Ainge: Curry the greatest shooter over Bird

[fairweatherfan]

How do we even define "best shooter"?  It seems like alot of people here are leaning soley towards just 3pt%/volume but there's just so much more to it than that.  Behind the arc, inside the arc, free throws, off the dribble, wide open, with a man in your face, facing a double team, step back, fadeaway, coming off a pick, in the clutch, etc. There's definitely more to shooting than long range accuracy, and not just as easy as looking at 1-2 stats.  Not saying you can't argue Curry for most/all of those things, just saying there should be more to the discussion (like surprised Mark Price was scoffed at, thought maybe he could hang in the discussion, a career 50-40-90 guy under foulweather's updated criteria).

I agree with this - it's too easy to conflate it with 3 pt shooting, but there were great shooters before the 3 was a thing (still hoping one of our older posters will come comment on who the greatest pre-3 pt era guy might be). 

The problem is factors like different degrees of difficulty are a bit harder (though not impossible) to quantify and combine into some aggregate of "shooting", especially when comparing different eras.  The nice thing about a sport like the NBA, though, is that what makes the great shooters great is that they continue putting up great basic stats in spite of the defense constantly keying on them.  So it's fair to say that sustained excellence is generally accompanied by the shots getting tougher overall.

But then you start to get into issues like "would Curry be as efficient without another excellent shooter like Klay Thompson next to him" and the like.  It's very tough to even know the best way to approach it once you really get into the weeds, let alone what the answer would be.  But it at least seems beyond reproach that no one has ever shot from distance as effectively as Curry has for the past 3 years.

[D.o.s.]

Is it easier to make a shot that is closer to the hoop or further away?

Is it easier to make a shot off the dribble, or off of a pass?

Is it easier to make a shot while you are open, or while you are guarded?

Is it easier to make a shot when you are the primary ball handler or if you are playing primarily off the ball?

Is it easier to make a three point shot against a defense designed to deal with post play, or one that is designed to deal with perimeter shooting?

And so on. For more or less every question relative to degree of difficulty, Curry (at least to my way of thinking) comes out making more difficult shots more frequently than his 'peers', at least the other players that have come up in this conversation.

[Moranis]

How do we even define "best shooter"?  It seems like alot of people here are leaning soley towards just 3pt%/volume but there's just so much more to it than that.  Behind the arc, inside the arc, free throws, off the dribble, wide open, with a man in your face, facing a double team, step back, fadeaway, coming off a pick, in the clutch, etc. There's definitely more to shooting than long range accuracy, and not just as easy as looking at 1-2 stats.  Not saying you can't argue Curry for most/all of those things, just saying there should be more to the discussion (like surprised Mark Price was scoffed at, thought maybe he could hang in the discussion, a career 50-40-90 guy under foulweather's updated criteria).

I agree with this - it's too easy to conflate it with 3 pt shooting, but there were great shooters before the 3 was a thing (still hoping one of our older posters will come comment on who the greatest pre-3 pt era guy might be). 

The problem is factors like different degrees of difficulty are a bit harder (though not impossible) to quantify and combine into some aggregate of "shooting", especially when comparing different eras.  The nice thing about a sport like the NBA, though, is that what makes the great shooters great is that they continue putting up great basic stats in spite of the defense constantly keying on them.  So it's fair to say that sustained excellence is generally accompanied by the shots getting tougher overall.

But then you start to get into issues like "would Curry be as efficient without another excellent shooter like Klay Thompson next to him" and the like.  It's very tough to even know the best way to approach it once you really get into the weeds, let alone what the answer would be.  But it at least seems beyond reproach that no one has ever shot from distance as effectively as Curry has for the past 3 years.

I'm a younger guy, but I know a lot of older people claim Oscar Robertson was a great shooter that could hit from anywhere and with great accuracy.  He was a career 48.5% from the field and 83.8% from the line guy, so that claim actually matches the stats, especially given that era when there weren't many great FG%'s (Oscar actually finished in the top 5 four times, and top 10 four other times). 

