Why do most people like Stephen Curry so much?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 4:38 PM PDT Comment 104 comments

I honestly feel like I wasn't invited to a big party, the love Stephen Curry party, because for the life me I still can't see why people (not just GSW fans) love this guy so much as an NBA player. Can you guys please explain to me why you (if you do) like Curry so much and why you think he will be an above average NBA player? Expanding further, since it seems semi-inevitabel that the Warriors will have to eventually choose between him and Monta, why we should choose Curry?

To me, this is how I see Curry.

-Decent shot. Pretty quick release. It's not Morrow's though. It's not like his shot is that good that it can drive his entire game (a la Michael Redd/Reggie Miller). He does not shoot at a high percentage (never has really) and is that something people really expect to change? To me he's quantity over quality. The Warriors can obviously score in a variety of ways, what dimension does Curry really bring to our offense to allow to score more points per posession?

-Can make some nice passes. He's made a few nice passes in pre-season. He's also been a little TO machine in his brief time both in the NBA and college. There are a lot of guys who can make nice passes, but for it to really be an effective tool, it needs to come with limited turnovers.

-Great makeup. Attitude, charisma, appeal is all there. No complaints on the person.

-Can create his shown well. However, even when doing that he doesn't manage to shoot that efficiently. He doesn't excel at getting to the rack. Like I've said, is there really any use to 20 ppg if it's coming at sub .440 shooting?

-Mediocre finisher. I've seen him have a few nice finishes in college and w/ the W's, but I've also seen him miss some pretty makeable ones. All in all, I don't think this is a part of his game that stands out to anyone. Below NBA average to me.

-Defense is mediocre. I think he's impressed me most in this area in his brief time with the Warriors, but that's probably because I'm so used to poor defense watching Warriors games. It's not like he's shutdown or anything, I just think so far his effort has been good, but that's pretty much the one area most rookies put effort into at first. Whether it sustains itself is another matter.

Basically, when I add all the Curry components together, I just don't really see a very good player, let alone an exceptional one. To me, I think the best case for scenario for Curry is Ben Gordon, and he'll have to put on some serious muscle to match him in size. Even then, is Ben Gordon really that good a player? Yes, when he's hot he can light it up with the best of them, but ultimately player's like Gordon and Curry are really just streaky scorers who really only have value in a bench type role.

I feel guys like Curry are always overrated because of their ability to have the "big game". Guys who chuck the ball as much as he does are prone to eventually have 40+ point games where their shot is just on and he looks unstoppable. The problem is those games only occur once every 10 games and they are usually shooting at a poor percentage for 7 of those other 10 games. It's just so much easier to remember 45 points on 16 of 24 shooting than 18 points on 6 of 20 shooting.

I'm hoping I'm completely wrong about Curry, but he just seems to me like a guy who isn't going to bring much to this team in the future, but will likely always be perceived as better than he is because he can average over 20 ppg. It kills me that some people actually value him over Monta since Monta, for all his flaws is a much better player to me.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

0 recs | Comment 104 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Guys who chuck the ball as much as he does are prone to eventually have 40+ point games where their shot is just on and he looks unstoppable. The problem is those games only occur once every 10 games and they are usually shooting at a poor percentage for 7 of those other 10 games. It’s just so much easier to remember 45 points on 16 of 24 shooting than 18 points on 6 of 20 shooting.

Obviously I agree with this in the abstract, but it’s a bit misplaced in the case of Curry, whose true shooting percentage his senior year at Davidson was a stellar .592. Yeah, crappy conference, short three-point line, etc. — but that figure is higher than Monta has ever managed as a pro (his career high was .580 in ‘07/08). So far in five preseason games Curry’s shot has clearly been off, and he seems pretty frustrated about it. But you might at least want to let him give some actual evidence that he’s not an efficient scorer before writing off his abiilty in this area.

As far as his passing, I’ll cross-post from the Jackson thread: Bobby Knight has called him "the greatest passer he’s ever seen." Hyperbole aside, people who have watched him in preseason have been mostly wowed by his passing and court vision — particularly relative to Monta’s. His senior year, the first where he was saddled with "true point" duties, he averaged 6.0 assists per 36 minutes. So far in five preseason games, he’s notched that up to 7.2 assists per 36. Given that a lot of great PGs (Nash, Parker, Billups, e.g.) have taken 2-3-4 years to develop, Curry looks to me to be ahead of the curve. If he can become a consistent elite-level distributor, to put alongside his demonstrated shooting ability, solid rebounding, and strong defensive effort … well, let’s just say his ceiling is pretty high.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 13, 2009 5:07 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

I replied to your reply in the other thread, and I like what you have to say, but a big part of my skepticism goes with the competition he faced. He beat up on the JMU’s and FAU’s of the world, teams with no near NBA caliber players and was pretty poor against the better college teams he faced.

