Ainge: Curry the greatest shooter over Bird

[ahonui06]

Give me Bird over Curry any day of the week. It's preference but I rather have the 6'8 sharpshooter than the 6'2 sharpshooter. Easier to get his shot off.

[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

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!

It's Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals.  The game is tied, with 12 seconds left on the clock.  The opposing team has possession.  They make an inbounds play and the ball finds it's way to Player X on the perimeter.

Now you have the option to chose who Player X is out of the following guys:

* Steph Curry
* Kobe Bryant in his prime
* Carmelo Anthony in his prime
* Kevin Durant

Who do you choose to substitute in as player X - i.e. who would you rather defend if you had to pick your poison?

I'd choose Curry, to be honest.

No disrespect to him at all, but Curry is defendable.  Not EASILY defendable, but he's defendable.    Kobe, Carmelo and KD are not defendable, period.  You cannot stop those three guys from getting off their shot unless you hack them before they shoot it.  Likewise when they do get it off, your defense will ultimately have no impact at all on whether their shot goes in.  You just need to hope they miss the shot, pure and simple.

The key factor here is that guys like Kobe, Carmelo and KD are such versatile as scorers that it also makes them more deadly as shooters.  See, those guys can just as easily destroy you in the post or off the dribble, so it make it so much harder for you to get up in their face when they shoot.  They also have the size, length and strength to get off their shots in the face of all kinds of defense and contact. 

So if you start taking about toughness of shots as a defining aspect of how good a shooter somebody is, then I'd argue that those guys are right up there with Curry, if not above him.

Also when you are talking about the difficulty of shots, you then need to also consider that defense today is very different from defense 20 years ago.  Now you touch a guy and it's a foul - everything is in favor of the offensive player.  Guys like Curry can get shots off easier because you aren't allowed to touch them...and if you defend them tight they can dribble around you and once again you can't touch them or it's a foul - you basically need to just let them drive.  So that means you NEED to sag off them, but if you do that they'll hit the open shot.

It wasn't like that in Bird's era.  If he had an open three and you ran at him to challenge, then he'd put the ball on the floor and drive to the basket...and smacked down long before he made it there.  So you were forced to simply take the contested shot, or else  drive and risk getting clotheslined.

It's very hard to compare players from different eras for that reason.

So back to criteria - how exactly do you define a shooter? 

Do you define it by the purity of their shot (i.e. how great their form is, etc)?  If so then I think Ray Allen takes the prize over Curry.

Do you define it by the difficulty of the shots they make?  If so then I think guys like Kobe, Melo and Durant are all above Curry.

Do you define it by simply the ability to take, and make, volumes of shots from anywhere on the court?  If so then Curry is probably on the way to setting a benchmark, albeit still has a long way to go.
 

[celtics2030]

Kobe Bryant though man?

He is the most unclutch shooter possibly of all time.....

Who cares If he shoots game winner's, he wont make them.....

[crimson_stallion]

Kobe Bryant though man?

He is the most unclutch shooter possibly of all time.....

Who cares If he shoots game winner's, he wont make them.....

Typical.  Kobe plays for the Lakers and therefore we criticise everything he does.
I assure you that if Kobe played for the Celtics instead of the Lakers, we'd all be worshiping him like a god.

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.

Let me also remind you that Kobe STILL holds the second highest record in NBA history for most points scored in a game (81).  He also scored 62 points in three quarters once back in 2005, which would have also put him on track for a second 80 point game if he wanted it. 

Take a look at Kobe's career Field Goal Percenatages from everywere inside the three point line.  Then stop for a second and think about the sheer number of attempts he takes, and the nature of those attempts.  Almost every shot Kobe takes is either fading away, shooting over an outstretched arm, off balance, double (or triple) teamed, etc.  Despite this he's still put up very nice percentages from midrange, and has done that over the course of 19 years 

Two season ago at the age of 34 (Prior to the injuries) he shot:

69% inside 3 feet
46% from 3-10 feet
47% from 10-16 feet
40% from > 16 feet

He shot those numbers despite averaging just over 20 FGA per game and despite his infamous tendancy to take incredibly difficult shots.

