Let's build the Warriors Eastside

[Beat LA]

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. 



Therefore, given his already ridiculous shooting numbers in spite of that injury, can you imagine what he would have shot, percentage-wise, without it? 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.



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

[D.o.s.]

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."




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.

[Beat LA]

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.

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?

[PhoSita]

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.

[Beat LA]

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."




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 .

[D.o.s.]

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.

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.

[Beat LA]

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.

[GC003332]

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."




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

[walker834]

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.

[D.o.s.]

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.

[walker834]

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.

[D.o.s.]

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?

[walker834]

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.

[D.o.s.]

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?

[Beat LA]

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.

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 .