Admittedly his teammates sucked and he faced a lot of double teams, but still.

by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

some people are not good judges of talent. Not that you may not have strenghts in other areas.

by crab dribble cocktail on Oct 13, 2009 5:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Kind of like my spelling. Not very good.

by crab dribble cocktail on Oct 13, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"strengths"

Eight letters, one vowel. One of the weirdest English words to non-native speakers.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 13, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still remember that from 5th grade

one of those daily puzzle things. “Find an eight letter word with only 1 vowel.”

by IQofaWarrior on Oct 13, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what?

its just lengths with stre instead of an l.

by saintdee on Oct 14, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s two extra consonants, crammed into a word that’s already pretty consonant.

And actually, I can’t count: it’s nine letters, not eight.

STRENGTHS rocks.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the 'hs' combination

in that word functions as a semi-aspiration in the palate (tongue/upper front mouth, specifically). Partly this is due to the irregular spelling of English words, the irregularity a consequence of so many pastiched an borrowed words from many, many sources, and the cause of many difficulties for non-native users to learn all the variations. Plurals can be formed by adding either ‘s’ or ‘es’, with the latter adding an aspiration with the vowel ‘e’. The combo ‘hs’ puts in a semi-aspiration almost as if there was a vowel between the two letters. The spelling irregularities of English necessitate lots of rote memorization and competitive spelling bees.

by the.monk on Oct 13, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

rhythm is super wacky too. only a half vowel in there.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Oct 14, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why does everyone love Curry? hope springs eternal among the youth perhaps

not everyone is in love with this guy, and those people who do love Curry do so partly because they haven’t seen him fall far enough yet, what else do GSW fans have to hang on other than hope? This is the little guy the FO wouldn’t include in the Amare deal (supposedly) so he just has to be good, just has to be! Maybe he’ll put up similar numbers in the NBA that he did in Davidson’s little league, maybe not based upon early returns.

Now that Wright’s out for awhile, or for ever, wonder if there’s anyone who’d admit that Jordan Hill would have been a valuable pick for us? Whether or not we’d signed Moore, Hill would have been either Wright’s replacement should he have been traded, or another big for depth. Maybe Curry will be a better pro, who knows. Both of them were slotted as potential top 5 picks leading up to the draft. The long and short of it is we have nothing other than Randolph and Monta to hang our hopes on … other than another fresh-faced newbie … when the Jackson trade occurs, we’ll have something else to hope about …

by hardcore on Oct 13, 2009 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think there’s a lot of hope in this team if they can get new management. Randolph and Ellis are exciting cornerstones to me. Biedrins is a quality big man and they have some great young role players in Buike and Morrow.

by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so..

how do you feel about monta then? dont get me wrong, monta is a pure scorer. but certainly he does not have the court vision of curry. i honestly think curry’s game will evolve to pure point guard in the near future.

by warrior89 on Oct 13, 2009 5:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree, he doesn’t have that, but I also think that’s an area he is constantly improving in. People forget how inexperienced Monta is. Not only is he just 2.5 years older than Curry, but he lost a year of development last year due to Mopedgate, so really, in terms of years away from high school experience, he’s really just 1.5-2 years ahead of Curry. I don’t think Monta is ever going to become a Steve Nash type, but I don’t think it’s impossible to say he can’t be more of a Tony Parker type.

by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could easily see TP in Monta Ellis. Eventually.

Not the lofty wins though. I think Monta can be a 5 assist guy, since he’s the main option now. I’d be surprised and disappointed if he didn’t get at least 5 assists now while playing 30+ minutes. 20/5/5 should be attainable this season with hopefully a high efficiency from the field.

A thing I noticed about Monta that has always bugged me is his high dribbling. I think if he brings that dribble lower, I’d feel much better.

I’m also impressed with Curry. The shooting will come eventually. The passing is better than expected. The defense is…well i don’t know, but he got some steals. That’s always a plus. I still imagine us getting torched from time to time by opposing backcourts.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.

RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."

(MT)

by kenntoe on Oct 13, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A thing I noticed about Monta that has always bugged me is his high dribbling

Haha, He’s just one step ahead of you, it’s less distance to the rim from that high dribble!