His 3P% was has never been great, sure.  But when people talk about great shooters for some reason they always fixate on three point percentage.  There are so many other aspects of 'shooting' that take just as much skill and talent. 

For example, I believe that the vast majority of two point shots Kobe takes are vastly more difficult than almost any of the three point shots Curry takes - the amount of strength, stamina and body control you need to take the type of shots Kobe does on a nightly bases (almost always with contact and over multiple defenders) while still maintain your shooting form is just ridiculous. 

Looking at Steve Nash, over his career he shot:
65% inside 3 feet
45% from 3-10 feet
48% from 10-16 feet
48% from 16ft-3PT
45% from three
90% FT

Those numbers are more impressive than Steph Curry's career numbers so far, which are:

63% inside 3 feet
40% from 3-10 feet
45% from 10-16 feet
46% from 16ft-3PT
44% from three
90% from FT

In fact Nash has shot higher career percentages from EVERYWHERE on the court, and he even had a higher Free Throw rate than Curry (26% vs 22%), meaning that even his free throw percentage is slightly more impressive.   

Another guy who is criminally underrated as a shooter is Chris Paul. 

61% inside 3 feet
49% from 3-10 feet
47% from 10-16 feet
45% from 16ft-3PT
36% from three
86% from FT

While his 3PT% isn't as impressive as Curry, he's right up there with Steph in every other category and is (without a doubt) one of the absolute best pure shooters in the league right now.  His shooting ability just gets overlooked by he is such an elite player in so many other areas (passing, defense, etc).   

Unfortunately shooting stats (by distance) aren't recorded prior to the 2000/01 season, but Stockton was also up there as a shooter too:

62% inside 3 feet
33% from 3-10 feet
46% from 10-16 feet
48% from 16ft-3PT
40% from three
83% from FT

Plus there is also Dirk:

64% inside 3 feet
41% from 3-10 feet
47% from 10-16 feet
48% from 16ft-3PT
39% from three
88% from FT

It's just really hard I think to try and argue Curry is above all of these guys - some of them sure, but there are some guy some guys I just listed (Dirk and Nash, for example) who you could legitimately argue are better shooters than Curry once you factor in other areas of the floor (rather than just looking at three's, like most pro-Curry arguers do). 

[celtics2030]

I criticize him because of the way he plays and the type of player he is

he is not a shooter.....worst shooter mentioned in this topic.

[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.

[celtics2030]

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.

The sad part is he said "it wasn't even close" and "undisputed"

What was he watching? The 6-24 effort? How about those airballs that fell into game winners for Gasol and Artest loll

[crimson_stallion]

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.

I watched the series.

Kobe (25 points, 5 assists and 5 rebounds per game) was the most offensively impactful player in that series, easily.  Second was a toss up between Pierce and Ray - both were both huge for us in their own way, but neither was able to match the impact Kobe had overall every time he touched the ball. 

Gasol (14 points, 3 assists and 10 rebounds) was thoroughly outplayed by KG (18 PPG, 3 assists, 13 rebounds) throughout the entire series.  At no point did Gasol's presence scare me.  He played as he always has and as he always does - with much skill, but soft as a girl scout.

Also if you want to use shooting percentages as a pure indication of who was the best/worst player for their team, then:

FG%
-----------------
Kobe - 41%
Pierce - 43%
Garnett - 43%
Allen - 50%
Gasol - 53%

Points Per FGA:
-----------------
Garnett: 1.04
Kobe: 1.18
Pierce: 1.49
Gasol: 1.42
Allen: 1.67

[dang], Kobe and Garnett really let those teams down huh? 

Wait, what?  What do you mean KG was arguably our most important player in the series?  But he shot horribly, that can't be!!!!  Oh, so you're saying there's more to the game than field goal percentages?  I see.