I've also heard Pete Maravich and Jerry West mentioned a lot.  Maravich doesn't really have a great shooting percentage, though some of that may be a function of team.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm a younger guy, but I know a lot of older people claim Oscar Robertson was a great shooter that could hit from anywhere and with great accuracy.  He was a career 48.5% from the field and 83.8% from the line guy, so that claim actually matches the stats, especially given that era when there weren't many great FG%'s (Oscar actually finished in the top 5 four times, and top 10 four other times). 

I've also heard Pete Maravich and Jerry West mentioned a lot.  Maravich doesn't really have a great shooting percentage, though some of that may be a function of team.

West is who my gut tells me, but I haven't seen him play outside of highlight clips here and there.  He did hit what has to be the longest game-tying shot in Finals history, from about 3/4 court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzWGnA4Ll-0

[Celtics17]

Didn't Bird win 3-3 point shooting contests in a row? Or, maybe it was 2, can't remember? Anyway,  until Curry wins one more I think Bird is at least in any conversation of the greatest 3 point shooters. He was also one of the best shooters from anywhere. You can argue that had Bird played in today's era and needed to make a ton more 3's that he would.

[D.o.s.]

Didn't Bird win 3-3 point shooting contests in a row? Or, maybe it was 2, can't remember? Anyway,  until Curry wins one more I think Bird is at least in any conversation of the greatest 3 point shooters. He was also one of the best shooters from anywhere. You can argue that had Bird played in today's era and needed to make a ton more 3's that he would.

It was 3. And, as was already brought up, he has a lower career playoff 3pt% than LeBron (check page 3 for the details that's not an exact representation of the point Moranis made), who is hardly anyone's choice for 'best three point shooter' today.

[GreenFaith1819]

As much as I bleed Green, it is hard to argue against those in Curry's corner.

Curry needs to keep this hot streak up, though....

But remember - being perhaps the greatest SHOOTER is a LOT different than being perhaps a top 3-5 PLAYER of ALL TIME, which Larry Legend is.

[D.o.s.]

But remember - being perhaps the greatest SHOOTER is a LOT different than being perhaps a top 3-5 PLAYER of ALL TIME, which Larry Legend is.

Absolutely true. Praising one player is not automatically a slight on the other.

[Moranis]

The active leader for career 3PT% in the post season is the "great" Jared Dudley at 45.57%.  He is 4th all time.

2nd among active players is the "great" Mike Dunleavy. 

Irving is 3rd among active players (yep this year in his 13 games he shot an excellent 45% from three). 

So even though I used playoff shooting percentages, I'm not really sure how much stock you can put in it.  That said, Bird wasn't exactly a great regular season 3 point shooter either. 

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

The active leader for career 3PT% in the post season is the "great" Jared Dudley at 45.57%.  He is 4th all time.

2nd among active players is the "great" Mike Dunleavy. 

Irving is 3rd among active players (yep this year in his 13 games he shot an excellent 45% from three). 

So even though I used playoff shooting percentages, I'm not really sure how much stock you can put in it.  That said, Bird wasn't exactly a great regular season 3 point shooter either.

Ainge said you have to look at how many he shot and made, the moments he made them, how far away some were, and the angles he made some. It's easier to make a high % when you're an offensive afterthought like the guys above, but think about how difficult it is when defenses are designed to stop you and you're the main focal point like Bird and Curry. I think context matters.

[BballTim]

I would wager that's EP being sarcastic.

Heck if you take last year out when Lebron was incredibly inefficient he has a better career 3PT% in the playoffs than Bird.  I get that we all love Bird on here, but his career playoff shooting percentage from 3 is just 32.1%.  He has more seasons under 17% than he has over 40% in the playoffs.

To put that into perspective, though, Bird only took ~250 playoff threes... while being a three time three point contest winner. I would not put my money on James in something as comparatively low stakes as a three point contest, so the comparison here seems a little silly (and I'm someone who thinks James comes up positive in most aspects of his career in comparison to LL).