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, Curry was drafted 7th overall in a weak draft. Nobody has pegged him as a superstar 20 points per game efficient scorer. I think a lot of your issue with Curry is your misjudgment on how good people think he’s going to be. Most people are sane and are going for solid player. Yeah, some people might see him as a future NBA superstar, but those people are think Morrow is a future NBA superstar – don’t bother listening to them, they certainly do not reflect the consensus.

by Missing Barry on Oct 13, 2009 5:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't mind trading Curry

If we can get a true pg who can play with monta. But I’m also for keeping him and see how he develops. Argh!

by mosdl on Oct 13, 2009 6:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

don’t get me wrong, I definitely want to see what he can do, but I also feel there is a good chance his peak value was on draft night via trade and he may never reach that value again. If we traded Biedrins, Curry, and Marco for Amare we’d have had a very scary team this year and I think would have had a decent shot to keep Amare. All this Capt Jack drama is avoided, everyone is happy and we’d have 3 legitimate stud building blocks with some nice role players

by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was a good move not to go rent him for Beans

Can’t give up beans for someone who probably won’t resign.

by mosdl on Oct 13, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the best case for scenario for Curry is ?

Del Curry? minus 2 inches??

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2009 8:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I seriously don't know

People are on Curry’s jock so much that it’s crazy, and Curry hasn’t even played a single NBA game. Before the preseason started, many people were saying things like, “Monta sucks, trade Monta because Stephen Curry is our new point guard”.

It’s like this kid is supposed to be our savior or something, which confused me. Why not just keep both players, that way we’d have two great (if Curry is even great) players instead of just one.

I take Bob Knight’s, “OMG Curry is a great passer!” comments with a grain of salt. I hate all the hype some of these college players get nowadays. Adam Morrison the number 3 pick, seriously? Mike Dunleavy the next coming of Larry Bird?

I still believe that Curry can be a great player, he’s shown great court awareness during the preseason and even surprised me with his ballhandling. If the kid’s shot picks up and he becomes efficient, he could end up being somewhat of a black Steve Nash.

I’m all for hyping up our players; Anthony Randolph, Anthony Morrow and Monta Ellis gets a ton of praise from me. I even considered Marco Belinelli as a good player on the Warriors. The problem I have is how people are hyping up Curry, but at the same time they use that to discredit and belittle Monta as if he’s not even a good/important player for us. It’s like Stephen Curry is supposed to be so good that we should start trading away our valuable guards now, and Curry is just a rookie!

Formerly known as Five Ten Entertainment.

by Precise Films Productions on Oct 13, 2009 8:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If the kid’s shot picks up and he becomes efficient, he could end up being somewhat of a black Steve Nash?

More like a red Steve Nash?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2009 8:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The notion that he could ever be that type of player is sort of ridiculous to me. He’s nowhere near the ballhandler Nash is

by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The notion that he could ever be that type of player is sort of ridiculous to me

well, he’s got the Nash’s defense but I think the Curr likes to shoot too much to be the Nash? Does it really matter? How many rings has Nash won anyway?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you’re saying Curry sucks at defense? Do you have anything to support this theory, other than more half-baked “skepticism”?

How many rings has John Stockton, the second-greatest PG of all time, won?

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 13, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you have anything to support this theory

guys usually have one outstanding skill and apparently he likes to score too much to be a Bowen?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Behind...

Magic? If so, it’s not really fair to call a guy who played center in a clinching NBA finals game a point guard. He’s so much more than a point guard.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Behind…

Bimbo Coles.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’d put isiah thomas ahead of stockton too, but there could be a long, healthy debate about that one.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Oct 14, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’d put isiah thomas ahead of stockton too, but there could be a long, healthy debate about that one.

Debate’s not that healthy, or long. Stockton was better than Isiah.

by jae on Oct 14, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

whoa, just rechecked the stats on those two (it had been a while). i retract my statement. stockton’s TS% in particular was shockingly high. amazing.

clearly my hatred of those jazz teams got in the way of my memory of how good they were.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Oct 14, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stockton’s better if you look at their peaks, and miles better if you look at their overall careers. Isiah was out of the league at age 32; Stockton at that age went on to have eight more productive seasons.