You mean like how Kobe demanded double and triple teams EVERY SINGLE TIME he touched the ball - when the led to everybody else on the Lakers squad getting open looks all night long?

At the end of the day, people constantly disrespect Kobe on these boards - but he is one of the best offensive players ever to play the game, and to try to say otherwise is kidding yourself.

In fact, Paul Pierce himself listed Kobe as one of the 5 most difficult players he's ever had to defend.

This was his quote:

I still remember watching his 81-point game. I think everybody who watched that game remembers where they were — it was one of those special moments in sports. I was sitting in my basement with my friends playing dominos and I looked up at a TV and saw what was happening and said, “Hold on, we gotta watch this!” I couldn’t believe my eyes.

Kobe has the mentality of a basketball serial killer. He’s going to come at you every single way possible and he’s not going to let up. His mentality — his killer instinct — is what separates him from the other guys on this list, because once Kobe knows he has you, he’s going to keep attacking you. He’ll throw you down, beat you up and even when you’re knocked out, he’ll keep hitting you.

Kobe wants to destroy his opponent every night, and his desire to do so is second only to Jordan. I never had to play against Michael when he was with the Bulls, so Kobe is the closest I’ve come to facing that type of determination in my career.

One of the toughest games I remember playing against Kobe happened in Boston. I think he made seven or eight shots in a row on me. So we come into the huddle during a timeout and Coach is looking at me with a face that I knew meant he wanted me to switch off of Kobe. And the rest of the guys on the team could see what was happening and they were looking at me too. Finally they bring up that maybe we should switch and put a different guy on him, and I yelled, “Hell no! I’m going to guard him! I got this!”

He ended up missing the last nine shots of that game with me on him, and we won. But the stat sheet is still vivid in my mind. Kobe took 47 shots. Forty-seven. No one has ever taken 47 shots on me. Most games a team will get up 81 to 89 shots.

What you have to understand about Kobe’s game is that by taking that many shots, he’s meticulously wearing down the defender until he breaks them. He’s made a career out of making guys lose confidence in their defense and then continuing to attack them. He’s won five rings doing that.

If you want to have any defensive success against Kobe, you can’t break. That’s much easier said than done.

This was his comments on Carmelo:

If I had to single one guy out who is the most difficult player to guard in the league, it would have to be Carmelo. He’s a unique blend of being big, strong, and athletic while also having a world-class shooting touch and a natural ability to get to the rim. That’s what sets him apart — every facet of his game is elite.

Some great players will have one or two particular skills that make them special. But Carmelo can do everything, which puts you in a baaad situation as a defender. A lot of guys might shoot better from certain areas, so you try to force them elsewhere on the floor. Carmelo doesn’t have a spot on the floor where he can’t consistently hit shots.

In my opinion, his combination of physicality and shooting touch is unmatched in the NBA. You can’t take one second off when you’re matched up against him.

Kobe is one of the best scorers in NBA history, but I don’t have as much trouble with him in the post as I do with Carmelo. LeBron is a great post-up player, but if you get him to settle for the jumper on some nights, you might be able to slow him down if his shot is off. That’s not the case with Melo. If you give him space to shoot, he’ll make it many more times than he misses it.

To put it plainly, he’s not a fun assignment on defense.

The other guys on Pierce's list were Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter and Lebron James.

Here's a link to the article, if you are interested:

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/paul-pierce-five-toughest-players-ive-ever-guarded/

If you speak to ACTUAL NBA players and try to tell them that Pau Gasol is harder to defend than Kobe, I think think they would point at you, laugh hysterically, and then tell you go down and book yourself in at the drug rehab clinic.

Also not sure I'd consider Curry's shot more dangerous than that of Kobe or Carmelo.  Curry is obviously a better pure shooter than those guys in terms of form, but somehow I'm still far more afraid of a Kobe / Melo defensive assignment than I am of a Steph Curry one.

[DarkAzcura]

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.

I watched the series.

Kobe (25 points, 5 assists and 5 rebounds per game) was the most offensively impactful player in that series, easily.  Second was a toss up between Pierce and Ray - both were both huge for us in their own way, but neither was able to match the impact Kobe had overall every time he touched the ball. 

Gasol (14 points, 3 assists and 10 rebounds) was thoroughly outplayed by KG (18 PPG, 3 assists, 13 rebounds) throughout the entire series.  At no point did Gasol's presence scare me.  He played as he always has and as he always does - with much skill, but soft as a girl scout.

Also if you want to use shooting percentages as a pure indication of who was the best/worst player for their team, then:

FG%
-----------------
Kobe - 41%
Pierce - 43%
Garnett - 43%
Allen - 50%
Gasol - 53%

Points Per FGA:
-----------------
Garnett: 1.04
Kobe: 1.18
Pierce: 1.49
Gasol: 1.42
Allen: 1.67

[dang], Kobe and Garnett really let those teams down huh? 

Wait, what?  What do you mean KG was arguably our most important player in the series?  But he shot horribly, that can't be!!!!  Oh, so you're saying there's more to the game than field goal percentages?  I see.

You mean like how Kobe demanded double and triple teams EVERY SINGLE TIME he touched the ball - when the led to everybody else on the Lakers squad getting open looks all night long?

At the end of the day, people constantly disrespect Kobe on these boards - but he is one of the best offensive players ever to play the game, and to try to say otherwise is kidding yourself.

In fact, Paul Pierce himself listed Kobe as one of the 5 most difficult players he's ever had to defend.

This was his quote:

I still remember watching his 81-point game. I think everybody who watched that game remembers where they were — it was one of those special moments in sports. I was sitting in my basement with my friends playing dominos and I looked up at a TV and saw what was happening and said, “Hold on, we gotta watch this!” I couldn’t believe my eyes.

Kobe has the mentality of a basketball serial killer. He’s going to come at you every single way possible and he’s not going to let up. His mentality — his killer instinct — is what separates him from the other guys on this list, because once Kobe knows he has you, he’s going to keep attacking you. He’ll throw you down, beat you up and even when you’re knocked out, he’ll keep hitting you.

Kobe wants to destroy his opponent every night, and his desire to do so is second only to Jordan. I never had to play against Michael when he was with the Bulls, so Kobe is the closest I’ve come to facing that type of determination in my career.

One of the toughest games I remember playing against Kobe happened in Boston. I think he made seven or eight shots in a row on me. So we come into the huddle during a timeout and Coach is looking at me with a face that I knew meant he wanted me to switch off of Kobe. And the rest of the guys on the team could see what was happening and they were looking at me too. Finally they bring up that maybe we should switch and put a different guy on him, and I yelled, “Hell no! I’m going to guard him! I got this!”

He ended up missing the last nine shots of that game with me on him, and we won. But the stat sheet is still vivid in my mind. Kobe took 47 shots. Forty-seven. No one has ever taken 47 shots on me. Most games a team will get up 81 to 89 shots.

What you have to understand about Kobe’s game is that by taking that many shots, he’s meticulously wearing down the defender until he breaks them. He’s made a career out of making guys lose confidence in their defense and then continuing to attack them. He’s won five rings doing that.

If you want to have any defensive success against Kobe, you can’t break. That’s much easier said than done.

The other guys on Pierce's list were Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Lebron James and Carmelo Anthony.

Here's a link to the article, if you are interested:

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/paul-pierce-five-toughest-players-ive-ever-guarded/

If you speak to ACTUAL NBA players and try to tell them that Pau Gasol is harder to defend than Kobe, I think think they would point at you, laugh hysterically, and then tell you go down and book yourself in at the drug rehab clinic.

Sorry man, this wasn't the 2008 series. Gasol was not even close to being "soft" in the 2010 series. In 2010, if Gasol didn't scare you by the end of the series, you were watching the series with some Kobe-colored glasses or whatever. Gasol was absolutely the biggest reason the Celtics lost that series. He destroyed us with timely rebounding and great defensive rotations. He killed us in that series and made most of the daggers (read: efficiently).

