Ainge: Curry the greatest shooter over Bird

[D.o.s.]

Giving the same weight (which is subjective) is not the same thing as giving equal consideration to factors (which is relatively objective), and I can say that pretty unreservedly, particularly given the majority of the posters who responded on the first page who are relatively thoughtful and measured in their thinking.

So when you say "are you sure every poster except for me and the one guy that agrees with me really thought about the bigger picture" I just flash back to you screaming about how Chris Paul wasn't as good at Rondo. And then I sigh and realize that you've never been convinced of anything about the players you have a total fanboner for, so it's not even worth the effort.

[BballTim]

Giving the same weight (which is subjective) is not the same thing as giving equal consideration to factors (which is relatively objective), and I can say that pretty unreservedly, particularly given the majority of the posters who responded on the first page who are relatively thoughtful and measured in their thinking.

  In other words, we're discussing who's a better shooter when the definition of "better shooter" varies from poster to poster. The definition of a good shooter isn't obvious as it varies from post to post.

So when you say "are you sure every poster except for me and the one guy that agrees with me really thought about the bigger picture" I just flash back to you screaming about how Chris Paul wasn't as good at Rondo. And then I sigh and realize that you've never been convinced of anything about the players you have a total fanboner for, so it's not even worth the effort.

  If you're picturing me screaming that Paul wasn't as good as Rondo that's more of a delusion than a flashback. I'm not sure whether you give too much credence to posters who can't tell the difference between "Rondo isn't a liability on offense" and "Rondo's better than Magic was" or if you fit into that category yourself. The fact that you seem to think that only one person in a thread that's fairly evenly divided agrees with me points to the latter. Fwiw, I could start quoting the more nonsensical things that posters have said to you as fact as well, but I doubt it would add much to the discussion.

[mgent]

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.

Um, Bird only shot more than 50 3pt shots once in the playoffs, and that year he shot 41%.

Kind of an absolutely ridiculous comparison.

LeBron has never shot less than 50 3pt shots in the playoffs.

I'm guessing a contest where shooting 3s is the goal, is a much better measure/indicator than what Bird did throughout his era, when shooting 3s were FAR from the goal.

And that's not mentioning the fact that shooting 3s has been the goal in the NBA since Curry hit adolescence.

Has LeBron ever even gotten close to getting an invite to the 3pt contest?  Bird was probably the first call every year, while I doubt LeBron is even among the top 100 3pt shooters in the league.

[mgent]

[D.o.s.]

(check page 3 for the details that's not an exact representation of the point Moranis made)

And you will also see that I said that Bird was a better shooter than LeBron on that page, should you check it. Usually I try to read through threads before I post. Do you?

[BballTim]

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). 

  You could similarly illustrate Bird's accuracy. He had 8 seasons where he took more 3s than the number of games he played. In those seasons he finished top 4 in 3fg% 3 times and top 8 four others. The only season he took more than 1 3p attempt a game and didn't finish top 8 was a season where he came back from a year lost to injury.

  When you compare Bird's numbers to Curry or James you have to consider that for most of Bird's healthy years teams only averaged about 4 3p attempts a game and the league average for making them was frequently under 30%. Teams didn't run plays designed to get 3s and players weren't encouraged to look for opportunities. Most of the shots were probably either end of quarter or when teams were trying to overcome deficits at the end of games. It's not a leap to assume that most current players would have a lower 3fg% if that was when they took the bulk of their shots.

[mgent]

(check page 3 for the details that's not an exact representation of the point Moranis made)

And you will also see that I said that Bird was a better shooter than LeBron on that page, should you check it. Usually I try to read through threads before I post. Do you?

It was brought up on page 3, it was ridiculous on page 3, and it was still ridiculous when you brought it up again on page 4.

It's awesome that people can throw out stats without context, but I reserve the right to disagree with people.

I simply don't understand how someone asking about how many 3pt contests Bird won has anything to do with LeBron having a higher playoff %.  Didn't mean any offense (I wasn't insinuating you're dumb and think LeBron is a better shooter).

[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.

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.
Report to moderator     Logged
At least a gold

Oh well shoot, I didnt realize that we were just looking at percentages! In that case Wilt must be the best shooter ever since he shot almost 73% from the field one year. Comparing percentages really isn't the story though. The game is totally different now then when Bird played. Curry gets a much higher percentage of his points from 3 then did Bird. Now, ask yourself, if Bird really needed to score the same percentage from 3 that Curry does, could he? That is really the comparison. I think he could and not only that but he would open up the game for his teammates better then Curry does.

[GC003332]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50–40–90_club

There are only 6 members of this club and Curry ain't one of them

Bird was so good he founded this club 

Yeah Mark Price was a much better shooter than Steph Curry. Good eye for legitimate criteria in this discussion there.

What are you some sort of control freak or something? Who says you have to post legitimate criteria on these forums lol

[GC003332]

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.

Bird doesn't have a career playoff 3pt%  lower than Lebron.
Tough to take you seriously when you can't get the simple basics correct

[GC003332]

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). 