Magic v. Stockton is a much better debate than Isiah v. Stockton, imo.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We could also compare LeBron to Scottie Pippen

But that wouldn’t be fair either. I think there are transcendet physical talents (Magic & LeBron are two of them) that absolutely, 100% do not fit the standard position mold of basketball. Stockton was not the player that Magic was, but he was a better pure PG.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Edit to add:

The Big O is before my time, but going by the freaky numbers he looks to be in the conversation with Magic and Stockton. (Zeke is not in this conversation). His ‘61-62 season is the freakiest: per game averages of 30.8 points (48% fg, 80% ft), 11 free throw attempts, 12.5 rebounds, 11.4 assists. Probably a million blocks and steals, too, but they didn’t record those back then. I’ll leave it to jae to work out wins produced, but that has to be one of the 2 or 3 greatest seasons ever, by anyone.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

the guards in the Robertson or Frazier mold

are closer to Johnson in their games (Bryant in the present day) than they are to point guards like Thomas or Stockton. Their rebounding and versatility on defense gave them another dimension in the ‘other half’ of the game.

by the.monk on Oct 14, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a few years if he puts up the sort of numbers he has so far, the conversation will have to include Paul. I fear that he’ll be surrounded by lesser talent though and this will block his greatness in the minds of some.

by jae on Oct 14, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isiah vs. Stockton is the perfect example of why you can’t trust basketball stats when trying to determine actual value. Stockton obviously has the more impressive resume, statistically, but no one that actually watched these two in their primes would EVER say that Stockton was better than Isiah. If I had to pick one of these guys (I don’t know, maybe I was creating a “Dream Team” or something) I would take Isiah in a millisecond. While I don’t buy the whole “guys who just know how to win” thing, the clutch factor is obviously heavily in Thomas’ favor. Not to mention the little fact that Isiah destroyed Stockton in head-to-head matchups. I think the main reason Isiah is better is that Stockton never really deviated from his game, while Isiah would literally do just about anything to win. You can quote any number of stats and will never convince me otherwise.

by pmstewar on Oct 24, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’d put isiah thomas ahead of stockton too

From watching them play I’d also choose Oscar Robertson over stockton.
Stockton seems to be mostly a product of the long term rassociation with malone, lots of easy assists?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 14, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stockton seems to be mostly a product of the long term rassociation with malone, lots of easy assists?

hat is, what’s the polite way to put it? oh, yeah. Wrong.

Stockton’s assist total was certainly helped some by his association with Malone, but that wasn’t all of it. As a rookie, his 10a/36 was already fabulous. If that had been his career mark, he’d be in the conversation as one of the best. Malone was a pretty incredible player to start padding Stockton’s assist totals while Malone was still at LaTech.

And his shooting was fantastic, absurdly good for a guard. The shooting percentages he put up throughout his career are far better than “just getting good looks because of Malone”. Stockton was something special in his own right.

by jae on Oct 14, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stockton was something special in his own right.

He’s certainly good but he don’t have any rings and there’s gotta be a reason for that. There’s more to the game than absurdly good numbers. There’s chemistry and the ability to inspire your team to win. Guys who have rings somehow get it all together despite their numbers. Look at Fisher, he’s got rings for all fingers and he don’t have great numbers but he knows what it takes to win. For some reason Stockton could never lead a group of guys to a finals win?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 14, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hm. I wonder what special knowledge of “what it takes to win” Adam Morrison has that LeBron James lacks….

Oh my dear Skeptic. You’re not seriously suggesting that Derek freaking Fisher has some special “chemical” quality (beyond having played with Kobe, Shaq, Gasol, etc.) that John freaking Stockton lacked ….. are you? Sigh. I’m beginning to suspect that in addition to being statistically clueless, you don’t even watch the games very closely.

Correct me if this isn’t what you’re suggesting. If it is … I’m going to say that of all the outlandish, cockamie, absolutely looney-tunes things you’ve written on this board, this one may take the cake.

Or at least … top five. ;-P

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s certainly good but he don’t have any rings and there’s gotta be a reason for that.

Michael Jordan comes to mind as one.

Guys who have rings somehow get it all together despite their numbers. Look at Fisher, he’s got rings for all fingers and he don’t have great numbers but he knows what it takes to win.

I have to assume that you’re just trolling. Only morons or trolls would seriously argue that Fisher lended more towards winning than Stockton.

by jae on Oct 14, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only morons or trolls would seriously argue that Fisher lended more towards winning than Stockton.

Read the comment again, it said fisher knows what it takes to win. Fish knows how to align himself with guys who win. Apparently Stockton didn’t know that so he was not a winner? Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good player it just means he wasn’t a winner, or a guy who could draw a wining group to align with him long enough to get a ring. Maybe he had a bad personality or was just boring to be around? I don’t know I just report on the visual evidence.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just let the skeptic be JAE...

Just because he’s crazy doesn’t mean you have to talk him out of it.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 15, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh my.

C’mon Skep, this is so many levels of dumb I don’t know where to begin. I could start with the letter A — “Adam Morrison” — but really, what would be the point?

At this point I don’t know if you’re trolling or kidding or being deliberately moronic or what, but it’s embarrassing. It’s taking a complete dump on the legacy one the sport’s all-time greatest players, one of its true savants. It’s not worthy of the 10 year-olds who sometimes troll this board, and it’s certainly not worthy of you.

I sentence you to 10 hours of watching John Stockton in his prime, and to watching his HOF induction speech, in which, — unlike that Jordan guy — he came off as a witty, charming, smart dude and a total gentleman. This is coming from a guy who worshipped Jordan and rooted against Stockton pretty much every time I watched him.

Now go soak your head and have a Pilsner. It’s past noon.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 15, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I sentence you to 10 hours of watching John Stockton in his primeNow go soak your head and have a Pilsner. It’s past noon.,

Haha, I ‘ve already watched more than 10 hours of stockton and the Jazz failing to win the big one, I don’t need to see more. You think a guy would learn from his mistakes and figure out how to get with a winner? If D’Fish could do it with less skills why couldn’t stockton?
Got some Pliny the Elder today so no pilsner need apply.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If D’Fish could do it with less skills why couldn’t stockton?

Probably because the various combination of Kobe and Shaq and Gasol and Odom were better than Malone and Ostertaag.

The luck of having the right teammates and having your best team assembled in years when Michael Jordan wasn’t around has much more to do with it than this mythological way that Fisher “found to win”.

I know, I know, don’t feed the trolls.

by jae on Oct 15, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Read the comment again, it said fisher knows what it takes to win.

I read what you said. It didn’t sound very intelligent on re-read either. You seem to be arguing that if someone does not win a championship, it must be because he lacked something that people who have won had. So Fisher knows how to be lucky enough to have an assembly of a top teammates and one of the game’s best coaches?

by jae on Oct 15, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So Fisher knows how to be lucky enough to have an assembly of a top teammates and one of the game’s best coaches?

No, I think he’s smart enough to understand how the game works and position himself in the best location for success. There’s always some luck involved in sports but good decisions help one’s chances.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do we need to bring Fisher’s daughter into the conversation here? I dunno how, but every time Skeptic says anything it seems like it gets even more ridiculous…

by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

every time Skeptic says anything it seems like it gets even more ridiculous…

Haha, reality can be a bitch sometimes.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so you agree that every time you say something it gets more ridiculous? I would hate that too. ;-)

by toddaverth on Oct 15, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so you agree that every time you say something it gets more ridiculous? I

No, I was just sayin some folks don’t like the truth as much as they like a comforting falsehood.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just turning your words against you as a joke. I hope you don’t mind.

I tend to think that Stockton is a much better point guard than Fischer, regardless of the rings. If you owned a team (or were GM) and had a choice between Fischer in his prime or Stockton in his prime, Stockton is the choice you should make (all other things being equal, which everyone here agrees, they were not.)

This is not a knock against Fischer. The man has clearly found a way to win. That way has primarily been to play for the Lakers when they had good teams. Considering what he’s done for them (and for the Jazz in ’07) there is no question that Fischer has been a good part of those winning teams.

by toddaverth on Oct 15, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I tend to think that Stockton is a much better point guard than Fischer

I never said fisher was a better point guard , I said Fisher was a winner, he won rings and Stockton din’t, there’s a big difference. Some people reply to what they want to hear instead of to what was said.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your argumentation was directy responsible for that

The way you argued for Fisher (instead of focusing on Isaiah Thomas or Oscar Robertson like you initially stated) was directly responsible for confusing the issue. It implies that your measure of greatness is at very least strongly associated with winning titles. Your continued defense of Fisher winning more titles than Stockton reinforces this idea.

The fact that you employ this debate tactic so frequently (and well) implies that you are aware that it is very effective when trying to win a debate, particularly a formal debate. It does not, however, show any interest in discussing things for the purpose of educating yourself or others.

Take this as a complement to your skill and a criticism of the concept of competitive debate in general.

by toddaverth on Oct 15, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by the way

You’re willingness to employ this strategy tends to reveal a doubt that you could win the debate using a more direct argument. You may want to consider why you chose this route.

by toddaverth on Oct 15, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way you argued for Fisher (instead of focusing on Isaiah Thomas or Oscar Robertson like you initially stated) was directly responsible for confusing the issue.

Haha, Sorry, I thought we had moved on. the target moves, pigeon hole, worm hole, we go where we may.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 16, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I said Fisher was a winner, he won rings and Stockton din’t

Technically I guess Fisher did receive rings for his team winning. Fisher did not win rings, though, Shaq, Kobe, and Gasol won rings, Fisher was just fortunate enough to be along for the ride…

by Missing Barry on Oct 16, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I was just sayin some folks don’t like the truth as much as they like a comforting falsehood.

You misspelled
" some folks like the truth while Skeptic likes a ridiculous falsehood"

by jae on Oct 15, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

" some folks like the truth while Skeptic likes a ridiculous falsehood"

the number of rings they each won can be looked up. Do it and see if I was wrong?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You misspelled:

“I am being rather trollish by trotting out a silly strawman argument that I know cannot possibly lead to any interesting discussion, and is almost certain to provoke and incite people who care about being fair, reasonable and logical. I’m being a very, very silly man. And I’m old enough to better.”

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 16, 2009 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

*

Make that: “old enough to know better.”

Get your sayings straight, Skep! ;-)

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 16, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"old enough to know better."

Haha See what you got in your future? Sit staring into space while your team captain is pillaged by the pirates, then you wake up and make it worse by telling him to calm down.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 16, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

… and then I put down the bong.

Actually , that sounds like a pretty OK future…. ;-)

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 16, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.momlogic.com/2009/06/marijuana_mamas.php

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 16, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

because he runs the show

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2009/10/13/1084432/forget-about-jack-for-a-minute-and

study his game for yourself (minus the bricks, TOs, and blown D plays of course)

by NaturalBornBaller on Oct 13, 2009 10:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

have you looked at Nash's career stats??

Nash the nba guard didn’t resemble the college guy until his third and fourth year, and even in his third season shot under 40%. Only in his fifth season did his scoring avg. rise into the double figures. The team that drafted him traded him to Dal after two unimpressive seasons, later to pay him a big free agent deal to get him back.

Consider this season and next as Curry’s post-grad study, and instead of grading him immediately, look at his progress each mid-season and April. But even Nash, or Billups for that matter, took longer than two seasons.

by the.monk on Oct 14, 2009 1:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

those guys are exceptions, not the rule.

What about guys like Acie Law, Raymond Felton, Randy Foye, Marcus Williams, Telfair, TJ Ford, Marcus Banks, Luke Ridnour, Dajuan Wagner, and Jamal Crawford?

Or the countless others who don’t make the leap. Maybe Curry can make it, but the odds are against him being that kind of PG. I think he’ll be able to score in bulk throughout his career, the question will simply be one of efficiency

by NeifiChicken on Oct 14, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or the countless others who don’t make the leap. Maybe Curry can make it, but the odds are against him being that kind of PG.

That’s exactly right. Ignore the homers. Curry was drafted #7 in a weak draft – if people really expected him to be the next Steve Nash he would have gone a lot higher than that. I think you’re just listening too much to Warrior homer fans and not realizing Curry’s value has never really been that high – sure he might have stopped the Amare trade, but we didn’t make the trade not because we refused to give up Curry, but because adding another piece (Curry) onto a deal that already included Wright and Biedrins, if I’m not mistaken, made it too much to give up for a player who didn’t seem very interested in an extension.

Curry might have been the point where the Warriors drew the line, but he was hardly the reason the deal didn’t happen. He was just the point where it was decided the deal didn’t make sense for the Warriors anymore.

by Missing Barry on Oct 14, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he was hardly the reason the deal didn’t happen.

And you know this how?

Obviously there’s a fair bit of Curry hyperbole in here. It is a fan site, after all. Neifi’s and your points are mostly well taken, but I think in your (important) role as GSoM Resident Skeptic, you’re underplaying Curry’s ceiling. The “7th in a weak draft” argument is somewhat bogus, as there were plenty of hoops nuts (Vitale, Boston Sports Guy, e.g.) who considered him the #2 guy after Griffin. He was also #7 with a bullet, as fans of the #8 team (NYK) basically committed mass hara kiri when we snatched him up.

My hunch is that the initial reason he was pegged as a mid first-rounder is that he was seen as an undersized 2-guard or ’Tweener. When buzz started generating about his special passing/ floor general skills, he started to climb the board pretty rapidly, but there was probably enough doubt among GMs minds to stop his ascent in the #5-10 range.

Watching him in this pre-season, I really don’t see why there should be a whole lot of doubt in this particular area. The kid has “true point guard” in him — in terms of vision, timing, handles, spatial awareness, leadership, hoops IQ, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people in Minny (Flynn/Rubio), OKC (Harden) and Memphis (Thabeet) who already regret their decisions. (I think Tyreke still has enough freaky upside to make Kings fans happy with their pick).

Meanwhile, “Resident Skeptic,” we’re still waiting for Anthony Morrow to show his “significant regression” from 3-point land… ;-)

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True:

He was also #7 with a bullet, as fans of the #8 team (NYK) basically committed mass hara kiri when we snatched him up.

But knicks fans aren’t particularly intelligent

On 5/7, the best part of waking is up LOLDGERS in my cup.

by GameSix on Oct 15, 2009 6:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha, good point. It was fun to crush their stupid pathetic hearts, though, wasn’t it?

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 15, 2009 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol we are a bitter, bitter people

On 5/7, the best part of waking is up LOLDGERS in my cup.

by GameSix on Oct 15, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if we can’t win ourselves, and if LA is winning, the next best thing is watching NY lose, right…?

Sigh, sad times.

by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if people really expected him to be the next Steve Nash he would have gone a lot higher than that.

If people expected Steve Nash to be Steve Nash, he’d have gone higher too. Projections on NBA players is difficult. How weak and how strong a draft is usually isn’t known for several years as there’s a tendency to confuse “hype surrounding” with “strength of” the draft.

I don’t think we have a great grasp on what Curry can be. For 2 years he was a shooter/scorer standout in a lesser conference who took his team farther than anyone thought but there were questions about his ability to make the leap because he had pg size, but wasn’t a pg. Last year, he showed he could be almost as effective a scorer with a) an even larger target on him for the opposition and b) pretty respectable college passing numbers. So far, he’s shown trouble making his shots fall, but seems to have respectable passing stats, albeit with turnovers still a bit too high. Curbing turnovers tends to be one of those things players do as their careers progress. Already he appears more capable of being a distributor than Monta. Whether he’s a better player remains to be seen.

by jae on Oct 14, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Responding to both you and Sleepy, I basically agree with the points you both made. Curry seems like he has the skills that were in question leading up to the draft. I think he’ll be a solid player. My points are mostly in response to something like this:

will likely always be perceived as better than he is because he can average over 20 ppg. It kills me that some people actually value him over Monta since Monta

I think your guys responses actually back up my point that most rational fans around here don’t see Curry as some sort of All-Star already. Most of this post seems to be creating a sense that everyone thinks Curry is a sure star or something, and I just don’t get that sense at all.

As for Sleepy, obviously I’m not privy to internal discussions for the Warriors – my point is if the trade was straight up Amare for Curry, do you think there’s any chance we turn that down? It’s not so much that any one player (in this instance, Curry) was preventing the trade as the collective sum of players they wanted was too much. I don’t think we can reasonably look at that non-trade and say it was just because of Curry – it didn’t happen because of Curry, because of Biedrins, because of Wright and because of Kelenna? (Going off memory don’t remember the exact rumored proposal, but I think it was those 4)

by Missing Barry on Oct 14, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

most rational fans around here don’t see Curry as some sort of All-Star already.

Ummm…. yeah? The people who do think he’s “all star ready” are the same people who thought the only things holding Marco Belinelli back were Nellie, Nellie, Nellie’s stupid insistence on playing Jax, Buike, and Morrow, and Nellie. Let’s put this to a vote.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The leader after the first quarter is "He'll be an all star after Nash retires"

Guess there are a lot of "O’Belliurry"ers… I hope he doesn’t duplicate the career paths of his predecessors.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he doesn’t duplicate the career paths of his predecessors.

haha, broken ankles. broken wings, broken dreams?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 14, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They killed it because they don't have a proper avenue for what I wanted to do

How do you want me to “add more thought” to a poll without providing my stance and coloring the responses? Meh… it was as expected. As I said earlier, AB1, please mention to SBN that they should add a “poll” feature to the fanshots.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For me he is the best looking PG we have had since BD...

Considering the guys age, he has a superb confidence and control on the ball and the court. Is BBall IQ is considerably higher than Monta’s and the fact that he is not quite hitting his shots yet, does not bother me in the slightest as long as Morrow is on the court with him…

I have never felt Monta is a PG nor should he be, he should concentrate on his SG skills and leave the PG skills to Curry and Law, who I have to say has impressed me more than I expected….

GSOM Blog Beast!

by BritWarriorGSW on Oct 14, 2009 10:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

For me he is the best looking PG we have had since BD…

You do realize that was one year of Stephen Jackson (shudder), Jamal Crawford, CJ Watson, Marco Belnelli, and an injured Monta Ellis, right? You could poop in a tin can and it’d be a better looking PG than that gawdawful set of PGs.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

So your not disagreeing with me then...

GSOM Blog Beast!

by BritWarriorGSW on Oct 14, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he was asking you for a stool sample?

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sigh...