You are overstating how much Kobe was covered in that series. He was rarely triple teamed and double teamed every now and then. It'd be silly for the Celtics to give him that much defensive attention with Gasol and Bynum on the block, and that's exactly how they played. They didn't even double team him that much in 2008 when Kobe was even younger and a bit more athletic.

Kobe is underrated around here most likely, but you are overstating the defensive attention and impact he had in the 2010 series relative to Gasol. Kobe was not the undisputed anything in 2010. 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah. 2010? Gasol was arguably as impactful as Kobe throughout the season and especially the Finals.

[crimson_stallion]

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.

The sad part is he said "it wasn't even close" and "undisputed"

Yeah, and I stand by it.

I bet if you asked Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Doc Rivers they would agree too.

[littleteapot]

Kobe was without a doubt the best player on the Lakers '09 and '10. And he is one of the best shooters of that decade. It's amazing how efficient he was because he did everything for them.

[crimson_stallion]

Sorry man, this wasn't the 2008 series. In 2010, if Gasol didn't scare you by 2010, you were watching the series with some Kobe-colored glasses or whatever. Gasol was absolutely the biggest reason the Celtics lost that series. He destroyed us with timely rebounding and great defensive rotations. He killed us in that series and made most of the daggers (read: efficiently).

You are overstating how much Kobe was covered in that series. He rarely triple teamed and double teamed every now and then. It'd be silly for the Celtics to give him that much defensive attention with Gasol and Bynum on the block, and that's exactly how they played. They didn't even double team him in 2008 when Kobe was even younger and a bit more athletic.

No, the biggest reason we lost in 2010 was losing Perk to injury 5 minutes into game 6, and having to start a 35 year old 'nearly retired' Rasheed Wallace (who averaged 14/6 Per 36 that year) against a 29 year old 'prime' Pau Gasol (who averaged 18/11 per 36 that year) for the final two games - which was obviously a complete mismatch.

We very clearly had the upper hand over the Lakers through the first 5 games (Gasol was averaging 19/10/3 with +/- scores of +13, -12, 0, -9 and -7 over that stretch) and the series looked like it was as good as over. 

After Perk went down we lost the final two games, and over that stretch Gasol averaged 18/15/6  with +/- scores of +20 and +7.

I watched this series also, I remember it pretty clearly.  Gasol played well, but he was never really DOMINANT until after Perk went down - he was just quietly having a nice series.  After Perk went down KG became our only legit rebounder (we sucked as a rebounding team even with Perk), and every time KG sat we got absolutely hammered on the boards.  Yes, Gasol was the guy doing most of that damage...but it's unlikely he would have been nearly that dominant if Perk was still on the court.  He was basically gifted those boards.

Anyway, I do also distinctly remember Kobe absolutely DESTROYING us in that series so I just looked up the stats, and sure enough he averaged 30 points (40% FG, 32% 3PT, 88% FT) along with 8 rebounds and 4 assists over that 7 games series with scoring efficiency of a fairly respectable 1.23 Points Per FGA.

Kobe (30/8/4) was very clearly more dominant than Gasol (18/12/4) on paper, and I distinctly remember him being more dominant in reality too.

P.S.
Kobe had 49 points, 26 rebounds and 5 assists (and was 18/22 from the free throw line) over the final two games of that series.

Also the trio of Kobe, Gasol and Odom combined averaged 37 rebounds in games 6-7, as opposed to 22 rebounds over games 1-5.

So please forgive me, but I can't take your argument (of Gasol being the main reason for the Lakers winning the series) very seriously, for you give Pau Gasol way too much credit. 

He played very well in that series, I'm not denying that.  But we didn't lose the series because of Gasol.  We lost the series because after we lost Perk we had very limited rebounding and rim protection, and we got slaughtered in the paint.  Not just by Gasol - by the entire Lakers team.

[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.

