are you kidding? If anything, it had more to do with him being entertaining to watch than his pure numbers.
I'd rank the factors like this:
1.) Most entertaining player to watch in the league by a wide margin
2.) His stats
3.) Being white
4.) The lack of a true statistical behemoth challenger, especially the second time
You may of mistaken my quote, I agree that Nash's performance in those MVP seasons was tremendous, his defense on the other hand ::)
What I am saying is that from a marketing standpoint when the vast majority of your paying customers are white it is a bonus to sell that to the fans, I believe that the league's attendance was going through a down swing in that period, you had the Palace brawl that gave the league a big black eye , so it has a 'Happy' story for the league.
For what it's worth, Shaq is still mad, lol ;D.
(http://ballislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bil-shaq-mvp.jpg)
http://ballislife.com/shaq-says-nash-was-a-sympathy-mvp-and-he-was-the-true-mvp/
-
I agree with this , there is a reason that Nash got those MVP's as well , and it has nothing to do with actual performance on the court.
It's totally realistic to say that he got the MVPs in part because he was white, but to say "it had nothing to do with actual performance on the court'? Are you kidding? If anything, it had more to do with him being entertaining to watch than his pure numbers.
I'd rank the factors like this:
1.) Most entertaining player to watch in the league by a wide margin
2.) His stats
3.) Being white
4.) The lack of a true statistical behemoth challenger, especially the second time
You may of mistaken my quote, I agree that Nash's performance in those MVP seasons was tremendous, his defense on the other hand ::)
What I am saying is that from a marketing standpoint when the vast majority of your paying customers are white it is a bonus to sell that to the fans, I believe that the league's attendance was going through a down swing in that period, you had the Palace brawl that gave the league a big black eye , so it has a 'Happy' story for the league.
For what it's worth, Shaq is still mad, lol ;D.
(http://ballislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bil-shaq-mvp.jpg)
http://ballislife.com/shaq-says-nash-was-a-sympathy-mvp-and-he-was-the-true-mvp/
Kenny knows which side his bread is buttered ;)
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
::)
I hate to rain on your parade, here, but you do realize that as incredible of a shooter that Bird was in the NBA that he was actually much better in college? Ask Jackie Mac if you don't believe me. He severely injured his right index finger during a game of softball before his rookie year, and to this day it cannot bend straight.
(http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BG&Date=20070224&Category=SPORTS04&ArtNo=702240380&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Bird-admits-incidents-take-toll)
Therefore, given his already ridiculous shooting numbers in spite of that injury, can you imagine what he would have shot, percentage-wise, without it? :o Even if you don't take that into account, Bird is the better shooter, but when you factor that in, it's not even an argument.
Curry is a much better ball handler, sure, although people tend to drastically underrate Bird's ability to create his own shot, but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time in said category. Is he an all-time great? Yes, but he's not even the best shooter in the history of his own franchise. Has everyone forgotten about Rick Barry? I hate the guy, personally, but he was incredible. He's not better than Jerry West, Steve Nash, or, as momma there goes that man ::) has said in comparing Curry to guys from the past, Mark Price, and Price had the ball handling, quickness and speed that Curry could only dream of, and Mark's release was probably the quickest of all time.
Don't forget about Pete Maravich or Joe Dumars, either, and Joe not only had a great handle, but was a fantastic shooter, except, unlike Steph, he could actually guard people, and some of the toughest guys in the league, I might add, and we haven't even gotten to Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Dirk, yet . Curry is certainly among the best shooters of all time, but he's not at the top of the list. At least, imo.
I believe I said in another thread very recently that I thought Drazen was a better shooter than Curry.
I also didn't say that Curry was the best shooter of all time, so while I appreciate the immense effort it took you to pick the right emoticon, I might suggest doubling down on your reading comprehension instead. :)
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
Reading this post made me dumber.
Just trying to bring you closer to our status quo.
Forget it kid. When it comes to Latin nomenclature you are out of your water.
Same when it comes to your writing.
So hostile.
You don't think that Bird's popularity was related to his skin color? In a league that was, as players, coaches, commentators, and fans of the era have all said, seen as "too black" by the general public?
I think you should maybe stick to Gifs for the rest of the week. You seem like you're having a rough time.
And, speaking of my writing, the correct phrasing would be "out of your depth." Have a nice day. :)
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
::)
I hate to rain on your parade, here, but you do realize that as incredible of a shooter that Bird was in the NBA that he was actually much better in college? Ask Jackie Mac if you don't believe me. He severely injured his right index finger during a game of softball before his rookie year, and to this day it cannot bend straight.
(http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BG&Date=20070224&Category=SPORTS04&ArtNo=702240380&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Bird-admits-incidents-take-toll)
Therefore, given his already ridiculous shooting numbers in spite of that injury, can you imagine what he would have shot, percentage-wise, without it? :o Even if you don't take that into account, Bird is the better shooter, but when you factor that in, it's not even an argument.
Curry is a much better ball handler, sure, although people tend to drastically underrate Bird's ability to create his own shot, but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time in said category. Is he an all-time great? Yes, but he's not even the best shooter in the history of his own franchise. Has everyone forgotten about Rick Barry? I hate the guy, personally, but he was incredible. He's not better than Jerry West, Steve Nash, or, as momma there goes that man ::) has said in comparing Curry to guys from the past, Mark Price, and Price had the ball handling, quickness and speed that Curry could only dream of, and Mark's release was probably the quickest of all time.
Don't forget about Pete Maravich or Joe Dumars, either, and Joe not only had a great handle, but was a fantastic shooter, except, unlike Steph, he could actually guard people, and some of the toughest guys in the league, I might add, and we haven't even gotten to Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Dirk, yet . Curry is certainly among the best shooters of all time, but he's not at the top of the list. At least, imo.
I believe I said in another thread very recently that I thought Drazen was a better shooter than Curry.
I also didn't say that Curry was the best shooter of all time, so while I appreciate the immense effort it took you to pick the right emoticon, I might suggest doubling down on your reading comprehension instead. :)
Actually, I wrote my response mainly in defense of Bird off of your first sentence, which is why I emboldened it in the first place ;), or did you somehow miss that?
I then further tied that into giving evidence as to why I believe that Larry is that best shooter of all time, given that that was the direction in which the conversation was headed, but you're right, I'm the one who needs to work on my reading comprehension (sarcasm) ::).
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
Reading this post made me dumber.
Just trying to bring you closer to our status quo.
Forget it kid. When it comes to Latin nomenclature you are out of your water.
Same when it comes to your writing.
So hostile.
You don't think that Bird's popularity was related to his skin color? In a league that was, as players, coaches, commentators, and fans of the era have all said, seen as "too black" by the general public?
I think you should maybe stick to Gifs for the rest of the week. You seem like you're having a rough time.
And, speaking of my writing, the correct phrasing would be "out of your depth." Have a nice day. :)
Some of it, perhaps, but not all of it. Ask the players and coaches from his era, black or white, and they'll all tell you the same thing - he was incredible.
-
Dang, Dos is kicking internet-persona butt and taking (user)names.
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
::)
I hate to rain on your parade, here, but you do realize that as incredible of a shooter that Bird was in the NBA that he was actually much better in college? Ask Jackie Mac if you don't believe me. He severely injured his right index finger during a game of softball before his rookie year, and to this day it cannot bend straight.
(http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BG&Date=20070224&Category=SPORTS04&ArtNo=702240380&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Bird-admits-incidents-take-toll)
Therefore, given his already ridiculous shooting numbers in spite of that injury, can you imagine what he would have shot, percentage-wise, without it? :o Even if you don't take that into account, Bird is the better shooter, but when you factor that in, it's not even an argument.
Curry is a much better ball handler, sure, although people tend to drastically underrate Bird's ability to create his own shot, but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time in said category. Is he an all-time great? Yes, but he's not even the best shooter in the history of his own franchise. Has everyone forgotten about Rick Barry? I hate the guy, personally, but he was incredible. He's not better than Jerry West, Steve Nash, or, as momma there goes that man ::) has said in comparing Curry to guys from the past, Mark Price, and Price had the ball handling, quickness and speed that Curry could only dream of, and Mark's release was probably the quickest of all time.
Don't forget about Pete Maravich or Joe Dumars, either, and Joe not only had a great handle, but was a fantastic shooter, except, unlike Steph, he could actually guard people, and some of the toughest guys in the league, I might add, and we haven't even gotten to Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Dirk, yet . Curry is certainly among the best shooters of all time, but he's not at the top of the list. At least, imo.
I believe I said in another thread very recently that I thought Drazen was a better shooter than Curry.
I also didn't say that Curry was the best shooter of all time, so while I appreciate the immense effort it took you to pick the right emoticon, I might suggest doubling down on your reading comprehension instead. :)
Actually, I wrote my response mainly in defense of Bird off of your first sentence, which is why I emboldened it in the first place ;), or did you somehow miss that?
I then further tied that into giving evidence as to why I believe that Larry is that best shooter of all time, given that that was the direction in which the conversation was headed, but you're right, I'm the one who needs to work on my reading comprehension (sarcasm) ::).
So this bit:
Even if you don't take that into account, Bird is the better shooter, but when you factor that in, it's not even an argument.
Curry is a much better ball handler, sure, although people tend to drastically underrate Bird's ability to create his own shot, but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time in said category. Is he an all-time great? Yes, but he's not even the best shooter in the history of his own franchise. Has everyone forgotten about Rick Barry? I hate the guy, personally, but he was incredible. He's not better than Jerry West, Steve Nash, or, as momma there goes that man ::) has said in comparing Curry to guys from the past, Mark Price, and Price had the ball handling, quickness and speed that Curry could only dream of, and Mark's release was probably the quickest of all time.
Don't forget about Pete Maravich or Joe Dumars, either, and Joe not only had a great handle, but was a fantastic shooter, except, unlike Steph, he could actually guard people, and some of the toughest guys in the league, I might add, and we haven't even gotten to Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Dirk, yet . Curry is certainly among the best shooters of all time, but he's not at the top of the list. At least, imo.
Certainly seems to me like you're telling me Bird was the best shooter of all time instead of Curry, which isn't something I said.
I'm sorry I tend to take replies on a message board as a conversation between quoted posters?
Also, FWIW, your introductory paragraph is the dictionary definition of romanticizing. But, whatever, CelticsBlog reading skills.
-
Adorable.
I'm not diminishing Larry Bird by saying that Steph Curry is arguably a better shooter. I do happen to agree somewhat with Isiah's statement about Bird's immense popularity being augmented due to his whiteness, but that's another discussion for another thread.
Reading this post made me dumber.
Just trying to bring you closer to our status quo.
Forget it kid. When it comes to Latin nomenclature you are out of your water.
Same when it comes to your writing.
So hostile.
You don't think that Bird's popularity was related to his skin color? In a league that was, as players, coaches, commentators, and fans of the era have all said, seen as "too black" by the general public?
I think you should maybe stick to Gifs for the rest of the week. You seem like you're having a rough time.
And, speaking of my writing, the correct phrasing would be "out of your depth." Have a nice day. :)
Some of it, perhaps, but not all of it. Ask the players and coaches from his era, black or white, and they'll all tell you the same thing - he was incredible.
Please, tell me where I said Larry Bird wasn't an incredible basketball player, or even where I said he was only famous because he was white. I wait with baited breath.
-
Bird is also one of the most romanticized figures in the entire NBA. Particularly around here (no surprising).
If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor.
::)
I hate to rain on your parade, here, but you do realize that as incredible of a shooter that Bird was in the NBA that he was actually much better in college? Ask Jackie Mac if you don't believe me. He severely injured his right index finger during a game of softball before his rookie year, and to this day it cannot bend straight.
(http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BG&Date=20070224&Category=SPORTS04&ArtNo=702240380&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Bird-admits-incidents-take-toll)
Therefore, given his already ridiculous shooting numbers in spite of that injury, can you imagine what he would have shot, percentage-wise, without it? :o Even if you don't take that into account, Bird is the better shooter, but when you factor that in, it's not even an argument.
Curry is a much better ball handler, sure, although people tend to drastically underrate Bird's ability to create his own shot, but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time in said category. Is he an all-time great? Yes, but he's not even the best shooter in the history of his own franchise. Has everyone forgotten about Rick Barry? I hate the guy, personally, but he was incredible. He's not better than Jerry West, Steve Nash, or, as momma there goes that man ::) has said in comparing Curry to guys from the past, Mark Price, and Price had the ball handling, quickness and speed that Curry could only dream of, and Mark's release was probably the quickest of all time.
Don't forget about Pete Maravich or Joe Dumars, either, and Joe not only had a great handle, but was a fantastic shooter, except, unlike Steph, he could actually guard people, and some of the toughest guys in the league, I might add, and we haven't even gotten to Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Dirk, yet . Curry is certainly among the best shooters of all time, but he's not at the top of the list. At least, imo.
I believe I said in another thread very recently that I thought Drazen was a better shooter than Curry.
I also didn't say that Curry was the best shooter of all time, so while I appreciate the immense effort it took you to pick the right emoticon, I might suggest doubling down on your reading comprehension instead. :)
Actually, I wrote my response mainly in defense of Bird off of your first sentence, which is why I emboldened it in the first place ;), or did you somehow miss that?
I then further tied that into giving evidence as to why I believe that Larry is that best shooter of all time, given that that was the direction in which the conversation was headed, but you're right, I'm the one who needs to work on my reading comprehension (sarcasm) ::).
So this bit:
Even if you don't take that into account, Bird is the better shooter, but when you factor that in, it's not even an argument.
Curry is a much better ball handler, sure, although people tend to drastically underrate Bird's ability to create his own shot, but that doesn't make him the greatest of all time in said category. Is he an all-time great? Yes, but he's not even the best shooter in the history of his own franchise. Has everyone forgotten about Rick Barry? I hate the guy, personally, but he was incredible. He's not better than Jerry West, Steve Nash, or, as momma there goes that man ::) has said in comparing Curry to guys from the past, Mark Price, and Price had the ball handling, quickness and speed that Curry could only dream of, and Mark's release was probably the quickest of all time.
Don't forget about Pete Maravich or Joe Dumars, either, and Joe not only had a great handle, but was a fantastic shooter, except, unlike Steph, he could actually guard people, and some of the toughest guys in the league, I might add, and we haven't even gotten to Reggie Miller, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Dirk, yet . Curry is certainly among the best shooters of all time, but he's not at the top of the list. At least, imo.
Certainly seems to me like you're telling me Bird was the best shooter of all time instead of Curry, which isn't something I said.
I'm sorry I tend to take replies on a message board as a conversation between quoted posters?
Also, FWIW, your introductory paragraph is the dictionary definition of romanticizing. But, whatever, CelticsBlog reading skills.
No, of course not, you only said that, "If you look at anything approaching evidence, there's an argument in Curry's favor," which is why I provided evidence to not only disprove your apparent view that Bird wasn't actually as good as he was ::), but also to show that he was better than Curry, because of what you said.
Furthermore, my introductory paragraph is not the definition of romanticizing at all.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a4/a43aec536d26d8488ebcd107e02ab57907dc2c1a8a1b3a184bfa923a0a04ccb9.jpg)
It's fine if you don't believe me about his injury - I'll just let Jackie Mac take it from here ;).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZgM3jq2XQ0
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.
And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is.
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with Bird's shooting numbers in college ::), and none of that is at all anecdotal, given that Jackie covered the Celtics for a long time and also did a book with Bird, but go ahead and keep believing that none of what I've posted is fact. Is it also not true that how you grip the basketball is a vital factor when it comes to shooting? Are you not convinced that his injury actually happened? Did you miss his 16-19, 35 point performance against Mark Aguirre and Depaul?
-
So, I'm the guy who ACTUALLY said Curry was the best shooter ever, earlier in the thread (not that it's an original thought).
Sorry about the ensuing outrage storm directed your way, D.o.s.
Bird was an amazing player. He's in my top 5 all-time. He was most certainly one of the best shooters in the era in which he played. In general, however, even guys who were considered shooters at the time were not very good at hitting shots from long range.
Fact is, the NBA game has evolved over time and the perimeter plays a larger role than it ever has before. Curry is at the forefront of the revolution, and has objectively superior stats as a shooter from many parts of the floor, but especially from distance. Curry takes a crazy amount of threes and hits them at an obscene rate, as was noted earlier in the thread.
Bird rarely took the amount of perimeter shots in any single game that Curry takes on an average night, let alone when he decides to go nuts from downtown. Curry is well on his way to shattering all of the shooting records. The only thing standing in his way is the lingering specter of the ankle issues that plagued him early in his career.
Look, I should be clear that when I say "shooting" or "shooter," because we're talking about the NBA, those terms are meant to refer to taking shots from far away from the basket. Bird was an absolute virtuoso at taking shots from mid-range and in, and I'm sure he beats Curry in that category. Bird also took shots from deep, but his game was not predicated on that.
Bird is not the comparison here. Curry should be compared to Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, and Steve Nash, the guys who pioneered and championed the role that Curry has now taken to Olympian heights -- as in Mount Olympus. Curry's nickname should be "Zeus" because his game resembles Zeus throwing thunderbolts from the top of an enormous mountain.
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.
And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.
You're still not listening. I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.
Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here. If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird? She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level. I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is.
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with Bird's shooting numbers in college ::), and none of that is at all anecdotal, given that Jackie covered the Celtics for a long time and also did a book with Bird, but go ahead and keep believing that none of what I've posted is fact. Is it also not true that how you grip the basketball is a vital factor when it comes to shooting? Are you not convinced that his injury actually happened? Did you miss his 16-19, 35 point performance against Mark Aguirre and Depaul?
I am sure the injury happened. I believe the things you have posted are factual, insofar as they are historical. That's what anecdotes from journalists are, most of the time: historical and factual. What they are not, as I've said before, is grounds for emperical evidence. Like, come on dude, you're either playing dumb on purpose or I'm not connecting with what I'm saying. You can say "Bird was the best shooter of all time 'cause Jackie Mac said so," but that's not empirical, and these sorts of comparisons can be made, at least in part, with actual numbers. The only thing you've brought up is College FG%... really? that's the best you've got?
What I am saying is that I don't believe the fact that his injury happened has any bearing on whether or not he was a better shooter than Steph Curry -- something I never said, anyway: only that you can make an argument for it.
Also, for the record, your constant emoji usage is entirely inane.
So, I'm the guy who ACTUALLY said Curry was the best shooter ever, earlier in the thread (not that it's an original thought).
Sorry about the ensuing outrage storm directed your way, D.o.s.
No worries, but thanks for that.
-
So, I'm the guy who ACTUALLY said Curry was the best shooter ever, earlier in the thread (not that it's an original thought).
Sorry about the ensuing outrage storm directed your way, D.o.s.
Bird was an amazing player. He's in my top 5 all-time. He was most certainly one of the best shooters in the era in which he played. In general, however, even guys who were considered shooters at the time were not very good at hitting shots from long range.
Fact is, the NBA game has evolved over time and the perimeter plays a larger role than it ever has before. Curry is at the forefront of the revolution, and has objectively superior stats as a shooter from many parts of the floor, but especially from distance. Curry takes a crazy amount of threes and hits them at an obscene rate, as was noted earlier in the thread.
Bird rarely took the amount of perimeter shots in any single game that Curry takes on an average night, let alone when he decides to go nuts from downtown. Curry is well on his way to shattering all of the shooting records. The only thing standing in his way is the lingering specter of the ankle issues that plagued him early in his career.
Look, I should be clear that when I say "shooting" or "shooter," because we're talking about the NBA, those terms are meant to refer to taking shots from far away from the basket. Bird was an absolute virtuoso at taking shots from mid-range and in, and I'm sure he beats Curry in that category. Bird also took shots from deep, but his game was not predicated on that.
Bird is not the comparison here. Curry should be compared to Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, and Steve Nash, the guys who pioneered and championed the role that Curry has now taken to Olympian heights -- as in Mount Olympus. Curry's nickname should be "Zeus" because his game resembles Zeus throwing thunderbolts from the top of an enormous mountain.
By that you mean 3 point distance, right, and not long 2s, as was the style back then? I believe the first guy who really utilized the 3 as a major weapon was, as you'd expect, Downtown Freddie Brown.
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.
And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.
You're still not listening. I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.
Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here. If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird? She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level. I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).
That weak ass conference though ;)
-
Curry takes about 8 3's a game which is about half his shot selection. That doesn't make him a better shooter. The is game different now and much more open like I was saying and predicated on inside out play and shooting the 3. The 3 point line is also different. the game is more than 3 point shooting. I'm sorry just because a guy jacks 3's all day does not make him a better shooter.
Yeah so he'll shatter 3 point shot records. Like I was saing though the game has changed but if you look at eras that's what it is. It's no different than football when tony romo is shattering joe Montana's records. Does that mean Tony Romo is better than Joe Montana as a passer?
If you look at overall shooting and numbers it's not even close anyways.
Bird used to take about 18-22 shots a game and hit half of them. A good percentage of those were outside shots.
Even If 18 of those shots weren't from the outside which is what Curry takes overall as well. Say curry takes about 12-15 from the outside. Bird's percentages shooting the ball in a much different era are still better.
'
The point is the game is being played and they are taking shots at the same clip. Bird was carrying a bigger workload and was still shooting the ball at ridiculous levels.
-
If you look at overall shooting and numbers it's not close anyways... and it makes the case that Curry is a better shooter. Instead of just throwing out unsupported statements, use the real numbers. We have the actual data. It's right here:
http://bkref.com/tiny/JF4T3
Knock yourselves out.
Curry is:
0-Better from three.
-Negligably worse from 2 (unless you really want to debate the merit of 49% versus 51%, in which case you do you and don't let anyone stop you 'cause you're a special snowflake indeed.).
-Has a higher true shooting percentage despite taking more of his shots from further away from the basket.
-posts a slightly lower usage rate.
These are the things that make me say "you could make an argument, looking at the numbers, that Curry is a better shooter than Bird." That is what I would call evidence.
That does not mean I don't think Bird was a great player. That does not mean **** all about Bird's broken hand in college. That does not mean I eat unborn fetuses for breakfast with pints of virgin's blood. It doesn't mean anything except "on paper, using all the resources at hand, the evidence favors Curry over Bird when it comes to shooting." Jesus. Christ.
-
Just shooting 3's does not make curry a better shooter. Sorry.. He takes so many more 3's than Bird. If anything that proves to me it's just the way the game is now.
-
Just shooting 3's does not make curry a better shooter. Sorry..
It's not that he's just shooting threes (although the idea that shooting closer to the hoop would make you a better shooter) it's that he's making them. You can be intellectually lazy if you want, but don't posit your opinion as fact while backing it up with numerical evidence that doesn't exist.
Here's an honest question: do you think it is harder to make a three point shot or a two point shot?
-
It's like saying Avery bradley is a better shooter than Jerry West because his percentages from the 3 point line and 3 point shooting is so much better.
If you look at Avery Bradley numbers the past couple seasons and compare them to jerry west you could make the same argument.
-
It's like saying Avery bradley is a better shooter than Jerry West because his percentages from the 3 point line and 3 point shooting is so much better.
Here's an honest question: do you think it is harder to make a three point shot or a two point shot?
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is.
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with Bird's shooting numbers in college ::), and none of that is at all anecdotal, given that Jackie covered the Celtics for a long time and also did a book with Bird, but go ahead and keep believing that none of what I've posted is fact. Is it also not true that how you grip the basketball is a vital factor when it comes to shooting? Are you not convinced that his injury actually happened? Did you miss his 16-19, 35 point performance against Mark Aguirre and Depaul?
I am sure the injury happened. I believe the things you have posted are factual, insofar as they are historical. That's what anecdotes from journalists are, most of the time: historical and factual. What they are not, as I've said before, is grounds for emperical evidence. Like, come on dude, you're either playing dumb on purpose or I'm not connecting with what I'm saying. You can say "Bird was the best shooter of all time 'cause Jackie Mac said so," but that's not empirical, and these sorts of comparisons can be made, at least in part, with actual numbers. The only thing you've brought up is College FG%... really? that's the best you've got?
What I am saying is that I don't believe the fact that his injury happened has any bearing on whether or not he was a better shooter than Steph Curry -- something I never said, anyway: only that you can make an argument for it.
Also, for the record, your constant emoji usage is entirely inane.
So, I'm the guy who ACTUALLY said Curry was the best shooter ever, earlier in the thread (not that it's an original thought).
Sorry about the ensuing outrage storm directed your way, D.o.s.
No worries, but thanks for that.
So, wait, you weren't even aware of the injury before I posted this tidbit? Wow, but hey, as long as you're sure, now ::), and, umm, I'm using his college fg% because that is the genesis of my argument? Look at his numbers before the injury, and then look at them after it occurred, and tell me that it didn't make an impact.
You're also ignoring the fact that there is no hand checking or anything allowed against perimeter players today, when in Bird's time the defenses were much more physical and sophisticated. People say that the reason why teams scored more points back then was because of a lack of defense, when the reality is that the teams were harder to stop in the 80s because not only did they have more talent per roster, but they also had more skilled players. What a concept, right? I wouldn't call the defenses better now, I'd say that they only look great because everyone just runs the pick and roll 24/7, so there's no change in offensive philosophy, aside from the triangle, meaning that teams don't have to radically adjust their game plans team to team.
However, when a club turns to an old play every once in a while, the most sophisticated and stingiest of defenses had no clue how to stop it, nor did the rest of the league, and I'm talking about the scissor play used by the Knicks when they had a lot of success in 2012-13 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugTH91GmLTs
It was a better game in the 80s, which is why it's referred to as the golden age of basketball, and as for the Jackie Mac interview, what I'm alluding to is the fact that if Bird was as great as he was without being able to properly grip the ball during his NBA career, don't you think it would have made him an even better shooter had he been able to do so? It's common sense. I was making the argument for Bird against the argument that you say can be made for Curry as being the best shooter of all time. Again, are you even comprehending what I'm writing, here? I do agree that you're not connecting with what you're saying, though ;), and I'm glad that you've decided to come down off of your high horse for once to even notice my use of emojis. Thank you :).
-
It's like saying Avery bradley is a better shooter than Jerry West because his percentages from the 3 point line and 3 point shooting is so much better.
Here's an honest question: do you think it is harder to make a three point shot or a two point shot?
No one takes 2s, anymore, remember, lol ;D?
-
It's like saying Avery bradley is a better shooter than Jerry West because his percentages from the 3 point line and 3 point shooting is so much better.
Here's an honest question: do you think it is harder to make a three point shot or a two point shot?
I think Birds fadeaway impresses me more than Curry jacking 3's yes. Much more unstoppable. Much more difficult shot to make and much more difficult to stop.
They just give bird the ball on the block and let him work and teams could not stop that shot.
-
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.
And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.
You're still not listening. I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.
Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here. If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird? She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level. I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).
That weak ass conference though ;)
Haha, but couldn't so say the same for Curry in college? Both guys did great in the NCAA tournament, as well, iirc, with Bird going 16/19 :o for 35 points against Depaul with Mark Aguirre. Wow.
-
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical. But it is entirely possible I could be misunderstanding your point, and apologies if that is the case.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA. :) )
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
-
That does not mean I eat unborn fetuses for breakfast with pints of virgin's blood.
Really? My respect for you just took a serious hit. I guess this is why they say you shouldn't meet your heroes. The man can never live up to the myth.
-
That does not mean I eat unborn fetuses for breakfast with pints of virgin's blood.
Really? My respect for you just took a serious hit.
I have to say that for legal reasons.
Allegedly.
-
If you look at overall shooting and numbers it's not close anyways... and it makes the case that Curry is a better shooter. Instead of just throwing out unsupported statements, use the real numbers. We have the actual data. It's right here:
http://bkref.com/tiny/JF4T3
Knock yourselves out.
Curry is:
0-Better from three.
-Negligably worse from 2 (unless you really want to debate the merit of 49% versus 51%, in which case you do you and don't let anyone stop you 'cause you're a special snowflake indeed.).
-Has a higher true shooting percentage despite taking more of his shots from further away from the basket.
-posts a slightly lower usage rate.
These are the things that make me say "you could make an argument, looking at the numbers, that Curry is a better shooter than Bird." That is what I would call evidence.
That does not mean I don't think Bird was a great player. That does not mean **** all about Bird's broken hand in college. That does not mean I eat unborn fetuses for breakfast with pints of virgin's blood. It doesn't mean anything except "on paper, using all the resources at hand, the evidence favors Curry over Bird when it comes to shooting." Jesus. Christ.
Well, sure, if you don't factor in the significant rule changes that allowed perimeter players significantly more leeway, but go ahead, keep ignoring that crucial factor ::). Jesus. Christ.
-
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." That's not about you, Beat LA.
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse though. I'm just saying. That was Bird's signature shot. Curry is the 3 ball. Bird shot better percentages overall in a very different era. If the shot Curry takes the most is the 3. That was Bird's signature shot. That's the best comparison I can come up with.
My opinion is that fadeaway is more difficult to make. Some might argue. Different players. Different body types. But that fadeaway was ridiculous.
-
That deliberately obtuse wasn't directed at you, sorry for the confusion!
I will absolutely agree with you that a contested fadeaway jumpshot is harder than a wide open three, but I think that's a bit of a simplified way to look at it.
Well, sure, if you don't factor in the significant rule changes that allowed perimeter players significantly more leeway, but go ahead, keep ignoring that crucial factor ::). Jesus. Christ.
But, again, this isn't actually evidence. This is a circumstantial thing that happened. Reggie Miller played with the Hand Check rule, and he was a better shooter than Larry Bird (on paper put the pitchforks down). Same for Ray Allen (and the tar + feathers, please).
Effortlessness, ease, and trash talking awesomeness are not a data points. Larry Bird was unmatched in his scoring acumen and his swagger, but that does not make him an irrefutably better shooter.
Miller Link:http://bkref.com/tiny/NmI3D
Ray-Ray Link: http://bkref.com/tiny/aJJNv
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.
And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.
You're still not listening. I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.
Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here. If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird? She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level. I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).
That weak ass conference though ;)
Haha, but couldn't so say the same for Curry in college? Both guys did great in the NCAA tournament, as well, iirc, with Bird going 16/19 :o for 35 points against Depaul with Mark Aguirre. Wow.
I was adding some levity in a nice friendly debate between yourself and D.o.s.
One thing that people who use stats as evidence in these debates (I am not saying that this is the situation here by the way) don't factor in is the quality of the shots that each guy gets on their respective teams.Some guys raw numbers get deflated by having their team mates look for them to take those last second shorts when a possession breaks down, screws up their percentage big time that way.Some guys don't take those long end of quarter heaves for this reason.
Stats can be twisted to make your case stronger. I think comparing each player to their respective era and judging their numbers compared to the top guys they played with and against is a better way of judging a guys worth.
-
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA. :) )
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know). How many people move better after they hurt their ankle? How does that not make sense to you? If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred? Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out? Again, it's just common sense.
As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you. I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.
-
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif)
If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.
And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.
You're still not listening. I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.
Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here. If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird? She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level. I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).
That weak ass conference though ;)
Haha, but couldn't so say the same for Curry in college? Both guys did great in the NCAA tournament, as well, iirc, with Bird going 16/19 :o for 35 points against Depaul with Mark Aguirre. Wow.
I was adding some levity in a nice friendly debate between yourself and D.o.s.
One thing that people who use stats as evidence in these debates (I am not saying that this is the situation here by the way) don't factor in is the quality of the shots that each guy gets on their respective teams.Some guys raw numbers get deflated by having their team mates look for them to take those last second shorts when a possession breaks down, screws up their percentage big time that way.Some guys don't take those long end of quarter heaves for this reason.
Stats can be twisted to make your case stronger. I think comparing each player to their respective era and judging their numbers compared to the top guys they played with and against is a better way of judging a guys worth.
Sorry about that. I had a feeling that you were trying to lighten the mood, although I would hardly call this a friendly debate, lol ;D. TP for the last emboldened part, btw.
-
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA. :) )
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know). How many people move better after they hurt their ankle? How does that not make sense to you? If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred? Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out? Again, it's just common sense.
As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you. I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.
The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg)
You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.
Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.
-
That deliberately obtuse wasn't directed at you, sorry for the confusion!
I will absolutely agree with you that a contested fadeaway jumpshot is harder than a wide open three, but I think that's a bit of a simplified way to look at it.
Well, sure, if you don't factor in the significant rule changes that allowed perimeter players significantly more leeway, but go ahead, keep ignoring that crucial factor ::). Jesus. Christ.
But, again, this isn't actually evidence. This is a circumstantial thing that happened. Reggie Miller played with the Hand Check rule, and he was a better shooter than Larry Bird (on paper put the pitchforks down). Same for Ray Allen (and the tar + feathers, please).
Effortlessness, ease, and trash talking awesomeness are not a data points. Larry Bird was unmatched in his scoring acumen and his swagger, but that does not make him an irrefutably better shooter.
Miller Link:http://bkref.com/tiny/NmI3D
Ray-Ray Link: http://bkref.com/tiny/aJJNv
Oh man ::).
Anyway, I'm not incensed that you think that Reggie and Ray are at least right there with Bird, because I would largely agree. That's fair, even though I'll always be in Bird's corner ;D.
What I said about rule changes is not circumstantial, though. In an article written by sports illustrated concerning the added emphasis on defense over the last 25+ years or so, it said that the rule changes were made in an effort to increase offensive output. I just can't remember what the darn thing was called, but it had numbers and everything, and they also pointed to the increase in the use of the 3-point shot, iirc, which is one reason why teams today score less, not to mention the huge gap in the skill level of players between the eras.
Either way, can we at least wait until Curry's career is over before we proclaim him the best of all time? The guy hasn't even been in the league for 10 years, yet, so just give it time. Just because there's more of an emphasis on 3s today doesn't mean that Curry is the better shooter, and it's interesting that his midrange numbers are worse than Bird's (not by much, but still), and I never cited swagger, etc., as an argument, btw.
-
Interesting article, not sure if it helps the Celtics turn into Eastside Warriors though ;D
http://swishnba.com/tag/hand-checking/
-
Bird eats Curry. There's no need to debate it really. People can have their silly arguments but anyone with any knowledge or eye for basketball would know this. I'm amazed this even became a debate. People thought i was nose gaving when i said that when I wasn't even doing that. I'm just more surprised there really are people who believe that. Sad really.
People like to use big words like nose gaving when who cares about that stuff. I didn't even mean it like that. Like i said people think i'm doing i'm not. They also think Curry is a better shooter than bird. People say i'm romanticizing when it's pretty clear who really is delusional. It's also clear who has a better sense of humor. This stuff isn't rocket science. It's nice to sound smart. It's better to actually be smart.
The game could be so much better too if players actually learned the game. The game itself has become too simplified. 3's and dunks. Not enough in between. Players are not nearly as intelligent as they used to be either.
Curry's game is so simplfied when Bird was something else.
-
Did this thread turn into Bird vs Curry? Heh. Bird was obviously better than Curry all-around. If we're talking purely shooting... I dunno. It's close. They didn't shoot as many threes back then and system plays into it. A lot of guys belong in that conversation... like Durant, for instance. Pretty sure Steve Nash has all of them beat in terms of pure shooting ability. Some of his stats are insane. There was a stretch where he was averaging 50%/40%/90% every year... He shot 47% from three one year in a season he averaged 17 points and 11 assists. His peak TS% was .654. Shooting doesn't really get better than that.
-
All professional sports now are much more open and much less physical. Players also have a lot more going for them. It's easier. In Curry's case he's doing less than Bird was under much more difficult circumstances.
Even how Bird got into the NBA. To even be who he was took so much work on his part. It was so different. Players back then didn't have the stuff they do now. Players then were a much different breed.
Players now are better athletes. That is true. But as far as fundamental stuff which I consider shooting one of those things I still think Bird would eat Curry.
-
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA. :) )
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know). How many people move better after they hurt their ankle? How does that not make sense to you? If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred? Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out? Again, it's just common sense.
As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you. I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.
The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg)
You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.
Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.
Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.
As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not. Here they are -
Bird's college numbers -
76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%
Curry's college numbers -
06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%
Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -
06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519
So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter. It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.
Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986. 86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club. In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.
In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.
-
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA. :) )
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know). How many people move better after they hurt their ankle? How does that not make sense to you? If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred? Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out? Again, it's just common sense.
As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you. I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.
The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg)
You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.
Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.
Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.
As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not. Here they are -
Bird's college numbers -
76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%
Curry's college numbers -
06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%
Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -
06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519
So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter. It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.
Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986. 86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club. In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.
In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.
TP for the research
I am not getting into the debate about who is the better shooter , but I would have to say that Steph's mum has Larry's mum covered in amount of coverage she receives ;)
-
Curry would go running home to his mommy. That's not a joke either. It would probably be something similar.
-
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA. :) )
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know). How many people move better after they hurt their ankle? How does that not make sense to you? If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred? Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out? Again, it's just common sense.
As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you. I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.
The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg)
You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.
Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.
Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.
As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not. Here they are -
Bird's college numbers -
76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%
Curry's college numbers -
06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%
Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -
06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519
So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter. It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.
Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986. 86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club. In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.
In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.
TP for the research
I am not getting into the debate about who is the better shooter , but I would have to say that Steph's mum has Larry's mum covered in amount of coverage she receives ;)
Lol ;D, TP. Do they have to do a cutaway to his family during every broadcast? Ugh. Momma there goes that, wait, momma, lol ;D? If you type in Steph Curry on google, the first search result is 'Steph Curry Mom,' haha ;D. Wow. You should check this out, btw (I've never watched it, myself, lol ;D, I'm just going by the title, but I think it's safe to say that these morons at espn were certainly acting in a manner which can best be described as highly questionable ;) ;D)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKXb5zFlg_U
All in all, I hope he does great in the finals. GSW are going to need everyone, imo, but I think they can do it, they just have to make sure not to have too much curry ;), if you catch my drift, haha ;D.
-
I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers
During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.
That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.
Stats ;D
-
Bird eats Curry. There's no need to debate it really. People can have their silly arguments but anyone with any knowledge or eye for basketball would know this. I'm amazed this even became a debate. People thought i was nose gaving when i said that when I wasn't even doing that. I'm just more surprised there really are people who believe that. Sad really.
People like to use big words like nose gaving when who cares about that stuff. I didn't even mean it like that. Like i said people think i'm doing i'm not. They also think Curry is a better shooter than bird. People say i'm romanticizing when it's pretty clear who really is delusional. It's also clear who has a better sense of humor. This stuff isn't rocket science. It's nice to sound smart. It's better to actually be smart.
The game could be so much better too if players actually learned the game. The game itself has become too simplified. 3's and dunks. Not enough in between. Players are not nearly as intelligent as they used to be either.
Curry's game is so simplfied when Bird was something else.
This post is everything wrong with talking about sports, IMO. Also, it's 'naval gazing,' hardly a big word (and two words, anyway). You're just spouting a bunch of empty nonsense masquerading as "common sense" in an attempt, apparently, to ridicule me to other posters. You can say that you think I'm wrong, and I can say that I know you're an idiot. See how that works? No need to be circumspect about it.
Anyway, and for the 5,000th time, this was an idle statement. that everyone got their panties in a twist over that turned into a really interesting discussion. Nothing wrong with that.
I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers
During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.
That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.
Stats ;D
So this is pretty interesting: do we credit Bird for being significantly better than a bunch of "bad shooters" or do we credit Curry for being better than a bunch of "good shooters?"
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA. :) )
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know). How many people move better after they hurt their ankle? How does that not make sense to you? If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred? Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out? Again, it's just common sense.
As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you. I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.
The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg)
You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.
Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.
Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.
As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not. Here they are -
Bird's college numbers -
76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%
Curry's college numbers -
06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%
Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -
06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519
So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter. It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.
Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986. 86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club. In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.
In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.
Re the hand injury, why do you think that I didn't know about it prior to this thread? I've seen you post this a few times, but I don't get it: the broken hand is part of the Bird lore (which is why I have a problem bringing it in: I'm not one for using superstition and Hero's Journey style tales instead of actual measurables)
Also, I would say that Bird's 195 playoff games give a larger sample size than Curry's 36, so I don't know if I would go to the postseason first.
As to College (which is host to a whole bunch of variables beyond conference), Davidson and Curry were such a weird one-off offensive playform I don't think it's safe to draw anything from that era. The reason we compare NBA players using NBA stats is because it's controlling for as much as we possibly can, from competition to schedule to systemic adjustments.
-
It wasn’t a break, but a smash. The finger was a mess.
Not to point fingers or anything, but the repair job was botched. Larry Bird was left with a misshapen, unbendable, right index finger — on his shooting hand.
And he never said a public word. He played his entire Celtics career while somehow or other making an adjustment in his shooting that might very well have stymied 99 percent of the population. He then dislocated his right pinky in the 1986 playoffs, leaving that finger an equal mess. From that point on he was operating with a shooting hand in which 40 percent of his fingers were impaired.
“It was just a different feel,” Bird says of the re-configured shot. “The ball came off the side instead of the fingertip.”
The "botched repair job" is detailed in Jackie Mac's book, When the Game was Ours, which is written by her in conjunction with Bird and Magic. I can't find an internet quote, but the treatment included a finger brace that attached under Bird's fingernail. Instead of helping, it ripped his entire fingernail off, leaving one of the most sensitive parts of the body exposed and preventing further treatment on the finger.
http://statemagazine.com/we-knew-him-when/
-
I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers
During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.
That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.
Stats ;D
So this is pretty interesting: do we credit Bird for being significantly better than a bunch of "bad shooters" or do we credit Curry for being better than a bunch of "good shooters?"
1.Depends on whether you have a vested interest in the argue or not.If you do then no amount of debate is going to change your opinion.
2.If you can have an open mind and view things in a rational manner, then through debate and analysis you can come to a conclusion that best suits your morals and personal belief system that has been formed in your childhood development.
I am not talking about anyone in this thread just in general terms.
There is no right or wrong answer to which is better, there are far too many variables in the equation.
Which tastes better chocolate or vanilla.
How is that , sound good ha ha.
-
I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers
During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.
That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.
Stats ;D
So this is pretty interesting: do we credit Bird for being significantly better than a bunch of "bad shooters" or do we credit Curry for being better than a bunch of "good shooters?"
1.Depends on whether you have a vested interest in the argue or not
That's why it's interesting. I think Beat LA is right -- we probably have to wait until the end of Curry's career to see where it all shakes out, but I think DarkAcuza is right, too: Curry has done enough to this point where he's entered the conversation, and that's when the discussion is the most fun. I likely think LarBrd is right, too: Nash probably wipes the floor with anyone involved once you talk about percentages.
The whole point of conventional wisdom is to challenge it, IMO.
It wasn’t a break, but a smash. The finger was a mess.
Not to point fingers or anything, but the repair job was botched. Larry Bird was left with a misshapen, unbendable, right index finger — on his shooting hand.
And he never said a public word. He played his entire Celtics career while somehow or other making an adjustment in his shooting that might very well have stymied 99 percent of the population. He then dislocated his right pinky in the 1986 playoffs, leaving that finger an equal mess. From that point on he was operating with a shooting hand in which 40 percent of his fingers were impaired.
“It was just a different feel,” Bird says of the re-configured shot. “The ball came off the side instead of the fingertip.”
The "botched repair job" is detailed in Jackie Mac's book, When the Game was Ours, which is written by her in conjunction with Bird and Magic. I can't find an internet quote, but the treatment included a finger brace that attached under Bird's fingernail. Instead of helping, it ripped his entire fingernail off, leaving one of the most sensitive parts of the body exposed and preventing further treatment on the finger.
http://statemagazine.com/we-knew-him-when/
that book is really good, by the way. Highly recommended (even though I haven't read it in years)
-
I've got to be honest. I had a real hard time reading Walker's posts. My eyes wanted to explode. To DOS and Beat LA. TP's to both of you. Nice argument that ended civilly. That's why America's um… The Best!
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/celtics_insider/2015/05/celtics_boss_danny_ainge_steph_curry_the_best_shooter_of
Danny Ainge agrees with me.
8)
-
That doesn't surprise me. I usually agree with what Ainge does but certain things I don't. When Curry starts doing stuff like this then maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtpjCnOoO1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw
Bird did it year in year out in big games and clutch situations. Curry has not. Ainge's argument is the assortment of shots which doesn't hold water. Also the degree of difficulty which is arguable but Curry has not done what Bird did in his career. Ainge was a combo guard like Curry and has more similarities to him probably why he likes him. If you ask someone like Red or Heinsohn they might disagree. Bird managed to do all that with very little lift as well. He would still shoot it over people and rainbow it in. Bird also shot better percentages overall over a longer period of time. Curry until the last couple years his percentages have not been that great. Projecting maybe because Bird also took a while but Curry isn't there yet. Curry has had one of the best shooting seasons ever.
-
Curry is quicker and more a new age player with his ball moves. I'm not seeing the assortment of shots. Curry is primarily a 3 point shooter with dribble moves. He's got a really deadly shot from 3 point range and he gets it up very quick. I don't know what Aigne is talking about assortment of shots. That's what I mean though and why Bird was a better shooter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwSTsVqLFvY
Bird shot the ball from all over the floor. Curry shoots the same shots primarily and Bird shot a better percentage overall taking a much wider variety of shots. It's like Ray Bourque in hockey to me. Bourque was a technician with his shot. No he didn't have the physical skills of players today but as far as fundamentals and accuracy as far as what he would do it was ridiculous.
-
Bird eats Curry. There's no need to debate it really. People can have their silly arguments but anyone with any knowledge or eye for basketball would know this. I'm amazed this even became a debate. People thought i was nose gaving when i said that when I wasn't even doing that. I'm just more surprised there really are people who believe that. Sad really.
People like to use big words like nose gaving when who cares about that stuff. I didn't even mean it like that. Like i said people think i'm doing i'm not. They also think Curry is a better shooter than bird. People say i'm romanticizing when it's pretty clear who really is delusional. It's also clear who has a better sense of humor. This stuff isn't rocket science. It's nice to sound smart. It's better to actually be smart.
The game could be so much better too if players actually learned the game. The game itself has become too simplified. 3's and dunks. Not enough in between. Players are not nearly as intelligent as they used to be either.
Curry's game is so simplfied when Bird was something else.
You're trolling, right? I mean you have to be. The other posters clearly and explicitly stated it over and over again: NO ONE, not a single person here thinks Curry is the superior player. Some would argue (including myself) that Curry is the better shooter, but let me make it abundantly clear: no one is saying Curry is the superior player.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxddAnK98w
-
I'm not trolling. I gave my arguments. Curry is quicker and has more lift. Bird is a better shooter overall. If Bird played today had that kind of lift and physical health of players today to go with his game he would be absolutely absurd. Fundamentally Bird was a much better shooter. P layers used to smoke cigarettes back then. If Bird was as healthy as players today... He was much better though in other ways.
Give Curry a pack of cigarettes and lets see him do that. If Curry was playing during that time he would not be on bird's level.
Ainge's argument with Curry's assortment of shots does not hold water either. I completely disagree with Ainge and think he's silly there. That's the whole basis of my argument.
-
I'm not trolling. I gave my arguments. Curry is quicker and has more lift. Bird is a better shooter overall. If Bird played today had that kind of lift and physical health of players today to go with his game he would be absolutely absurd. Fundamentally Bird was a much better shooter. P layers used to smoke cigarettes back then. If Bird was as healthy as players today... He was much better though in other ways.
Give Curry a pack of cigarettes and lets see him do that. If Curry was playing during that time he would not be on bird's level.
Ainge's argument with Curry's assortment of shots does not hold water either. I completely disagree with Ainge and think he's silly there. That's the whole basis of my argument.
This has no pertinence to the argument whatsoever, not to mention that it's a ridiculous hypothetical that is not substantiated by any actual evidence.
-
Well the point is give me a player with Birds game and fundamentals with better health and todays game and then I will say they are better. But to this point I haven't seen it.
I'm also talking about shooting. I'm talking about Bird's ability to shoot the ball from all over the floor.
This is an issue with the nba today imo is we haven't seen that combination. Players are more physically skilled and catered to but it's also to a detriment of other aspects of the game.
KObe Bryant is close in ways. Curry is close in others. Dirk is close in others. But overall there isn't a player like Bird as far as a shooter. Bird was like a combination of all 3 as far as a shooter but better.
Paul Pierce surprisingly is probably the closest but he isn't near Bird's level for the time.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxddAnK98w
Everyone seems to know this scene, but I don't know anyone who has seen the movie.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxddAnK98w
Everyone seems to know this scene, but I don't know anyone who has seen the movie.
It's pretty corny as I remember (and am reminded by the youtube clips I just watched). That scene was definitely the show stealer.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxddAnK98w
Everyone seems to know this scene, but I don't know anyone who has seen the movie.
I have never seen the movie but I am even more glad now that Arnie dropped him off the cliff in Commando ;D
-
Well the point is give me a player with Birds game and fundamentals with better health and todays game and then I will say they are better. But to this point I haven't seen it.
I'm also talking about shooting. I'm talking about Bird's ability to shoot the ball from all over the floor.
This is an issue with the nba today imo is we haven't seen that combination. Players are more physically skilled and catered to but it's also to a detriment of other aspects of the game.
KObe Bryant is close in ways. Curry is close in others. Dirk is close in others. But overall there isn't a player like Bird as far as a shooter. Bird was like a combination of all 3 as far as a shooter.
Now I'm not a big fan of his, but how about LeBron James?
James' career FG% - 49.6%
Bird's - 49.6%
James' career 3P% - 34.2%
Bird's - 37.6%
James' career 2P% - 53.5%
Bird's - 50.9%
James' PPG - 27.3
Bird's - 24.3
Now Bird was, without a shadow of a doubt, the better shooter of the two, but overall, their percentages are rather similar. LeBron is clearly adept at shooting from all over the floor, although to a lesser extent of Bird. While the refs do give LeBron calls, he also plays an extremely physical brand of basketball which you've continually reminisced about. There you have it: a Larry Bird-esque player in today's NBA.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLxddAnK98w
Everyone seems to know this scene, but I don't know anyone who has seen the movie.
It's pretty corny as I remember (and am reminded by the youtube clips I just watched). That scene was definitely the show stealer.
It's a really fun hangover sunday/otherwise unserious B-movie. I love it.
-
Bird shot those percentages with rarely ever dunking the ball or being a mack truck of testosterone though. james is a good shooter but again those percentages are scewed because a lot of it is dunks and 3's. He doesn't have the assortment of shots. Yes james has an in between game. But it's different. It's simplistic in ways. I want to see a player who's just going off shooting the ball in a variety of ways. That's what Bird would do.
With the athletisism these players have they don't need to do that and just the style of play but even still you have player that does that would be good. Pierce was fundamentally sound that way but not close to birds level for the time. Pierce was not close to Bird as a shooter either.
Numbers are somewhat meaningless that way. A player today who had the athleticism and skillset to play like Bird would be pretty cool.
-
I know you're a Celtics/Bird fan but come on. Bird is a far better player both side of the ball, but Curry is the better shooter. As a Celtics fan even I have to admit that.
-
It has nothing to do with that. I totally disagree. I'd say noone in the league is a better passer than Magic johnson either. Chris Paul might have a better argument than Curry vs Bird but I still disagree. Again Magic and his assortment of passes and ability to dominate a game that way at a high level over a period of time.
Rondo had some of that but not on that level over that period. Rondo was a better passer than Chris Paul. Same argument but Rondo isn't near that level for the time.
-
It has nothing to do with that. I totally disagree. I'd say noone in the league is a better passer than Magic johnson either. Chris Paul might have a better argument than Curry vs Bird but I still disagree. Again Magic and his assortment of passes and ability to dominate a game that way at a high level over a period of time.
Rondo had some of that but not on that level over that period. Rondo was a better passer than Chris Paul. Same argument but Rondo isn't near that level for the time.
The Bird and Magic arguments are fundamentally different though. Magic's dominance as a passer can be quantified, his APG is way higher than anyone else in history. You have no numbers to back up your claims about Bird.
-
All I know is I keep that same argument with everything. It has very little to do with the team I root for. It's like Russell vs jordan. It's really difficult to compare players from different time periods. Russell dominated a league rebounding the ball that was somewhat undersized outside of Chamberlain. He was also more defensive oriented and won games in different ways. jordan was more offensively geared with roleplayers arond him and a very good defensive player himself. Russell has more championships. I don't disrespect either. I think jordan is sometimes somewhat overrated bcause of teh time period he played in but it was also very difficult for him to get championships early on because of teams like the Lakers and Celtics.
It's the same with anything. joe Montana. Dan Marino. I think if anything Marino gets the shaft sometimes because statistically as a passer he was completely dominating a league that was not like that at the time. Guys like Brady and Manning are and are winning championships but i give Marino his due. I don't discount Brady or Manning either. Or MOntana just because the style of play was different and he doesn't have the numbers. The same can be said about Emmitt Smith or Sanders. Two running backs playing at the same time. Two very different situations and style of play. Both great runningbacks. I don't sit here and say Emmitt wasn't deserving and I don't say that Sanders doesn't deserve his due either.
I try to be fair is all. I don't think i'm absolutely right. I don't know everything but I try to be fair and see things for how they are. It's a blessing and a curse I tell you lol.
-
My response to this thread, because I don't want to get it off topic more than I already have, was I don't think building like the warriors works because we don't have Curry. The entire team goes through him they have Klay Thompson and Green. We have Isiah Thomas who could make it interesting that way somewhat. I wouldnt mind getting a sf more like Green on this team. That's why I like Crowder. Green is even better. Unless a guy like the next Larry Bird comes along though. I don't see that though. That's why I think ainge is drafting guys like james young and taking chances on young small forwards that are halfway decent. jeff green was the same t hing. Crowder etc. Draymond would be an upgrade over Crowder. Isiah is not in Curry's class but that's the point is to upgrade.
I think our team is better served getting a big man down low though. Be a more balanced team and be stronger down low. The Warriors have great guard play and are weak inside.
I'd still be looking for that Larry Bird sf and center. That's just me. But if we could get Draymond ..
Draymond would be a really good signing and get a center too on this team to go with Smart and Thomas and guys like Bradley.
We sign Draymond I would let Crowder walk though. They are redundant. I would sign Draymond and bring Young along as a shooter. Save money that way vs reupping Crowder.
That would be a good move for the celtics. I still think Crowder might come along and be a draymond kind of guy but Ainge has been kind of spinning his wheels there. jeff green wasnt it. Crowder could be. Draymond Green we know what he is.
I think Isiah and Smart are keepers for the time being.
If I could build the celtics like this today it would go something like this
Isiah
Smart Bradley or Young
Draymond Crowder or Young
Sully/KO Kevin Love??
Draft a center or sign someone in the interm to be a rim protector.
I would keep james young just because he can play sg and sf. Smart ultimately may be our pg as well.
...
I really like Draymond Green as a player but also feel like we might be sellling ourselves short here a bit. Unless we are getting Kevin Love. Ben Simmons guys like that might actually be Larry Bird.
If I'm making anyones faces melt my apologies. It's not even like that.
-
Back on the derail for a second, Ric Bucher had this story re: Curry's shooting. It is one of the rarest of rarities -- a Bleacher Report article worth reading.
the assignment: Explore the notion that Warriors guard Stephen Curry is the greatest shooter in NBA history.
Initial reaction: This will be easy. Make a claim about someone being the greatest ever—it doesn't really matter what the topic is—and you can warm yourself by the outrage that follows. Accomplished NBA marksmen in particular, past and present, would bury the idea faster than a wide-open jumper.
Five of them, spanning 50-plus years of NBA history, responded to that claim: Rick Barry, Kiki Vandeweghe, Chuck "The Rifleman" Person, Dana Barros and Steve Nash.
Surely they would not all be prisoners of the moment, even if that moment has lasted about three seasons now, representing Curry's streak leading the league in both three-pointers taken and made. Surely the reverse off-hand shots glancing high off the backboard before floating down through the net or made three-pointers launched in the shadow of a defender, an expiring clock and the game's outcome would not unduly sway them.
Surely someone would point out that defensive rules have changed, that it's infinitely easier to get off shots now than a few decades ago, that someone as slight as Curry would've had to spend a year or two in the weight room before he could hope to compete in the NBA against the likes of Michael Jordan and Derek Harper and Gary Payton free to hand-check to their heart's content.
Or surely someone would point out that he is only in his sixth year, that proclaiming anyone the best the NBA ever has seen—especially someone whose third season was reduced to 26 games because of ankle issues—after such a relatively modest sample size would be premature.
Whether driven by ego or insight, surely someone would insist they played with or against someone better than Curry.
Nope. Fit Vandeweghe and Co. for proverbial orange jump suits along with everyone else who is convinced that when it comes to launching a pebbled leather sphere through a steel rim suspended 10 feet in the air, no one has done it more ways, from more places, with more numbing consistency and accuracy than Wardell Stephen Curry II. Ever.
"I played HORSE with Nash and he's the best I've played with," Vandeweghe said. "Steph reminds me of Steve in some ways."
"Comparing year to year, people at their peak, I've never seen anyone better," Vandeweghe said. "The difficulty of some of the shots he makes is incredible. He makes shots I wouldn't even think of taking, and I took a lot of shots. He has a certain body and court awareness. He always knows where the basket is. His fundamentals are as good as anyone I've seen—Dell's form is actually more textbook because his release point was higher—and no matter where he is, he can always get off a good shot."
Nash has no problem conceding the title to Curry.
"The only pause I have is from fear of being ignorant," he said. "Am I missing someone? Does he need to play longer or do it longer? Does he have to do it in the playoffs more years? But my first reaction is, 'Why not?' He's as good as anyone I can think of on every level—pure shooting, array of shots, percentage, getting hot, plays to the end—he checks all the boxes."
Nash discounted the value of his superior percentages—listen up, ye who believe numbers are infallible and efficiency is everything—because he approached the game differently and was sometimes chastised for it.
"He's probably going to shoot a lower percentage than me his whole career because he's going to take more shots and he should," Nash said. "It's just a difference in mentality. I would shoot a higher percentage than Steph because I was much more conservative. I would try to shoot as high a percentage as possible to save shots for my teammates and then shoot more in the fourth quarter. I had coaches tell me I was hurting our team at times by trying to set up my teammates, but I always thought I got it back by how I made them feel and incorporated them into the offensive scheme and the chemistry of the team. He's capable of that, but he's more inclined to score. There are things he can do that I can't. He's such a beautiful shooter with such an array of shots and such a quick release, you wouldn't want to take that away from him at all.
"Steph takes it to another level," Nash said. "I was able to do it going left and right, and we can both do it at speed, but I was always trying to get to the three-point line. He can do it from deeper and, frankly, I never took a step-back. He has no trouble taking a step-back and making it. You add that to all the other shots. It could be a clincher in this game of deciding who's the best."
"Truly, from the eye test, he's the greatest there's ever been."
Both Barros and Person played the majority of their careers before the league eliminated the illegal defense rules in 2001 and essentially outlawed hand-checking in 2004. That meant Barros, a career 41.1 percent three-point shooter over 14 seasons and listed as 5'11" and 163 pounds, had to learn how to get his shot off against defenders who could legally use their size and strength as advantages.
"I had to learn a new definition of what being open meant," Barros said. "I'll never forget Michael Jordan enveloping my whole waist with his hand, directing me and saying, 'You're going nowhere, Little Man.' Every time I received the ball in the open court I'd run as fast as I could. Once I got everybody afraid of my speed, I could pull up at the three-point line and have space to get my shot."
Despite Curry's equally slight frame (6'3", 185 pounds), Barros is convinced his ball-handling skills and quick release would've translated in the black-and-bluer '90s. "What he's doing would be amazing and unstoppable in any era," Barros said.
Bird, Miller, Allen and Glen Rice are on Person's personal all-time shooters card, but Curry stands above them all. "I don't think there's ever been anybody better," he said. "He can shoot the ball quicker than the spot-up guys. That's unprecedented."
[Barry] didn't outright dismiss Curry's claim to a mythic best-shooter-ever title, nor did he nominate someone else. He did raise some fair points—noting that the Atlanta Hawks' Kyle Korver has led the league in three-point shooting percentage the last two years and insisting "that there were probably a lot of" players in his era that were better mid-range shooters than Curry—but he took greatest exception to the all-encompassing aspect of the title.
"You can't even do it because you can't compare guys who played before the three-point line was introduced," said Barry, a 12-time All-Star—four times in the ABA—who led the Warriors to their lone championship in 1975. His last NBA season, '79-80, was the league's first with a three-point line adopted from the ABA. "You can only pick from the modern era," he said. "I had to learn how to shoot that shot."
While Barry might abstain from the all-time shooter platitudes, he, too, admires Curry's flare for the dramatic. "It's the way he does it," Barry said. "It's such a quick release with range. And his confidence is off the charts. He's fun to watch. And he's made himself into a great basketball player. He's a shooter, a scorer and a facilitator."
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2482473-is-stephen-curry-the-best-shooter-ever-yes-say-many-of-nbas-all-time-marksmen
¯\_(*-*)_/¯
-
Here we come. Warriors Eastside! Who needs big guys anyway, In the "New Nba"
-
This thread was made in May of 2015. Crazy enough let's look at the 2015 Warriors and the 2018 Celtics three years later.
Warriors
Curry
Thompson
Green
Barnes
Iggy
Bogut
Livingston
David Lee
Speights
Barbosa
Justin Holliday
Ezeli
Celtics
Irving
Hayward
Horford
Tatum
Brown
Baynes
Smart
Rozier
Morris
Theis
Semi
Williams
How crazy is it that Danny built a better roster than the 2015 Warriors in three short years.
-
This thread was made in May of 2015. Crazy enough let's look at the 2015 Warriors and the 2018 Celtics three years later.
Warriors
Curry
Thompson
Green
Barnes
Iggy
Bogut
Livingston
David Lee
Speights
Barbosa
Justin Holliday
Ezeli
Celtics
Irving
Hayward
Horford
Tatum
Brown
Baynes
Smart
Rozier
Morris
Theis
Semi
Williams
How crazy is it that Danny built a better roster than the 2015 Warriors in three short years.
Insane. DA’s work over the last few years since Rondo was traded has been awesome.
Love the fact that both teams featured Aussie big men
-
This thread was made in May of 2015. Crazy enough let's look at the 2015 Warriors and the 2018 Celtics three years later.
Warriors
Curry
Thompson
Green
Barnes
Iggy
Bogut
Livingston
David Lee
Speights
Barbosa
Justin Holliday
Ezeli
Celtics
Irving
Hayward
Horford
Tatum
Brown
Baynes
Smart
Rozier
Morris
Theis
Semi
Williams
How crazy is it that Danny built a better roster than the 2015 Warriors in three short years.
Insane. DA’s work over the last few years since Rondo was traded has been awesome.
Love the fact that both teams featured Aussie big men
Tp for recognizing Danny's genius.
-
2015 Celtics
. Player
0 Avery Bradley
63 Coty Clarke
99 Jae Crowder
28 R.J. Hunter
8 Jonas Jerebko
90 Amir Johnson
42 David Lee
55 Jordan Mickey
41 Kelly Olynyk
12 Terry Rozier
36 Marcus Smart
7 Jared Sullinger
4 Isaiah Thomas
11 Evan Turner
13 James Young
44 Tyler Zeller
-
This thread was made in May of 2015. Crazy enough let's look at the 2015 Warriors and the 2018 Celtics three years later.
Warriors
Curry
Thompson
Green
Barnes
Iggy
Bogut
Livingston
David Lee
Speights
Barbosa
Justin Holliday
Ezeli
Celtics
Irving
Hayward
Horford
Tatum
Brown
Baynes
Smart
Rozier
Morris
Theis
Semi
Williams
How crazy is it that Danny built a better roster than the 2015 Warriors in three short years.
It's ridiculous.
2015 Celtics
. Player
0 Avery Bradley
63 Coty Clarke
99 Jae Crowder
28 R.J. Hunter
8 Jonas Jerebko
90 Amir Johnson
42 David Lee
55 Jordan Mickey
41 Kelly Olynyk
12 Terry Rozier
36 Marcus Smart
7 Jared Sullinger
4 Isaiah Thomas
11 Evan Turner
13 James Young
44 Tyler Zeller
Speechless!
-
Let's just build the NBA champion Boston Celtics and forget about the flippin Warriors.
-
Let's just build the NBA champion Boston Celtics and forget about the flippin Warriors.
Thank You. The Boston Celtics do not genuflect to other league teams in some pathetic effort to beat them at their own game. The Great Celtic teams had their own style and won titles playing our game. Recently, however, we have had Danny Boy make some moves in a bad attempt to match up with another teams style. Bringing in Jeff Green and shipping out Kendrick Perkins was the worst trade he has made. He traded away the one advantage that Celtic group had - interior defense, rebounding, mental toughness and intimidation so we could be as good as Miami at playing an athletic, finesse style that Danny has always seemed to favor.
-
Let's just build the NBA champion Boston Celtics and forget about the flippin Warriors.
Thank You. The Boston Celtics do not genuflect to other league teams in some pathetic effort to beat them at their own game. The Great Celtic teams had their own style and won titles playing our game. Recently, however, we have had Danny Boy make some moves in a bad attempt to match up with another teams style. Bringing in Jeff Green and shipping out Kendrick Perkins was the worst trade he has made. He traded away the one advantage that Celtic group had - interior defense, rebounding, mental toughness and intimidation so we could be as good as Miami at playing an athletic, finesse style that Danny has always seemed to favor.
Trading away Perk wasn't a bad move at all. Perk was absolutely shot, and never returned to the guy he was with us. Jeff Green was a solid player with us as a starter, if frustrating. If Shaq doesn't go down then nobody would care about losing Perk
-
Let's just build the NBA champion Boston Celtics and forget about the flippin Warriors.
Thank You. The Boston Celtics do not genuflect to other league teams in some pathetic effort to beat them at their own game. The Great Celtic teams had their own style and won titles playing our game. Recently, however, we have had Danny Boy make some moves in a bad attempt to match up with another teams style. Bringing in Jeff Green and shipping out Kendrick Perkins was the worst trade he has made. He traded away the one advantage that Celtic group had - interior defense, rebounding, mental toughness and intimidation so we could be as good as Miami at playing an athletic, finesse style that Danny has always seemed to favor.
Trading away Perk wasn't a bad move at all. Perk was absolutely shot, and never returned to the guy he was with us. Jeff Green was a solid player with us as a starter, if frustrating. If Shaq doesn't go down then nobody would care about losing Perk
Yeah the remainder of Perk's career was a steady slide out of the league, starting in those playoffs for OKC. And we had basically zero backup wings after Marquis Daniels had that scary neck injury.
It's not going to make a dent though. Sometimes grievances take on a life of their own.