  You could similarly illustrate Bird's accuracy. He had 8 seasons where he took more 3s than the number of games he played. In those seasons he finished top 4 in 3fg% 3 times and top 8 four others. The only season he took more than 1 3p attempt a game and didn't finish top 8 was a season where he came back from a year lost to injury.

  When you compare Bird's numbers to Curry or James you have to consider that for most of Bird's healthy years teams only averaged about 4 3p attempts a game and the league average for making them was frequently under 30%. Teams didn't run plays designed to get 3s and players weren't encouraged to look for opportunities. Most of the shots were probably either end of quarter or when teams were trying to overcome deficits at the end of games. It's not a leap to assume that most current players would have a lower 3fg% if that was when they took the bulk of their shots.

Exactly

[crimson_stallion]

Yep. He owns the two best 3-point shooting regular seasons in the history of the NBA, as well. Premature as it may seem, he is already the best 3-point shooter of all time.

Now that is just untrue...it's like saying Anthony Davis is already the best PF of all time. 

No.

Gosh you hate me, lol. I'll reframe: he is the most talented shooter we have ever seen. That's much different from stating he's the best career shooter of all time, best shooting PG of all time, etc. He's simply the best pure shooter we have ever seen from a talent standpoint... obviously not taking into account overall careers. Allen would be the best career shooter imo.

No I don't hate anyone - just have many disagreements!  Speaking of which, I disagree on this too haha

My point is that:

1) Steve Nash pretty much averaged 49% / 40% / 90% over 18 years
2) Ray Allen averaged 45% FG / 40% 3PT and 90% FT over 18 years
3) Steve Kerr averaged 48% / 45% / 86% over 16 years
4) Jeff Hornacek averaged 50% / 40% / 88% over 14 years
5) John Stockton averaged 51% / 38% / 83% over 19 years
6) Reggie Miller averaged 47% / 40% / 89% over 18 years
7) Chris Mullin averaged 51% / 38% / 87% over 16 years

I could go on and on.

There are just so many guys over the very long history of the NBA who have put up amazing shooting numbers and have held those numbers over well over a decade of play, and many of the guys on that list managed those numbers despite being the only great shooter on their team (and hence having the defensive attention always on them).

I'm not denying that Curry is an elite shooter, but for people to go around saying things like "best shooter ever" after he's only been in the NBA for 6 seasons, then to me that is disrespecting all of the great shooters who have come before him and who have put up amazing shooting performances for 15+ years running. 

I understand the argument that Curry has taken probably twice as many attempts per game as any of the guys on that list while still shooting comparable (arguably even better) percentages - but then other guys on that list.  But the fact remains that he's done this for 5 seasons, and until he's kept this up for at least another 4 or 5 seasons in the league he deserves no such accolades.

Your other statement (that he is 'on track' to be the greatest shooter ever) is more of a fair statement.  Can't really argue with that...but then again there are also no awards for that either. 

Hell Rajon Rondo was on track for being probably a top 3 or 4 all time leader in assists and triple doubles and look what happened.

Lets just all agree that Curry is a great shooter, and that he has the potential to be one of the best (if not the best) ever.  I think we can all agree on that  

[tarheelsxxiii]

Yep. He owns the two best 3-point shooting regular seasons in the history of the NBA, as well. Premature as it may seem, he is already the best 3-point shooter of all time.

Now that is just untrue...it's like saying Anthony Davis is already the best PF of all time. 

No.

Gosh you hate me, lol. I'll reframe: he is the most talented shooter we have ever seen. That's much different from stating he's the best career shooter of all time, best shooting PG of all time, etc. He's simply the best pure shooter we have ever seen from a talent standpoint... obviously not taking into account overall careers. Allen would be the best career shooter imo.

No I don't hate anyone - just have many disagreements!  Speaking of which, I disagree on this too haha

My point is that:

1) Steve Nash pretty much averaged 49% / 40% / 90% over 18 years
2) Ray Allen averaged 45% FG / 40% 3PT and 90% FT over 18 years
3) Steve Kerr averaged 48% / 45% / 86% over 16 years
4) Jeff Hornacek averaged 50% / 40% / 88% over 14 years
5) John Stockton averaged 51% / 38% / 83% over 19 years
6) Reggie Miller averaged 47% / 40% / 89% over 18 years
7) Chris Mullin averaged 51% / 38% / 87% over 16 years

I could go on and on.

There are just so many guys over the very long history of the NBA who have put up amazing shooting numbers and have held those numbers over well over a decade of play, and many of the guys on that list managed those numbers despite being the only great shooter on their team (and hence having the defensive attention always on them).

I'm not denying that Curry is an elite shooter, but for people to go around saying things like "best shooter ever" after he's only been in the NBA for 6 seasons, then to me that is disrespecting all of the great shooters who have come before him and who have put up amazing shooting performances for 15+ years running. 

I understand the argument that Curry has taken probably twice as many attempts per game as any of the guys on that list while still shooting comparable (arguably even better) percentages - but then other guys on that list.  But the fact remains that he's done this for 5 seasons, and until he's kept this up for at least another 4 or 5 seasons in the league he deserves no such accolades.

Your other statement (that he is 'on track' to be the greatest shooter ever) is more of a fair statement.  Can't really argue with that...but then again there are also no awards for that either. 

Hell Rajon Rondo was on track for being probably a top 3 or 4 all time leader in assists and triple doubles and look what happened.

Lets just all agree that Curry is a great shooter, and that he has the potential to be one of the best (if not the best) ever.  I think we can all agree on that

Steph is .49/.44/.90, and his stats probably improve over time -- his first year was second lowest in terms of 2p%, 3p%, and FT%.

But you have to taken into consideration the manner in which he has been doing it, especially in the last two seasons. The shots he takes, and makes, are absurd. That we have never seen before, and it is is talent as a shooter that I am arguing.

-TP!

[celtics2030]

Anyone who has lived through It and has a brain knows that..

The east is trash nowadays, especially defensively

dumb centers, dumb power forwards. Horrific defensive players.

Everyone rags on the 2000's teams, the early ones and the late late 90's teams ........

Well because they had no names..so everyone said the east was week when the Sixers and Bucks were doing decent things..

It is untrue, many teams had good players, and very good defensive players down low...

Nobody knows this because social media was not really around at all. So everyone now thinks that at least 3 or 4 players are STARS on each team when the reality is that 2 of those guys at the very least are not.

With that said , Stephen Curry benefits from this era big time, along with Klay being the other shooter, even more so.


One name brings to mind and it will probably offend some , but the reality is that , If Ray Allen started his career in 2003-2004 instead of 1996-1997 , we would probably be looking at around 2,200 three pointers TODAY. His pace would have been even more ridiculous than It was. His percentage would have been higher as well.

I am not saying Curry is not a better shooter or If Ray is, but I know that Ray's numbers woulld have been a lot more higher playing 7 years later. If he started in 2009 It would have been in higher as well.

[Alleyoopster]

Yep. He owns the two best 3-point shooting regular seasons in the history of the NBA, as well. Premature as it may seem, he is already the best 3-point shooter of all time.

Now that is just untrue...it's like saying Anthony Davis is already the best PF of all time. 

No.

Gosh you hate me, lol. I'll reframe: he is the most talented shooter we have ever seen. That's much different from stating he's the best career shooter of all time, best shooting PG of all time, etc. He's simply the best pure shooter we have ever seen from a talent standpoint... obviously not taking into account overall careers. Allen would be the best career shooter imo.

No I don't hate anyone - just have many disagreements!  Speaking of which, I disagree on this too haha

My point is that:

1) Steve Nash pretty much averaged 49% / 40% / 90% over 18 years
2) Ray Allen averaged 45% FG / 40% 3PT and 90% FT over 18 years
3) Steve Kerr averaged 48% / 45% / 86% over 16 years
4) Jeff Hornacek averaged 50% / 40% / 88% over 14 years
5) John Stockton averaged 51% / 38% / 83% over 19 years
6) Reggie Miller averaged 47% / 40% / 89% over 18 years
7) Chris Mullin averaged 51% / 38% / 87% over 16 years

I could go on and on.

There are just so many guys over the very long history of the NBA who have put up amazing shooting numbers and have held those numbers over well over a decade of play, and many of the guys on that list managed those numbers despite being the only great shooter on their team (and hence having the defensive attention always on them).

I'm not denying that Curry is an elite shooter, but for people to go around saying things like "best shooter ever" after he's only been in the NBA for 6 seasons, then to me that is disrespecting all of the great shooters who have come before him and who have put up amazing shooting performances for 15+ years running. 

I understand the argument that Curry has taken probably twice as many attempts per game as any of the guys on that list while still shooting comparable (arguably even better) percentages - but then other guys on that list.  But the fact remains that he's done this for 5 seasons, and until he's kept this up for at least another 4 or 5 seasons in the league he deserves no such accolades.

Your other statement (that he is 'on track' to be the greatest shooter ever) is more of a fair statement.  Can't really argue with that...but then again there are also no awards for that either. 

Hell Rajon Rondo was on track for being probably a top 3 or 4 all time leader in assists and triple doubles and look what happened.

Lets just all agree that Curry is a great shooter, and that he has the potential to be one of the best (if not the best) ever.  I think we can all agree on that

Steph is .49/.44/.90, and his stats probably improve over time -- his first year was second lowest in terms of 2p%, 3p%, and FT%.

But you have to taken into consideration the manner in which he has been doing it, especially in the last two seasons. The shots he takes, and makes, are absurd. That we have never seen before, and it is is talent as a shooter that I am arguing.

-TP!

TP here as well.  Forget about percentages.....many of Currie's shots are taken well outside the 3 point line.... in an area where most successful attempts are considered, "lucky it went in".  Too many go in to be "luck".  Thus, he has far better range than any of the other shooters mentioned.