I watched the series.

Kobe (25 points, 5 assists and 5 rebounds per game) was the most offensively impactful player in that series, easily.  Second was a toss up between Pierce and Ray - both were both huge for us in their own way, but neither was able to match the impact Kobe had overall every time he touched the ball. 

Gasol (14 points, 3 assists and 10 rebounds) was thoroughly outplayed by KG (18 PPG, 3 assists, 13 rebounds) throughout the entire series.  At no point did Gasol's presence scare me.  He played as he always has and as he always does - with much skill, but soft as a girl scout.

Also if you want to use shooting percentages as a pure indication of who was the best/worst player for their team, then:

FG%
-----------------
Kobe - 41%
Pierce - 43%
Garnett - 43%
Allen - 50%
Gasol - 53%

Points Per FGA:
-----------------
Garnett: 1.04
Kobe: 1.18
Pierce: 1.49
Gasol: 1.42
Allen: 1.67

[dang], Kobe and Garnett really let those teams down huh? 

Wait, what?  What do you mean KG was arguably our most important player in the series?  But he shot horribly, that can't be!!!!  Oh, so you're saying there's more to the game than field goal percentages?  I see.

You mean like how Kobe demanded double and triple teams EVERY SINGLE TIME he touched the ball - when the led to everybody else on the Lakers squad getting open looks all night long?

At the end of the day, people constantly disrespect Kobe on these boards - but he is one of the best offensive players ever to play the game, and to try to say otherwise is kidding yourself.

In fact, Paul Pierce himself listed Kobe as one of the 5 most difficult players he's ever had to defend.

This was his quote:

I still remember watching his 81-point game. I think everybody who watched that game remembers where they were — it was one of those special moments in sports. I was sitting in my basement with my friends playing dominos and I looked up at a TV and saw what was happening and said, “Hold on, we gotta watch this!” I couldn’t believe my eyes.

Kobe has the mentality of a basketball serial killer. He’s going to come at you every single way possible and he’s not going to let up. His mentality — his killer instinct — is what separates him from the other guys on this list, because once Kobe knows he has you, he’s going to keep attacking you. He’ll throw you down, beat you up and even when you’re knocked out, he’ll keep hitting you.

Kobe wants to destroy his opponent every night, and his desire to do so is second only to Jordan. I never had to play against Michael when he was with the Bulls, so Kobe is the closest I’ve come to facing that type of determination in my career.

One of the toughest games I remember playing against Kobe happened in Boston. I think he made seven or eight shots in a row on me. So we come into the huddle during a timeout and Coach is looking at me with a face that I knew meant he wanted me to switch off of Kobe. And the rest of the guys on the team could see what was happening and they were looking at me too. Finally they bring up that maybe we should switch and put a different guy on him, and I yelled, “Hell no! I’m going to guard him! I got this!”

He ended up missing the last nine shots of that game with me on him, and we won. But the stat sheet is still vivid in my mind. Kobe took 47 shots. Forty-seven. No one has ever taken 47 shots on me. Most games a team will get up 81 to 89 shots.

What you have to understand about Kobe’s game is that by taking that many shots, he’s meticulously wearing down the defender until he breaks them. He’s made a career out of making guys lose confidence in their defense and then continuing to attack them. He’s won five rings doing that.

If you want to have any defensive success against Kobe, you can’t break. That’s much easier said than done.

This was his comments on Carmelo:

If I had to single one guy out who is the most difficult player to guard in the league, it would have to be Carmelo. He’s a unique blend of being big, strong, and athletic while also having a world-class shooting touch and a natural ability to get to the rim. That’s what sets him apart — every facet of his game is elite.

Some great players will have one or two particular skills that make them special. But Carmelo can do everything, which puts you in a baaad situation as a defender. A lot of guys might shoot better from certain areas, so you try to force them elsewhere on the floor. Carmelo doesn’t have a spot on the floor where he can’t consistently hit shots.

In my opinion, his combination of physicality and shooting touch is unmatched in the NBA. You can’t take one second off when you’re matched up against him.

Kobe is one of the best scorers in NBA history, but I don’t have as much trouble with him in the post as I do with Carmelo. LeBron is a great post-up player, but if you get him to settle for the jumper on some nights, you might be able to slow him down if his shot is off. That’s not the case with Melo. If you give him space to shoot, he’ll make it many more times than he misses it.

To put it plainly, he’s not a fun assignment on defense.

The other guys on Pierce's list were Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter and Lebron James.

Here's a link to the article, if you are interested:

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/paul-pierce-five-toughest-players-ive-ever-guarded/

If you speak to ACTUAL NBA players and try to tell them that Pau Gasol is harder to defend than Kobe, I think think they would point at you, laugh hysterically, and then tell you go down and book yourself in at the drug rehab clinic.

Also not sure I'd consider Curry's shot more dangerous than that of Kobe or Carmelo.  Curry is obviously a better pure shooter than those guys in terms of form, but somehow I'm still far more afraid of a Kobe / Melo defensive assignment than I am of a Steph Curry one.

No one is saying that Pau Gasol is harder to defend than Kobe (although that's a nice bit of frothing tangent-exploring on your part. Like I said earlier, I agree with a lot of your post, but the idea that Kobe was the undisputed best player on that team is mostly 'undisputed' by people who think that the guy that scores more is a better player.

Gasol and Lamar Odom were the twin pistons that made the engine of the Lakers offense run, and you can make the argument* that Gasol was more important to the success of the team in 2009 and 2010. That is the entirety of what I said. Nothing about the massive straw man you concocted in order to toss a nice word salad about something completely different.

Now, was Kobe a singular offensive force for the second half of the 2000's? Without a doubt. Was he able to elevate his teams without that dominant big? No, not really.

*I have little desire to do so at the moment as it's late, I'm busy, and I have made this argument on CB before, but you can check the BKRef numbers and run with it as you please)

And, also, Pierce never had to guard Gasol. That was a nice bit of PR when he 'wrote' it, though, and it's a nice bit of PR to reread now.

[crimson_stallion]

Whether Paul Pierce had to guard Gasol is somewhat irrelevant.   The fact is, I don't think I have ever (in my life) heard any NBA player refer to Pau Gasol as being un-guardable, or that he's one of the hardest guys in the league to cover.  I've heard many NBA players say that about Kobe.

Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree as this is getting way off track, and the initial point I was trying to make (with the Kobe mention) was very different to where the discussion has since gone.  If I caused that distraction, then my apologies.

My point was to bring about another perspective on the whole "great shooters" argument - why only threes? It seems like every time there is a "greatest shooters" debate, the only numbers that ever get brought up are three-point statistics.  Many of the great three point shooters have posed little (if no) threat from anywhere inside the three point line, and yet we still honor them with the "great shooter" title. 

What about guys who aren't great three point shooters, but who absolutely dominated the league with their mid-range game?  Why do they not receive the same honor?  Doesn't having a consistently great mid-range jumper still require great skill, form, timing, body control and stamina?

Look at guys like MJ, Kobe, Melo, Pierce.  These guys have all been among the most dominate scorers of their generations, and all of the made use of the mid-range game as arguably their most deadly weapon.  Why is it that we don't acknowledge these guys as great shooters, simply they weren't great from three?

How many times have you seen the aforementioned guys make mid-range jumpers that looked utterly impossible.  Eighteen foot turnaround jumpers taken while falling off balance with a hand right in their face.  Is a shot like this any harder than the typical three that a guy like Steph Curry would make in a typical game?

How many Celtics games have been won off a Paul Pierce step-back jumper. Are those game winning shots any less important (or anyless skillful / difficult) than the three-point variants we have gotten from Ray Allen?  I don't believe so.

So why is it that guys like Kobe, Melo and MJ don't get any love (as shooters), while guys like Reddick, Korver and Ray do?

[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 a very different beast. To the 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.