Also, in regards to your "but if you take out last year" comment, I'm reminded of Beavis and Butthead:
"uh… huh huh… well, huh huh… if nothing sucked, and like, everything was cool all the time, then it’s like, how would you know it was cool? huh huh…"

Gotta take the good with the bad.

Even with last year, James is only slightly lower (32.1 vs. 31..  I just think that last year was an exception.  Though, that said last year James shot 22.7% from three in the playoffs, which is 3% lower than his previous career low.  Bird had 3 seasons lower than that.  Bird and James' best seasons in the playoffs (to date with James anyway) was the year they were aged 29.  James is comparable from three, but almost 9% better from two.  Bird was an incredible all around player, one of the best players ever, but this notion that he was this all time great shooter is just silly. 

  It's not silly unless you base your analysis solely on stats and don't notice things like LeBron's two-point percentage for his career is under 40% if he's not right at the rim when he shoots.

[BballTim]

How do we even define "best shooter"?  It seems like alot of people here are leaning soley towards just 3pt%/volume but there's just so much more to it than that.  Behind the arc, inside the arc, free throws, off the dribble, wide open, with a man in your face, facing a double team, step back, fadeaway, coming off a pick, in the clutch, etc. There's definitely more to shooting than long range accuracy, and not just as easy as looking at 1-2 stats.

  This is something that a) is key to the conversation and b) never comes up until the thread's at least a few pages long.

[D.o.s.]

How do we even define "best shooter"?  It seems like alot of people here are leaning soley towards just 3pt%/volume but there's just so much more to it than that.  Behind the arc, inside the arc, free throws, off the dribble, wide open, with a man in your face, facing a double team, step back, fadeaway, coming off a pick, in the clutch, etc. There's definitely more to shooting than long range accuracy, and not just as easy as looking at 1-2 stats.

  This is something that a) is key to the conversation and b) never comes up until the thread's at least a few pages long.

Possibly because it's seen as so obvious it doesn't need to be stated until posters prove otherwise.

[Alleyoopster]

I would have to agree with Ainge's assessment that Curry's shooting this year was better than Bird's career overall shooting.  And, that we'll have to wait and see if this is repeatable. 

Even given that, in many games I felt Bird wasn't the most dependable shooter on the team.  There were a lot of times I would hope Larry would pass the ball to McHale down low and have him shoot the ball. 

Instead, Larry would often take a longer range shot and be less accurate.  I felt he didn't pass it to McHale because he was being somewhat selfish.  (Yeah, I know the argument...Larry's the best passer ever...yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, etc.  And, his shooting accuracy numbers are unbelievable. And, his range of shots has never been replicated.) Yet, in so many games the other team just didn't have an answer to Kevin's short jumper.  He was virtually unstoppable.  It used to get me so upset.  My guess is Kevin could have averaged 40 points a game if Larry passed him the ball more often.  Yeah, Larry could have averaged 40 too.  It just would have taken him a lot more shots.

Again, I'm not saying Larry had less overall ability to shoot the ball.  Because he could do it  in so many ways.  Just that Kevin was often more reliable and should have gotten more touches. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9rjNgN0mY  (Kevin's 56 point game.)

[BballTim]

How do we even define "best shooter"?  It seems like alot of people here are leaning soley towards just 3pt%/volume but there's just so much more to it than that.  Behind the arc, inside the arc, free throws, off the dribble, wide open, with a man in your face, facing a double team, step back, fadeaway, coming off a pick, in the clutch, etc. There's definitely more to shooting than long range accuracy, and not just as easy as looking at 1-2 stats.

  This is something that a) is key to the conversation and b) never comes up until the thread's at least a few pages long.

Possibly because it's seen as so obvious it doesn't need to be stated until posters prove otherwise.

   I think it's more a case of too much typing and not enough considering the subject. The post that I quoted lists about a dozen possible criteria for determining the better shooter. Are you claiming that everyone who's in the thread (aside from me and bdm860) give the same weight to each of those criteria when they determine who is the better shooter?