Author Topic: Let's build the Warriors Eastside  (Read 23711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2015, 01:12:29 AM »

Offline GC003332

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 804
  • Tommy Points: 62
Interesting article, not sure if it helps the Celtics turn into Eastside Warriors though ;D

http://swishnba.com/tag/hand-checking/
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 01:21:53 AM by GC003332 »

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2015, 01:56:40 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Bird eats  Curry.  There's no need to debate it really. People can have their silly arguments but anyone with any knowledge or eye for basketball would know this.  I'm amazed this even became a debate. People thought i was nose gaving when i said that when I wasn't even doing that.  I'm just more surprised there really are people who believe that. Sad really.

People like to use big words like nose gaving when who cares about that stuff.  I didn't even mean it like that.  Like  i said people think i'm doing i'm not. They also think Curry is a better shooter than bird. People say i'm romanticizing when it's pretty clear who really is delusional.  It's also clear who has a better sense of humor.  This stuff isn't rocket science.  It's nice to sound smart. It's better to actually be smart.

The game could be so much better too if players actually learned the game. The game itself has become too simplified. 3's and dunks.  Not enough in between.   Players are not nearly as intelligent as they used to be either.

Curry's game is so simplfied when Bird was something else.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 02:02:37 AM by walker834 »

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2015, 02:13:50 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Did this thread turn into Bird vs Curry?  Heh.  Bird was obviously better than Curry all-around.  If we're talking purely shooting... I dunno.  It's close.  They didn't shoot as many threes back then and system plays into it.  A lot of guys belong in that conversation... like Durant, for instance.  Pretty sure Steve Nash has all of them beat in terms of pure shooting ability.  Some of his stats are insane.  There was a stretch where he was averaging 50%/40%/90% every year... He shot 47% from three one year in a season he averaged 17 points and 11 assists.  His peak TS% was .654.   Shooting doesn't really get better than that.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2015, 02:21:46 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
All professional sports now are much more open and much less physical. Players also have a lot more going for them. It's easier.  In Curry's case he's doing less than Bird was under much more difficult circumstances.

Even how Bird got into the NBA. To even be who he was took so much work on his part.  It was so different.  Players back then didn't have the stuff they do now. Players then were a much different breed.

Players now are better athletes.  That is true.  But as far as fundamental stuff which I consider shooting one of those things I still think Bird would eat Curry.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 02:31:57 AM by walker834 »

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2015, 02:30:42 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.  :) )

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.

I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know).  How many people move better after they hurt their ankle?  How does that not make sense to you?  If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred?  Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out?  Again, it's just common sense.

As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you.  I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.

The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.



You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.

Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.

Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.

As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not.  Here they are -

Bird's college numbers -

76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%

Curry's college numbers -

06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%

Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -

06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519

So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter.  It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.

Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986.  86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club.  In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.

In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 02:36:26 AM by Beat LA »

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2015, 02:42:08 AM »

Offline GC003332

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 804
  • Tommy Points: 62
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.  :) )

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.

I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know).  How many people move better after they hurt their ankle?  How does that not make sense to you?  If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred?  Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out?  Again, it's just common sense.

As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you.  I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.

The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.



You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.

Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.

Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.

As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not.  Here they are -

Bird's college numbers -

76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%

Curry's college numbers -

06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%

Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -

06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519

So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter.  It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.

Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986.  86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club.  In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.

In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.

TP for the research

I am not getting into the debate about who is the better shooter , but I would have to say that Steph's mum has Larry's mum covered in amount of coverage she receives ;)


Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2015, 02:53:00 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Curry would go running home to his mommy.  That's not a joke either. It would probably be something similar.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #97 on: May 29, 2015, 02:59:57 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.  :) )

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.

I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know).  How many people move better after they hurt their ankle?  How does that not make sense to you?  If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred?  Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out?  Again, it's just common sense.

As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you.  I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.

The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.



You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.

Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.

Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.

As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not.  Here they are -

Bird's college numbers -

76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%

Curry's college numbers -

06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%

Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -

06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519

So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter.  It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.

Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986.  86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club.  In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.

In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.

TP for the research

I am not getting into the debate about who is the better shooter , but I would have to say that Steph's mum has Larry's mum covered in amount of coverage she receives ;)

Lol ;D, TP.  Do they have to do a cutaway to his family during every broadcast?  Ugh.  Momma there goes that, wait, momma, lol ;D? If you type in Steph Curry on google, the first search result is 'Steph Curry Mom,' haha ;D. Wow.  You should check this out, btw (I've never watched it, myself, lol ;D, I'm just going by the title, but I think it's safe to say that these morons at espn were certainly acting in a manner which can best be described as highly questionable ;) ;D)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKXb5zFlg_U

All in all, I hope he does great in the finals.  GSW are going to need everyone, imo, but I think they can do it, they just have to make sure not to have too much curry ;), if you catch my drift, haha ;D.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #98 on: May 29, 2015, 03:32:17 AM »

Offline GC003332

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 804
  • Tommy Points: 62
I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers

During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.