That’s like saying the Suns haven’t had a dominating center since Shaq. Either you’re not smart or you’re playing Keanu Reeves

I hope it’s the latter.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

Monta posted this.

by diablo21911 on Oct 14, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hahaha

ROFL…..

anyway Monta maybe better than Curry but I dont see Monta bringing the ball down. Coz he is a shoot first person. Thats why Nellie commented that Jamal Crawford and Ellis is like oil and water when played together. because they got the same mentality. Hopefully Curry will have that PG talent that everyone expect him to be. and have a good court vision and can shoot the 3.

Win Or Lose Warriors For Life.........

by mykelala01 on Oct 14, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nellie commented that Jamal Crawford and Ellis is like oil and water when played together. because they got the same mentality.

That would make them oil and oil or water and water. No wonder nellie has never coached a team to a ring :>)

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Reason Nellie Never coach a team to a ring

He burnout his star player too much., and bench the role player and rookies. It was proven on 07-08 season when all of our star player is all tired towards the end of the season. During Pre-season he played Monta for over 40 min, imagine if Monta do that on the whole season. He gonna get burnout too.

Win Or Lose Warriors For Life.........

by mykelala01 on Oct 16, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We're the best fans in the league

I just wish that we would stop posting trade ideas revolving around either monta or curry, and that really bugs me out man. We got to stick by our players, only trade proposals should be around Jackson. Even through all our drama and front house BS, we’ve managed to have Monta, AR, Biedrins, Morrow, Buike, Maggette(i don’t know why people hate him, but he can win 6th man of the year, ain’t his fault he has a big contract), and for now Jack. All I wish is we stick by our players, Curry is not better than Monta, and in my opinion will never be, but a Warrior is a Warrior unless there’s some beef.

OWENS! OWENS! OWENS! OWENS!
- Joe Starkey

by 9ersDubsGiantSharks on Oct 14, 2009 10:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Simple.

Because Curry is not a JACKass.

by b.radley on Oct 14, 2009 5:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I wonder

What Mike Fox has to say about this

by Trakrunner on Oct 14, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I suspect he’s probably too busy courageously fighting the battle against Parkinson’s to care…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 15, 2009 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Either that or wondering why he never got drafted even though he showed everything

From spectacular 1 on 5 dunk-a-thons to being the ultimate teammate and clutch free throw sinker (Think: DWade circa June 2006, except actually drawing fouls instead of relying on the Miami mafiosos bribing refs).

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 15, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the Warriors would trade for Barnes

I’d be happy…

"What a joke." ~ Booby Crosby

by MMunoz33 on Oct 15, 2009 7:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If we can figure out a way to unload Jackson (fingers crossed), we will probably need one more long, versatile wing. Barnes would fit the bill nicely, but he’s almost certainly not available: if the Magic didn’t like him they wouldn’t haven’t signed him to a two-year deal.

Any other scrap-heap-type ideas? In Summer League I kinda liked the look of Cartier Martin…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 15, 2009 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jackson for Barnes

Great Idea plus Jackson gonna be happy he gonna be with the contender team. And Barnes would glad to be back to the Bay, I hope?

Win Or Lose Warriors For Life.........

by mykelala01 on Oct 15, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great idea for us … lousy one for the Magic. Barnes-y is two years younger than Jack and has an infinitely more palatable contract (a sweet 2/$3.6M, estimated). And: he’s probably a better player.

I’m not sure why this needs to be repeated constantly, but: it is not the goal of other teams’ GMs to help out the Warriors. Too bad there’s not a way to stickie this at the top of every diary…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 15, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barnes would glad to be back to the Bay, I hope?

From DHo to Dris? finals to fail?? I think not.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see Curry

as more of a Gilbert Arenas type of PG minus the pre-injury persona, once he develops anyways. I don’t think he’ll ever be a TRUE pg comparitively to the Steve Nashes and Chris Pauls, but he’ll be able to hold down the 1. He’s able to hit big shots when needed (ala Agent Zero and Mr. Big Shot) and dish as well (again Gilbert). Though he’s not gonna be an effecient scorer anytime soon, we all know he can score. I’ve also seen his basketball IQ at work during the pre-season. If he can’t initiate his shot (which he hasn’t been able to thusfar) he’ll pass to his other teamates more often. His turnovers will come down once he gets used to not having to be the go to guy, since we have others who can do that.

I like Stephen Curry simply because he’s got that down to earth personality, he’s not high on his own hype and is humble. Just cause’ he was the 8th pick and dropped into our laps, he doesn’t show any remorse that he fell further than he should have IMO. That and he works HARD, he put Davidson on the map on his own and didn’t transfer out to a major college when he could have. That’s why I like him, because he doesn’t quit on his team AHEM* take notes Jax, take notes.

- iBall, do you?

by iBallGSW on Oct 15, 2009 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs