Ainge: Curry the greatest shooter over Bird

[crimson_stallion]

I think you've walked yourself into a hole, here. The point is, Kobe and MJ had to take those difficult jumpers -- they would've probably rather drilled a 3 with far less effort, if they could have as well as X, Y, Z. Are they better players? Sure. But I doubt that warrants its own thread, let alone a hijacking of this one.

You're using a lot of words to differentiate scorers from shooters. They're very different and it's taking the thread way off topic. Original topic at hand -- Curry is likely the most gifted shooter that we have ever seen. That's about it, full story. No stats needed.

How am I differentiating scorers from shooters? Am I predominately talking talking about free throw rates, layups and dunks? 

No, I'm not.  I'm talking about mid-range jumpers.  Is a mid-range jumpshot not a shot?

Also who says those guys would shoot more threes if they could?   

Why exactly DOES somebody fade away on a jumpshot, rather than going straight up?  Because it creates space between you and your defender, which in turn makes it very difficult for your defender to block/challenge your shot.  The flip side is that the shot is obviously more difficult then a regular jumper, hence why not all players are able to hit these kinds of shots with consistency.  But if you CAN master the fadeaway jumper (the way guys like MJ, Kobe and Melo have) then you can get your shot off pretty much anytime you want.  This means that rather than having to settle for what the defense gives you, you can create scoring opportunities at will.

Maybe that's why guys like this have chosen to specilise in the mid-range game, rather than the three.  Because dominating the mid-range game in many ways makes you more dangerous and harder to stop.

There have been players who have shot just as well as Curry from three, yet also shot better percentages from mid-range.  Steve Nash (as I already stated) is one such player.   So how can you say that Steph Curry is "likely the most gifted shooter that we have ever seen" when his superiority as a shooter is purely based purely on the three?

Perhaps you should correct your statement to read:

Steph Curry is likely the most gifted three-point shooter we have ever seen.

Even this is still debatable, but is more justifiable.

Either way, I still don't understand why elite mid-range shooters aren't considered shooters.

[tarheelsxxiii]

I think you've walked yourself into a hole, here. The point is, Kobe and MJ had to take those difficult jumpers -- they would've probably rather drilled a 3 with far less effort, if they could have as well as X, Y, Z. Are they better players? Sure. But I doubt that warrants its own thread, let alone a hijacking of this one.

You're using a lot of words to differentiate scorers from shooters. They're very different and it's taking the thread way off topic. Original topic at hand -- Curry is likely the most gifted shooter that we have ever seen. That's about it, full story. No stats needed.

How am I?

Since when is a mid-range jumpshot not a shot?

There have been players who have shot just as well as Curry from three, yet also shot better percentages from mid-range.  Steve Nash (as I already stated) is one such player.

So how can you say that Steph Curry is "likely the most gifted shooter that we have ever seen" when his superiority as a shooter is purely based purely on the three?

Perhaps you should correct your statement to read:

Steph Curry is likely the most gifted three-point shooter we have ever seen.

Even this is still debatable, but it's more justifiable.

The contested fade-away is one of the most difficult in-game shots on the court. MJ got a lot of credit for that. It's a shot, the elite are elite, and it just so happens the 2 masters of it are 2 of the top 10 players of all time. Not minimizing that at all. 

The three-point shot is the most difficult shot on the court in an open gym, and that is how I'm defining pure shooting ability. When it comes to the 3ball, no one has put together the 2 historic seasons Curry has. His release, trajectory, pull-up off the dribble are incredible.

Beyond that, stats don't even tell the full story, as posters on both sides of the argument have commented on -- different eras, skill sets, etc. The fact remains that the 3 ball is the most difficult to hit in an open court, and the most important point to all of this... beyond him breaking the single-season record twice, is the manner in which he does it. He's hitting 3s off balance, fading to the side, under contest ... just like Kobe and MJ were hitting those seemingly impossible 2s. It's remarkable. Yet he goes beyond that by drilling them off the dribble, such as a quick cross-over. We literally haven't seen it ... and yet his stats break records over the course of an entire season.

He can carry MJ's jock (or Kobe's) in a ton of other facets of the game, but not pure shooting. Isn't that all we're talking about here?

[crimson_stallion]

The contested fade-away is one of the most difficult in-game shots on the court. MJ got a lot of credit for that.

The three-point shot is the most difficult shot on the court in an open gym, and that is how I'm defining pure shooting ability. When it comes to the 3ball, no one has put together the 2 historic seasons Curry has. His release and trajectory is incredible.

Stats don't tell the full story, as posters on both sides of the argument have commented on -- different eras, skill sets, etc. The fact remains that the 3 ball is the most difficult to hit, and the most important point to all of this... beyond him breaking the single-season record twice, is the manner in which he does it. He's hitting 3s off balance, fading to the side, under contest ... just like Kobe and MJ were hitting those seemingly impossible 2s. It's remarkable. Yet he goes beyond that by drilling them off the dribble, such as a quick cross-over. We literally haven't seen it ... and yet his stats break records over the course of an entire season.

I had started to type out one of my usual essay-like arguments but then I decided not to.

At the end of the day, there is no single objective measure that you can use to truly determine something like this.  There is no way to factually say "player X is the best shooter ever".  It's always going to come down to some kind of argument which involves some mix of:

a) Objective facts
b) Subjective opinion
c) Personal bias

I think that's completely unavoidable with a topic like this.

So at the end of the day, the guys who have been mentioned here are all great players and great shooters in their own right, one way or the other.  Which is the 'greatest' of them all is always vary depending on the perspective of he/she who is making the argument. 

I actually think most people underrate Curry by painting him as just a deadly shooter from deep.

From page 2. I would say that still applies here.

I agree with this.

I admit that a couple of year ago,  I did see Curry as just a shooter.  But he has really become a great all round player.  He can score in a variety of ways, he's an excellent passer, and his defense has improved dramatically. 

Admittedly I still don't feel 100% convinced that he is 'MVP' good individually - I still feel team success had a lot to do with that award.  But then again, that's all subjective.  Even if he isn't MVP worthy (which is, again, subjective) he's definitely not far from it.

[D.o.s.]

I actually think most people underrate Curry by painting him as just a deadly shooter from deep.

From page 2. I would say that still applies here.

[BballTim]

Anyway let me remind you that Kobe has 5 NBA championships, and he won at least two of those championships as the undisputed leader and best player on his team.  Undisputed as in it wasn't even close. Food for thought.

Great post but this is wrong -- Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe to the Lakers successes in the post-Shaq championships. it's a similar distinction to the way KG was the most important/impactful/etc. player on the Celtics but Pierce got Finals MVP.

  More important is generally based on a lot of factors (like position played, roster makeup and the like). I'd agree that Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe, but he wasn't a better player. I don't like Kobe, but he was an mvp candidate that year. Gasol hasn't been on that level at any point in his career.

[Alleyoopster]

Do we really need to debate who is the best shooter?  Aren't all these elite athletes just as much artists as they are/were basketball players?  We don't debate weather Picasso was better than Gauguin.  Or, whether Ansel Adams was better than Annie Liebovizt. 

They are/were all terrific....each had his own unique talent and most of us enjoyed how they played the game.  If you watched these players and all you did was compare them to other players past of current, then you missed the game entirely.  Or, at the very least you probably didn't appreciate their efforts for you simply were thinking player X does/did it better or worse. 

Sure, we can look at percentages, era they played in, etc.  The reality is that these players are/were very, very good.  And, they provided tons of entertainment value to the average fan.   

[celtics2030]

I think you've walked yourself into a hole, here. The point is, Kobe and MJ had to take those difficult jumpers -- they would've probably rather drilled a 3 with far less effort, if they could have as well as X, Y, Z. Are they better players? Sure. But I doubt that warrants its own thread, let alone a hijacking of this one.

You're using a lot of words to differentiate scorers from shooters. They're very different and it's taking the thread way off topic. Original topic at hand -- Curry is likely the most gifted shooter that we have ever seen. That's about it, full story. No stats needed.

How am I?

Since when is a mid-range jumpshot not a shot?

There have been players who have shot just as well as Curry from three, yet also shot better percentages from mid-range.  Steve Nash (as I already stated) is one such player.

So how can you say that Steph Curry is "likely the most gifted shooter that we have ever seen" when his superiority as a shooter is purely based purely on the three?

Perhaps you should correct your statement to read:

Steph Curry is likely the most gifted three-point shooter we have ever seen.

Even this is still debatable, but it's more justifiable.

The contested fade-away is one of the most difficult in-game shots on the court. MJ got a lot of credit for that. It's a shot, the elite are elite, and it just so happens the 2 masters of it are 2 of the top 10 players of all time. Not minimizing that at all. 

The three-point shot is the most difficult shot on the court in an open gym, and that is how I'm defining pure shooting ability. When it comes to the 3ball, no one has put together the 2 historic seasons Curry has. His release, trajectory, pull-up off the dribble are incredible.

Beyond that, stats don't even tell the full story, as posters on both sides of the argument have commented on -- different eras, skill sets, etc. The fact remains that the 3 ball is the most difficult to hit in an open court, and the most important point to all of this... beyond him breaking the single-season record twice, is the manner in which he does it. He's hitting 3s off balance, fading to the side, under contest ... just like Kobe and MJ were hitting those seemingly impossible 2s. It's remarkable. Yet he goes beyond that by drilling them off the dribble, such as a quick cross-over. We literally haven't seen it ... and yet his stats break records over the course of an entire season.

He can carry MJ's jock (or Kobe's) in a ton of other facets of the game, but not pure shooting. Isn't that all we're talking about here?

How long have you been alive? or watching basketball?

[greece66]

To be fair he said ''the greatest'' if he maintains this level of performance in future.

[D.o.s.]

Anyway let me remind you that Kobe has 5 NBA championships, and he won at least two of those championships as the undisputed leader and best player on his team.  Undisputed as in it wasn't even close. Food for thought.

Great post but this is wrong -- Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe to the Lakers successes in the post-Shaq championships. it's a similar distinction to the way KG was the most important/impactful/etc. player on the Celtics but Pierce got Finals MVP.

  More important is generally based on a lot of factors (like position played, roster makeup and the like). I'd agree that Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe, but he wasn't a better player. I don't like Kobe, but he was an mvp candidate that year. Gasol hasn't been on that level at any point in his career.

Yeah, this is absolutely correct + a good point. I don't think anyone would argue that Gasol was a better player than Kobe.

[Donoghus]

Anyway let me remind you that Kobe has 5 NBA championships, and he won at least two of those championships as the undisputed leader and best player on his team.  Undisputed as in it wasn't even close. Food for thought.

Great post but this is wrong -- Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe to the Lakers successes in the post-Shaq championships. it's a similar distinction to the way KG was the most important/impactful/etc. player on the Celtics but Pierce got Finals MVP.

  More important is generally based on a lot of factors (like position played, roster makeup and the like). I'd agree that Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe, but he wasn't a better player. I don't like Kobe, but he was an mvp candidate that year. Gasol hasn't been on that level at any point in his career.

Yeah, this is absolutely correct + a good point. I don't think anyone would argue that Gasol was a better player than Kobe.

And I also think that anyone who watched the 2010 Finals in depth will say that Gasol was the absolute key to that title.  Sadly, for us, he kinda took it to KG that series.   

[slamtheking]

Anyway let me remind you that Kobe has 5 NBA championships, and he won at least two of those championships as the undisputed leader and best player on his team.  Undisputed as in it wasn't even close. Food for thought.

Great post but this is wrong -- Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe to the Lakers successes in the post-Shaq championships. it's a similar distinction to the way KG was the most important/impactful/etc. player on the Celtics but Pierce got Finals MVP.

  More important is generally based on a lot of factors (like position played, roster makeup and the like). I'd agree that Gasol was arguably more important than Kobe, but he wasn't a better player. I don't like Kobe, but he was an mvp candidate that year. Gasol hasn't been on that level at any point in his career.

Yeah, this is absolutely correct + a good point. I don't think anyone would argue that Gasol was a better player than Kobe.

And I also think that anyone who watched the 2010 Finals in depth will say that Gasol was the absolute key to that title.  Sadly, for us, he kinda took it to KG that series.   

agreed.  no Gasol, no LA titles in 09 or 10.  Kobe was the star but Gasol was the key player.