That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that  there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.

Stats ;D
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 03:55:57 AM by GC003332 »

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #99 on: May 29, 2015, 09:18:43 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Bird eats  Curry.  There's no need to debate it really. People can have their silly arguments but anyone with any knowledge or eye for basketball would know this.  I'm amazed this even became a debate. People thought i was nose gaving when i said that when I wasn't even doing that.  I'm just more surprised there really are people who believe that. Sad really.

People like to use big words like nose gaving when who cares about that stuff.  I didn't even mean it like that.  Like  i said people think i'm doing i'm not. They also think Curry is a better shooter than bird. People say i'm romanticizing when it's pretty clear who really is delusional.  It's also clear who has a better sense of humor.  This stuff isn't rocket science.  It's nice to sound smart. It's better to actually be smart.

The game could be so much better too if players actually learned the game. The game itself has become too simplified. 3's and dunks.  Not enough in between.   Players are not nearly as intelligent as they used to be either.

Curry's game is so simplfied when Bird was something else.

This post is everything wrong with talking about sports, IMO. Also, it's 'naval gazing,' hardly a big word (and two words, anyway). You're just spouting a bunch of empty nonsense masquerading as "common sense" in an attempt, apparently, to ridicule me to other posters. You can say that you think I'm wrong, and I can say that I know you're an idiot. See how that works? No need to be circumspect about it.


Anyway, and for the 5,000th time, this was an idle statement. that everyone got their panties in a twist over that turned into a really interesting discussion. Nothing wrong with that.


I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers

During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.

That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that  there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.

Stats ;D
So this is pretty interesting: do we credit Bird for being significantly better than a bunch of "bad shooters" or do we credit Curry for being better than a bunch of "good shooters?"

I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.  :) )

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.

I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know).  How many people move better after they hurt their ankle?  How does that not make sense to you?  If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred?  Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out?  Again, it's just common sense.

As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you.  I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.

The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.



You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.

Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.

Well, between you not knowing of Bird's injury and my lack of knowledge concerning the shortened 3 point line, I'd say we're even, lol ;D.

As for the proof, I figured that you would just look up their respective stats when you were on basketball reference.com, but I guess not.  Here they are -

Bird's college numbers -

76-77 .544 fg% .840 ft%
77-78 .524 fg% .793 ft%
78-79 .532 fg% .831 ft%

Curry's college numbers -

06-07 .463 fg% .408 3pt% .855 ft%
07-08 .483 fg% .439 3pt% .894 ft%
08-09 .454 fg% .387 3pt% .876 ft%

Now, in fairness, I realize that Bird played without the 3 in college, so here are Curry's fg% minus the 3s -

06-07 .488
07-08 .540
08-09 .519

So let's see, even though he had one year in which he compared to Bird in terms of fg%, he still never once bested Larry's field goal percentages, and like I said before, these are pre-injury numbers for 33, but all of this is hardly evidence of Curry being an empirically better shooter.  It should also be noted that Bird took more shots over his college career than Steph, so you can't say that his percentages were due to a smaller sample size or a crap conference, because Davidson is hardly a powerhouse, either, lol ;D.

Now, since you cited their comparison via basketball reference.com, have a look at Curry's playoff shooting numbers - they're drastically lower than Bird's in terms of overall fg%, are slightly lower in 2pt%, are worse than Larry at the line (where Bird attempted more, anyway), and the highest percentage he's ever shot, overall, would be this year's .461, which Bird somehow managed to do after getting in a bar fight in 1985, lol ;D. Call me when Curry hit's at least 50% overall during a postseason, which Bird did twice, at .524 in 1984 and .517 in 1986.  86 also put Bird in the 50-40-90 club.  In the playoffs. :o Wow. The only other guys I could find (in a rather superficial search, btw, lol ;D) who accomplished that are Ray Allen and Calvin Murphy, and both did so in half as many games, and most of the other guys like Miller, Price, and Mullin (who I somehow forgot to add) only did so in 3-7 games, so they don't measure up in that regard, either.

In the end, I don't see how you can emphatically states that Curry is a better shooter than Bird, even in an easier era, but I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree :). Whatever.

Re the hand injury, why do you think that I didn't know about it prior to this thread? I've seen you post this a few times, but I don't get it: the broken hand is part of the Bird lore (which is why I have a problem bringing it in: I'm not one for using superstition and Hero's Journey style tales instead of actual measurables)

Also, I would say that Bird's 195 playoff games give a larger sample size than Curry's 36, so I don't know if I would go to the postseason first.

As to College (which is host to a whole bunch of variables beyond conference), Davidson and Curry were such a weird one-off offensive playform I don't think it's safe to draw anything from that era. The reason we compare NBA players using NBA stats is because it's controlling for as much as we possibly can, from competition to schedule to systemic adjustments.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 09:25:24 AM by D.o.s. »
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #100 on: May 29, 2015, 09:47:28 AM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1758
  • Tommy Points: 349
Quote
It wasn’t a break, but a smash. The finger was a mess.

Not to point fingers or anything, but the repair job was botched. Larry Bird was left with a misshapen, unbendable, right index finger — on his shooting hand.

Quote
And he never said a public word. He played his entire Celtics career while somehow or other making an adjustment in his shooting that might very well have stymied 99 percent of the population. He then dislocated his right pinky in the 1986 playoffs, leaving that finger an equal mess. From that point on he was operating with a shooting hand in which 40 percent of his fingers were impaired.

Quote
“It was just a different feel,” Bird says of the re-configured shot. “The ball came off the side instead of the fingertip.”

The "botched repair job" is detailed in Jackie Mac's book, When the Game was Ours, which is written by her in conjunction with Bird and Magic. I can't find an internet quote, but the treatment included a finger brace that attached under Bird's fingernail. Instead of helping, it ripped his entire fingernail off, leaving one of the most sensitive parts of the body exposed and preventing further treatment on the finger.


http://statemagazine.com/we-knew-him-when/

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #101 on: May 29, 2015, 09:47:35 AM »

Offline GC003332

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 804
  • Tommy Points: 62

I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers

During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.

That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that  there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.

Stats ;D
So this is pretty interesting: do we credit Bird for being significantly better than a bunch of "bad shooters" or do we credit Curry for being better than a bunch of "good shooters?"

1.Depends on whether you have a vested interest in the argue or not.If you do then no amount of debate is going to change your opinion.
2.If you can have an open mind and view things in a rational manner, then through debate and analysis you can come to a conclusion that best suits your morals and personal belief system that has been formed in your childhood development.

I am not talking about anyone in this thread just in general terms.

There is no right or wrong answer to which is better, there are far too many variables in the equation.
Which tastes better chocolate or vanilla.

How is that , sound good ha ha.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 10:06:54 AM by GC003332 »

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #102 on: May 29, 2015, 10:04:18 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239



I have too much free time ha ha, just crunched some numbers

During Bird's NBA career 80-92 the league average for 3pt percentage was .289, Bird's was .376
That is 23.1 percent above the league average.
During Curry's NBA career 10-15 the league average for 3pt percentage is .355 Curry's is .440
That is 14.5 percent above the league average.

That is regular season only. You can say that the increase in the 3 point shot as a weapon has gotten more guys to work on it and it is not Curry's fault that  there are way more guys who are good at it so it hurts him only being 14.5 percent above average.
Or you can say that it isn't Bird's fault that guys couldn't shoot better back in his day thus the reason he was so far above league average.

Stats ;D
So this is pretty interesting: do we credit Bird for being significantly better than a bunch of "bad shooters" or do we credit Curry for being better than a bunch of "good shooters?"

1.Depends on whether you have a vested interest in the argue or not

That's why it's interesting. I think Beat LA is right -- we probably have to wait until the end of Curry's career to see where it all shakes out, but I think DarkAcuza is right, too: Curry has done enough to this point where he's entered the conversation, and that's when the discussion is the most fun. I likely think LarBrd is right, too: Nash probably wipes the floor with anyone involved once you talk about percentages.

The whole point of conventional wisdom is to challenge it, IMO.

Quote
It wasn’t a break, but a smash. The finger was a mess.

Not to point fingers or anything, but the repair job was botched. Larry Bird was left with a misshapen, unbendable, right index finger — on his shooting hand.

Quote
And he never said a public word. He played his entire Celtics career while somehow or other making an adjustment in his shooting that might very well have stymied 99 percent of the population. He then dislocated his right pinky in the 1986 playoffs, leaving that finger an equal mess. From that point on he was operating with a shooting hand in which 40 percent of his fingers were impaired.

Quote
“It was just a different feel,” Bird says of the re-configured shot. “The ball came off the side instead of the fingertip.”

The "botched repair job" is detailed in Jackie Mac's book, When the Game was Ours, which is written by her in conjunction with Bird and Magic. I can't find an internet quote, but the treatment included a finger brace that attached under Bird's fingernail. Instead of helping, it ripped his entire fingernail off, leaving one of the most sensitive parts of the body exposed and preventing further treatment on the finger.


http://statemagazine.com/we-knew-him-when/

that book is really good, by the way. Highly recommended (even though I haven't read it in years)
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #103 on: May 29, 2015, 10:21:36 AM »

Offline JohnBoy65

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 916
  • Tommy Points: 132
I've got to be honest. I had a real hard time reading Walker's posts. My eyes wanted to explode. To DOS and Beat LA. TP's to both of you. Nice argument that ended civilly. That's why America's um… The Best!

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #104 on: May 31, 2015, 08:54:27 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain