Curry- Nash Comparison
by freerandolph on Mar 2, 2010 6:15 PM PST
Email
Print
I keep seeing the comparisons between Curry and Nash. I can see where they come from, because they're both point guards, they're both scoring point guards, and it seems that Curry might eventually be able to consistently pass at a Nash-like level. Both can shoot for good % too. I don't think this is a bad comparison, but are there any other Curry comparisons that anyone has thought of.
Ever since he was in college Curry has always reminded me of Reggie Miller. This might be in part because they have a somewhat similar skin color and hair cut, but there is more to it then that. It seems like Nash has never been known as a pure shooter the way the Miller was. Curry reminds me of the lights out shooting ability of Miller. Also they way that Curry plays under control and everything seems really natural, reminds me of Miller. I didn't see Miller play much until the last few years of his career, but he was always a player I loved to watch and seemed like a good guy and someone that any team would love to have so I hope Curry will continue to remind me of Miller throughout his career.
Any other comparisons that anyone wants to share? This is just for fun, there doesn't need to be a lot of analysis or even a reason necessarily, who does Curry remind you of?
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!
162 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I stand by Mark Price. Also, I like analysis, so I’m gonna give you some – Nash is a great shooter, and hardly a “scoring PG”. Career 43% 3 point shooter 90% FT shooter, 49% FG%, and he’s averaging 12 assists to only 18 points per 36 minutes!
As for Reggie, the thing that made Reggie who he was was his ability to move off the ball and his length. He was like a better version of Ray Allen. I’ve never seen another player who was as effective moving without the ball as Reggie.
+1
I think Mark Price is a good comparison. They both shoot at a high percentage and are similar in build, although Price is 3 inches shorter. He’s often overlooked and few people remember how good of a player he was, and that he was actually a Warrior towards the end of his career (96-97).Thisis a good Mark Price mix. He’s got DIMES for days lol.
Anthony Morrow's jumper is so pure, he has to cut it with baking soda.
Physically he’s always reminded me of a lot of young, pre-steroid A-Rod.
Of course, A-Rod seems like a douche and a loser, where Steph is evidently a very cool and respectful guy.
There will be no extra point!
You know that A-Rod has portraits of himself as a centaur above his bed?
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 2, 2010 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
I want one too.
That’s awesome as hell.
I’d also want one with me as a minotaur.
Rob Dyrdek
Has a mural of himself and Big Black as mer-men at the bottom of his pool. Although he probably sees the humor in it where as A-Rod is just a douche.
by WheresMyChippy on Mar 3, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
I’m curious how A-Roid has gotten away from the media’s attack on steroids…. why is Bonds so hated when this guy is STILL in the game…
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
Because A-Roid
claims he did it a long time ago. While Bonds was doing it while chasing the record.
No
Bonds broke an amazing record and he has denied using any kind of performance-enhancing drugs. Rodriguez didn’t break the home run record and he came clean.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 2, 2010 8:55 PM PST up reply actions
If by came clean, you mean he supposedly tested positive for steroids and so he admitted to it, sure, I guess he came clean. Another way to say it would be “he got caught”. Either way, the public reaction to steroids is so uninformed and ridiculous it’s not even worth talking about. Appreciate masterful performances, otherwise you’re just cheating yourself.
by Missing Barry on Mar 2, 2010 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
Did Bonds having the greatest eye in the history of baseball history have to do with steroids.
I’m being honest, i haven’t enjoyed watching a game of baseball since barry bonds retired. He was amazing. I will never forget him.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 9:00 PM PST up reply actions
And, didn’t a bunch of stiffs like FP Santangelo actually get caught using steroids, with PROOF (not books using old girlfriends testimonies of testicles)…
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 9:01 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly
Like you said, he’s a “stiff” and that’s why nobody cares.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 2, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
My point is all players essentially took steroids, and only one is blamed, and only one is one of the greatest of all time (if not the greatest).
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 9:08 PM PST up reply actions
Not Really
I think Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, Canseco and Palmeiro are also blamed among some others.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 2, 2010 9:09 PM PST up reply actions
Were syringes thrown at them? Did ESPN announcers make fun of their head sizes? DId people BOO them like no person has ever seen?
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions
Bonds
Well, he was blamed more than the others because he’s the home run king. The others were blamed, but they weren’t harassed to that degree.
Plus, he was guilty at that time and everyone knew it. McGwire and Sosa weren’t guilty when they were chasing records in the late ’90s.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 2, 2010 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
So, the American Public being stupid as usual doesn’t deserve blame?
What about Bud Selig…the worst commish in pro sports.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 9:32 PM PST up reply actions
I honestly think public perception of Bonds is changing dramatically. There will always be plenty of ignorant people that don’t let it go, but it seems to me more people are beginning to accept his greatness now.
by Missing Barry on Mar 2, 2010 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
I’m just curious…i haven’t heard of this change? Where are you hearing this?
Whenever i bring up Barry Bonds, first thing people say is he is a cheater.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 9:52 PM PST up reply actions
My personal favorite moment with Bonds:
The battle between Gagne and Bonds….. Bonds fouls 2 balls into McCovvey Cove. 1-2 count, he hits it to deep center.
OUTTA HERE!!!
I’m so lucky that my Dad and I had season tickets since 2002. I have seen all the great moments….
600, the walk off on his bday as Bobby Bonds died, 660, 661, 700, 715, 756… I’m lucky to have seen the greatest player in modern professional sports history.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 9:58 PM PST up reply actions
Bonds was just slightly
more of a jerk to the media than A-Rod. That has most to do with him not being hated as much. But for real it’s just slightly, I swear. I once asked him for an autograph and he told me I’d have to fill his perscription if he gave it to me.
the greatest player in modern professional sports history.
Not to extend the hijack, but I think this is overstating the case just a bit. He’s without question the greatest baseball hitter I’ve ever seen, by a wide margin. At his age 35-39 peak, he was quite likely the greatest MLB hitter of all time. At the very least he’s part of a “greatest hitter of all tme” triumverate with Ruth, Ted Williams, and no one else.
Still, pharmaceutical issues aside, it’s hard for me to give the “greatest player in modern professional sports” crown to a guy who never won a championship (even if, in 2002, he practically won one single-handedly). I put Bonds a notch below Jordan, Gretzky, Russell, et al. for this reason alone. And if we expand the category to include individual sports, I definitely put Bonds a clear notch below Tiger and Federer, the unquestioned greatest ever in their respective sports (I suppose Tiger still has contend with Nicklaus, among other demons, but at his peak he was quite obviously the greatest golfer of all time).
And if we further expand the category to include sports without balls, Bonds has to contend with the Phelpses, Lance Armstrongs, and Carl Lewises of the world, and likely drops a few more notches. (Though I suppose you could exclude the great Olympians from the “professional” category).
In all — again, ignoring chemical enhancement issues — I’d put Bonds in the #8-15 range in your category.
What a can of worms I opened by comparing Curry physically to A-Rod! When we’re done discussing steroids, can we move on to Barack Obama and gay marriage?…
There will be no extra point!
I don’t see how the championship argument holds any water here. I think your other points are fair, but there’s only so much one baseball player can do for his team, and baseball tends to be such a random game that playoff success is a pretty big crapshoot anyways, I just don’t see how you can hold that against him, unless not signing with the Yankees somehow made him a worse player?
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 8:42 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t see how the championship argument holds any water here.
No to go all Skeptic on you, but to most people championships are the most basic measure of athletic “greatness.” Without rings / championships, Jordan is more like David Thompson, Russell more like Nate Thurmond, Jeter more like Robin Yount, Federer more like … what, Andy Roddick?
I just don’t see how you can hold that against him, unless not signing with the Yankees somehow made him a worse player?
It doesn’t make him “worse,” in a statistical sense, but it absolutely makes him less great. Life ain’t always fair.
Love,
Skeptic
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 3, 2010 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
But again, it’s different than the NBA. One player can’t carry a baseball team (and if they could, Bonds was the one player that did it). Yeah, most people have that attitude, but it doesn’t make it right. ;)
Anyways, as far as a real conversation about championships go, in some sports, I buy it completely because you never know if the statistics are telling you the whole story. There are lots of subtleties, intangibles, unmeasurable effects, and other teamwork related effects we may or may not adequately capture for an individual, so looking at their body of work in terms of team wins is an important factor to see if you can get a feel for whether a guy was contributing beyond the statistics. Baseball….not so much. Offensively, we basically record exactly what happens – we can refer to the stats and see pretty much exactly what the player contributed towards winning. Defense is a little less exact, but I think we still get a pretty good general feel for what a guy contributes defensively, and again, it’s not like we’re looking at any hidden effects of a player that are hard to isolate and attribute to one individual.
To sum it up, when it comes to baseball, we know almost exactly what an individual contributed. So I just don’t see much relevance in holding him accountable or crediting him for what his teammates accomplished. Yes, people do this, but as far as I can see, there’s no meaningful reason they should.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
And to be clear, I don’t have a problem giving a guy credit for post-season/WS performance – if a guy has a monster WS that contributes to his team winning, he deserves credit for that (kinda similar to Wade getting credit for carrying the Heat to a championship, though of course no baseball player can have as big of an effect as Wade did), I just don’t see a reason to give guys credit for their team results beyond what they accomplished as an individual.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
People usually can't carry a basketball team either
Players have tried. They usually get sweeped or win 1 in the finals.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 3, 2010 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
The general point is one player has a much, much bigger influence in the team’s outcome in basketball than in baseball. It’s not even comparable.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
Offense controls the ball in basketball. They can keep feeding whoever they want.
There is nothing you can do in baseball that will bring you to the plate more frequently than once every nine batters.
The championship argument doesn’t hold water with me either.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
Lance Armstrongs
Ask any competitive bicyclist on any level if Armstrong cheated. And cycling is one sport that DEFINITELY is effected by PEDs. Armstrong cheated, “retired” when they finally started testing for the cheating, then came back after waiting a few years. Sorry, live strong, fight cancer and all, congrats on getting back to competitive cycling after a serious cancer battle, but he’s a cheater and a fraud of a competitive cyclist.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
Eh, every single one of his competitors is pushing the limits, breaking the rules, or “cheating” (god I hate that word, it effectively ends any intelligent discussion of the subject) if that’s what you want to call it, too……
At least that’s the impression I get from my limited, but not completely ignorant, view of biking. They have (or had) the biggest PED problem of any sport I’m aware of.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 10:46 AM PST up reply actions
I don't doubt that
In fact, look at every one of the top cyclers of that era, they’ve all pretty much been caught red handed. Except Armstrong. Why? Because he “retired” before they caught him. He was a mediocre rider before cancer, probably had to (rightfully) take lots of stuff to get through the ordeal, and then came out and won 7 straight TDFs. Pretty shady. All the while beating other riders who were found to be taking PEDs in a sport that PEDs effect the most.
Yet the American media and Live Strongers will tout how awesome Lance is for beating all of them without PEDs because he’s never officially been caught. They’ve tarnished Greg Lemond’s image because he called Lance out on it. Lance is a fraud, just like the rest of the cyclists in that era. Mentioning him as “One of the greatest players in modern professional sports” is distasteful.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
Eh, Lance was better than the other riders. I respect what he did just as much as I would if cycling was clean. Touting him as some sort of hero for being clean, I can agree with you there, but I can’t feign outrage over whatever he probably did given how prevalent it was in cycling as a whole.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
So...
You’re going to tout a guy who cheated. Just because everybody else is doing it doesn’t make it OK. Jumping off a bridge, yadda, yadda, yadda. It totally kills any interest I ever had in the sport. And the way he’s behaving about it, his holier than thou attitude to EVERYBODY on the circuit is just revolting.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 9:00 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not a fan of the word “cheated”, I think it tries to paint a complex issue into black and white. If you’re consistent about it, that’s one thing, but you [this part is not directed at you personally, but the general public] have to be consistent. Call everyone who cheated a cheater. From the 1951 Giants, to the amphetamines in baseball since who knows when, to steroids in football to Belicheck to the Niners ‘94 Superbowl. If cheating really turned you off…..well, I can’t see many sports you’d enjoy. So I just see it as a complex issue (and that’s why I hate using language that paints it in black and white), and in a case where everyone is “cheating”, yeah, I respect the guy who comes out ahead, especially given all the work someone like Armstrong puts in.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 9:05 PM PST up reply actions
An interesting take
I tend to dislike Armstrong because the sport is one sport that the types of PEDs they take (EPO) so obviously effects their performance in a very direct way (more red blood cells, better oxygen flow, more energetic muscles), whereas steroid use in baseball or football doesn’t have nearly as direct an impact on the sport.
Sure, there are gray areas, and you’ll never actually get ahead in this world unless you push the boundaries of those gray areas, but still. And I am pretty jaded about sports in general. But cycling and Lance Armstrong really stick in my craw because the vast majority of the American public and the media just completely ignore the giant gorilla and build this guy up to be some demigod… when he’s not, at all. He was just the best of the cheaters.
especially given all the work someone like Armstrong puts in.
They all put in a lot of work. It’s not like basketball where if you’re 7 feet tall, you’re playing in the NBA. All of the top cyclists are ultra-competitive and they all train really, really hard. Do you really think Armstrong trained harder than Ulrich and the other top riders?
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I can see where you’re coming from. And I didn’t mean to say Armstrong works harder than his competitors (I do not know if he does or not), just that he’s not using PED’s as a shortcut, you know, but rather they allow him to do a superhuman amount of work. Ignoring the moral issue here for a second, I do have some degree of respect for just how much work they put in (even if it’s more than they should be physically capable of).
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 6:42 AM PST up reply actions
And to finish that first paragraph
He retired once they started talking about testing. Laid low for a few years, kept in shape by running marathons and stuff, and now he’s back. It just smacks of:
“OK, they’re gonna catch me, so I’m gonna retire, wait for the drugs to be long gone from my system and undetectable, wait long enough that any decrease in performance can be blamed on age, being away from the sport, or anything but not taking the drugs anymore… plus, when I come back, the rest of the pack will be pretty much drug free too, so it’ll still be an even playing field, so I can come back and still be competitive while being completely clean.”
Conspiracy theoryish? Sure. But it’s exactly what I’d do if I was cheating in a sport that they were about to crack down on my type of cheating.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
Conspiracy theoryish? Sure.
Nah, I think there’s plenty of evidence to support your point of view, it’s definitely not extreme or conspiracy theorist. I don’t know for sure he did anything, but I’m pretty confident he did, but like I said, I still respect his accomplishments.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 9:01 PM PST up reply actions
I'll ask this another way
If your child was competing in a sport rife with cheating, would you tell them to go cheat? If the only way you could get ahead in the corporate world was to sell out your boss, would you do it “because everybody else was?”
Lance’s and the rest of the cyclists in the era’s actions completely cheapened their sport. Irrevocably damaging it in the eyes of their greatest followers (the Europeans).
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 9:03 PM PST up reply actions
If the only way you could get ahead in the corporate world was to sell out your boss, would you do it "because everybody else was?"
Talk to me in 10 years once I figure out how to get my share of Goldman’s stolen profits. If you can’t beat them, you might as well join them. ;)
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
All i will say is, that he almost died, for him to come back not only alive, but in shape well enough to win 7 straight titles is amazing. I don’t think PED’s were the main issue there. If the other riders can’t beat a guy who almost died its there issue, not Lances.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 3, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
Name one other person who has faced cancer and come back with that much improvement
In a sport that takes such a physical toll on the body? Sorry… you’re talking about perfectly healthy guys who’d been training all of their lives (i.e. hadn’t taken a 1 year hiatus to deal with a rather serious and debilitating illness) AND were taking PEDs in the sport where PEDs help the most. And you’re suggesting that the PEDs weren’t a big part of his success? Not buying it, not for a second. I’m not discounting that he’s a good rider, or that he even might be the best. But he’s also the best cheater, and he should be ashamed of that.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions
If you want to get that ticky tack about it.
Even if PEDs were a big part of his success don’t you think its bad to say the people who didn’t have cancer and such were at a disadvantage ?
No, if you have cancer, those steroids help you get back all the strength you lost. If he used, i could see why. Don’t blame Lance.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 3, 2010 9:33 PM PST up reply actions
If you want to get that ticky tack about it.
Ticky tack? You suggested that the PEDs “weren’t the main issue.” Then when I call you out on that BS, you call me ticky tack?
Even if PEDs were a big part of his success don’t you think its bad to say the people who didn’t have cancer and such were at a disadvantage ?
I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about here, nor did I ever say the non-cancer guys were at a disadvantage.
No, if you have cancer, those steroids help you get back all the strength you lost. If he used, i could see why.
Absolutely, use whatever you can to fight cancer and stay alive. But that shouldn’t exactly carry over to competitive cycling.
Don’t blame Lance.
I don’t blame Lance for using in the first place. I blame him for behaving like the holier than thou pompous douche bag he is. I understand that he doesn’t like the allegations. But either retire or come clean and say something along the lines of “Yeah, I took EPO. So, what? Every other rider was doing the same thing, so it was a level playing field and I kicked their butts. Now that you guys have finally learned to keep other riders from using that stuff, I’m can finally go out there clean and continue to kick their butts.” But he doesn’t, he stares down his nose insisting that he was the shining light of cleanness the whole time. Just go retire along with the rest of the EPO generation of cyclists.
Don’t excuse Lance just because he had cancer.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 3, 2010 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
I’ll note one thing – I don’t tend to follow what happens when they’re off the bike – I don’t really pay attention to what Lance does/says in public, so I don’t have the same problems with his attitude as you, so that might be a big source of our different takes on the issue.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 6:43 AM PST up reply actions
I’m just curious…i haven’t heard of this change? Where are you hearing this?
Just my personal experience. For instance, I went to all 3 Giants games when they came to town (in Philly). Barely got heckled while rocking my Bonds jersey, and almost everyone I talked to had positive things to say about how good Bonds was.
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 7:29 AM PST up reply actions
I bet those same fans were boo-ing him and throwing syringes on the field.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 3, 2010 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
Aaron still earns more respect.
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)
Maybe if we had better screen setters
it’d help Curry get into the lane easier.
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)
Do we even know if there was a pre-steroid A-Rod?
by Missing Barry on Mar 2, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
Looking at his ridiculous body coming out of high school, i doubt he never was on the juice. At least Bonds was a top 25 player of all time before his alledged use.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 2, 2010 8:41 PM PST up reply actions
Come on guys get back on topic.
I want Curry-talk not Bonds-talk!!!
I know.... that's way off topic, but what the hell...
BARRY! BARRY! BARRY!
by MullyHaircutDay! on Mar 3, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
Ew get outta here you nasty Giants fans!
lol ok jk.
Bonds was awesome in the 2000’s. But I was always kinda glad he never won a World Series. The dude was a complete jacka$$.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
Maybe being treated terribly by the media made him a jack-A$$.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 7:30 PM PST up reply actions
Bonds was awesome in the 2000’s.
He was the best player in the ’90’s, too. Don’t forget about that!
by Missing Barry on Mar 7, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
Well, he has averaged around 20 ppg for the past many seasons...
Compared to Jason Kidd who is more of a distributor, Nash is a scoring point guard.
by freerandolph on Mar 3, 2010 12:48 AM PST up reply actions
Tony Parker is a scoring point guard
Mo Williams is a scoring PG.
Steve Nash is not. Over the past several years of his career, he’s averaged more assists than Jason Kidd, but he’s done it while scoring around 20 PPG.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 3, 2010 12:54 AM PST up reply actions
nicely put
Nash is a pure PG and only tries to score when he has to.
Curry is a shooter who happens to have handles and passing skills
by GoldenSt8OfMind on Mar 3, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
I think that’s basically true right now, but give Curry a little time to develop. Nash didn’t crack 8.0 assists per 36 till his sixth NBA season. His first four seasons he averaged 7.3, 5.7. 6.2 and 6.4 assists per 36. Curry since the beginning of February (roughly the time he started to assert himself as the team’s primary ballhandler) is at 6.7 assists per 36.
Obviously it’s unlikely that Curry will reach Nash’s elite status as a passer/playmaker, but he could end up a notch or two down from Nash and still be considered a very legit “pure PG.” From everything I’ve seen, he absolutely has the court vision, hoops IQ, creativity and leadership skills to become more than “a shooter who happens to have handles and passing skills.”
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 3, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
I really don’t like the Nash comparison, if only because Nash’s career path is so unusual. Mark Price! Mark Price! (I’m really pushing the Price comparison hard)
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
Explination
I’m still a little confused on why you think Nash’s career path is so unusual? (I’m going to keep pushing the Nash theory.)
Ha, a few reasons. First – players tend to peak in their mid-20’s. Steve Nash was a good player in his late 20’s, but he never broke 10 assists per 36 up until that point, and then at age 30 he put up 12 assists per 36. I’m sure changing teams was part of it – but the general point is he got better and saw a big jump in his production when he was 30, which itself is unusual. Guys at that age are getting worse, not better. He built on that and was at least as good, and maybe better the next few years. He’s 35 now, and still very good – most players are out of the league at that age. Instead of peaking in his mid-20’s, he peaked in his mid-30’s. Very unusual.
Second, there’s a large correlation between the age you enter the NBA and how successful you are – guys who enter at a younger age are more successful, largely due to selection bias – the good players enter early. Nash didn’t, which could be fine, maybe he just chose not to, except his first 3 seasons in the league he really wasn’t that good in any of them. Guys tend to see their biggest gains early on, especially at young ages – Nash didn’t see much, if any, improvement early on, AND he entered the league old, and wasn’t very good. He should have been in his prime, and he wasn’t all that good. Development came later on than it usually does.
Third – apparently aging curves work by age rather than years in the league. So you expect guys to develop most in their young 20’s – Nash didn’t do that. I could probably come up with some more but I gotta run! Maybe later?
by Missing Barry on Mar 11, 2010 2:32 PM PST up reply actions
Also, one more important point I forgot – it’s easy to see a player is great in hindsight. The thing is, though, that when you’re projecting the future, it’s much tougher – you don’t know who’s going to improve the most – and the guys who end up being as unusually good as someone like Steve Nash are the guys that improve an unusual amount. How do you identify those guys before you get the benefit of hindsight to see who they are? There are probably some signs, but even still, it’s extremely tough to identify them. Most players simply don’t pan out like that. Improving to Steve Nash like levels is unusual simply for the reason that Steve Nash is unusually good, and I think you have to have a very, very, very good reason to think a player is likely to follow in those footsteps to actually believe it, because most players simply don’t follow that career path. They follow the more typical one of becoming a lesser player.
by Missing Barry on Mar 11, 2010 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
curry is old school
like that q.b. J.Montana. Passes with timing, accuracy, touch and the perfect trajectory, rather than high velocity, an understanding of spatial configurations shifting along the time axis so the pass goes to where the teammate will be, not where he is; slight of build, gets knocked down but keeps his cool; gets better under pressure, sees everything going on and part of the future as well.
by the.monk on Mar 3, 2010 12:17 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Curry really needs to cut down on the “flashy” passes. Every time I watch I see 2-3 times where he goes with a one handed behind the back or something similar, when it’s completely unnecessary, like on a 4-3 type fast break he’ll do it to kick it out to an open shooter at the wing for a 3 (and Curry will be at the FT line or something), and it’ll be a poor pass high and outside or low and inside or something – basically, no accuracy. If he would just turn and throw a two hand chest pass, he’d hit the shooter in the chest. Sure, the defense might react a bit faster, but the shooter will get the shot off quicker and in better rhythm. There is a time for those one handed and behind the back and whatever else passes – but it’s rare, and he’s donig it all the time. Tighten up your fundamentals kid! You’d think all those turnovers he’s racking up would teach him…
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 7:33 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, damn the ROOKIE
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Mar 3, 2010 8:14 AM PST up reply actions
Dude.....
He tried a double behind the back fake to a layup last week. He missed, but still…
by MullyHaircutDay! on Mar 3, 2010 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
the player he reminds me off
is Del Curry, i cant lay my finger on it, but theres something there
we gon' make 'em run, make 'em follow the lead
nelly on the side lines with tricks up his sleeve
in the bay, we go hard cause we playin' for passion
you know who it is, aint no need for askin'
Why so many posts said 404: The page you were looking for doesn’t exist.?? Is it my browser??
by ILoveWarriorsGirls on Mar 3, 2010 1:26 AM PST reply actions
Curry is Curry
To make this piping hot curry dish – add the following ingredients:
1) nash’s passing ability and handles in traffic
2) (young) Ray Allen’s smoothness and ease at which he lets game come to him, his poise
3) stockton’s toughness and gritiness on defense and boards for a little guy
4) mullin’s feathery release on the jumpers
now let that simmer on a low flame for a few years and you’ll have an all-star!
oh yeah, two more things to add
5) parker’s ability to finish at the hoop
P.S. I don’t know how to post stuff – but a hollinger article on espn today says Maggette 4th best small forward based on his PER ratings (behind LeBron, Durant and melo). pretty cool to see.
A perfect example
of why PER and Hollinger are BS.
by WheresMyChippy on Mar 3, 2010 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
Maggette has been pretty good this season, bro.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 3, 2010 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
If you play on a slow paced team and you take a ton of shots, your PER is great.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 3, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
All stats are BS in some situations
Look at the stats that show Troy sMurphFace as one of the best players in the league.
I think its strange how stats are used because they’re always compared to people’s perceptions anyway. For example, no matter how many stats say that TM is one of the best players, no one will think that he is who watches him play. Monta’s stats aren’t great this year, but some people (including me) don’t have a huge problem with how he has played. S Jax hasn’t put up extremely different numbers for Bobcats as he did for us, but his impact is much different. Stats don’t necessarily show anything, and its funny how people don’t believe stats in some cases but do in others.
With that said, I do think Maggs has been one of the top SF’s in the league this year. maybe not that high, and since he isn’t a very flexible player (meaning that he can’t do many things except what he is good at, which is driving and drawing fouls) I don’t think he would be one of the top 5 most desired SFs by teams in the NBA because Maggs will only fit well on particular teams.
by freerandolph on Mar 3, 2010 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
PER is a composite stat that tries to designate who is the better player
most stats don’t try to do that. Most stats record what happened. Monta Ellis has been inefficient and has created a lot of turnovers. So no, I don’t think the problem is in stats. I think the problem is in how you evaluate the game.
Another thing- the small forwards really are 1. LeBron James, 2. KD, 3. Melo, 4. Therest.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 3, 2010 11:45 PM PST up reply actions
so you think there is no difference between anyone after Melo?
I disagree, but okay… If that were the case Mags, Gay, Battier, Artest, Carter, Turkaglu(who are all towards the top of the list) would all be equal.
But anyway, my point is that no stat is perfect. They can be helpful, but if a stat saying Mags is the forth best sf and not eveyone thinks that is true (which many people think) then I’m going to trust what I see over what a stat says. And people do that all the time. “Murphy does have great numbers but…” “Ellis hasn’t been efficient but…” “Battier’s numbers aren’t the best but…” And there are plenty more examples of people seeing what the stats say and not trusting them.
by freerandolph on Mar 4, 2010 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
I'm basically saying that
it’s the top 3, then everyone else is grouped. It’s not a situation where top 5 best really means anything because of the enormous gap between 3 and 4.
PER isn’t a very good stat most of the time, I already said that.
They can be helpful, but if a stat saying Mags is the forth best sf and not eveyone thinks that is true (which many people think) then I’m going to trust what I see over what a stat says.
So you’re saying that you don’t trust stats because they disagree with your preconceived notions?
"Murphy does have great numbers but…""Ellis hasn’t been efficient but…" "Battier’s numbers aren’t the best but…" And there are plenty more examples of people seeing what the stats say and not trusting them.
Those are just three, and one of those is completely invalid. Battier’s contributions show up in his +/- minus stats. Battier’s contributions are not really measurable. There isn’t a stat that measures tenacious or smart defense. That’s also the problem with Murphy- he gets an awful +/- despite having good rebounding stats and very good offensive stats. This shows that he is probably doing something really badly, like playing smart or tenacious defense. It shows up in the stats that Battier is a good player and that Murphy plays losing basketball.
With Monta, his numbers appear gaudy, but they are inflated by his number of minutes. His per minute production is bad, his PC/PU is really bad, his TS% is bad, his TO is bad, his +/- is bad. It shows up more directly in the stats that he hasn’t been very good. He hasn’t been the worst player in the league or anything, but his game is all style, no substance. What he’s done this season is losing basketball.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 4, 2010 1:13 AM PST up reply actions
The Last part of your post helps to prove my point
Battier does have a good plus minus, but many people on this site don’t trust that stat because sometimes it seems really out of whack. I’ve seen people have problems with plus minus again and again, saying how they don’t think its a good stat. It seems like there is never consensus on which stats are good and which aren’t.
Well
I think most stat people on this site like stats like adjusted plus minus when you have a large enough sample. It’s just another bit of information. The fact that Murphy posts good numbers but has a bad +/- kinda lines up with a common view that he doesn’t play defense. The fact that Battier posts small numbers, but manages to have a good +/- probably shows that he plays good defense. That lines up with what people see on the court- he fills in the cracks and does what needs to be done despite his physical limitations. Really, +/-, more than any other stat, requires that you coordinate it with video watching. There are limitations to stats, especially on the defensive side of the ball.
I think most people who care to use advanced stats like TS%, eFG, PC/PU, TOR, AR, DRR, ORR, TRR, etc. It’s not a big deal if someone like Anthony Randolph has a bad TS% (only slightly better than Monta’s this season) because he’s also a very good shot blocker and rebounder. Monta doesn’t bring much outside of his scoring, which is why it’s such a big deal that he’s an inefficient scorer. His passing is bad even for his position.
I think you should research some stats and figure out which ones you like, and they shouldn’t be the ones that show that Monta Ellis isn’t as good as you though. He’s exciting, he makes tough shots, but a layup through 3 defenders is still only worth 2 points.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 4, 2010 2:16 AM PST up reply actions
It seems like there is never consensus on which stats are good and which aren’t.
Just because there isn’t consensus doesn’t mean they don’t tell you worthwhile information. It seems the one thing we can all agree on is we like TS% and per 36 stats – which just record what happened and give you a lot of insights into what a player actually produced. The most important thing you can do with stats is to be consistent. Establish which ones you want to use to evaluate a player, and then evaluate every player using that same criteria. Once you start changing it based on your opinions/what you “see”, then your interpretation of the stats become worthless. Different people can see the same objective data and come to different conclusions, there’s nothing wrong with it, and it doesn’t mean the data is bad. It’s ok. As long as their method for their conclusions is unbiased (and to do that, like I said, you have to apply the same standards to everyone), then their opinion is at least worth considering and thinking about.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 6:49 AM PST up reply actions
i don't think there is a GM in nba who wouldnt trade maggette for battier
and visa vera wouldnt give up battier for maggette. Personally I think Battier is exactly the TYPE of player we need. Defense first, moves the ball well, plays for team. Essentially does all the little things management ignored when making this team
Personally I think Battieriswas exactly the TYPE of player we need.
We still need that type of player, the problem is, Battier isn’t the same player he used to be. He’s 31, his defense is declining – I would venture that if there was a reliable way to measure defense, players would peak earlier defensively relative to when they peak offensively, for the exact same reasons this holds true in baseball – defense is more about physical/athletic ability, which peaks at a relatively young age (mid-20’s), whereas offense, which takes more “skill” tends to peak a couple years later in their late-20’s as the increase in skill offsets the loss in physical/athletic ability.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
thats y i said type
I have no interest in battier cause he’s 31. We need to find “the next Battier” if you will. A glue guy who passes well, rebounds, can hit the open shot, good player player and above all DEFENDS!
As for your point of peaking early defensively. Eh Bruce Bowen was an elite defender till he was 35. There are other examples. A lot of defense is smarts too. I’d actually say defense takes longer to learn. Look at guys like Lebron and Kobe. Didn’t become top defenders till after there 5th year.
Eh, baseball D takes smart, too, and I can point to guys like Randy Winn or Omar Vizquel….but on average, guys do peak earlier defensively than offensively, and I think basketball is the same way, even if there are exceptions. Physical attributes make a huge difference in both cases.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
omar was a gold glover till what 38?
Wynn is still an above average fielder, but eh plays a very tough corner outfield which requires physical gifts. Neither of these help your case for basketball.
My ideal move would be for Iggy personally as i think he’s everything we need/don’t have in a wing. and i love his offensive game, especially next to Curry for example who can launch 3s. Particularly his assist to turnover. mmmm
Well the point with Winn/Vizquel is they’re the anecdotal exceptions (so I was calling them good fielders at an old age), but the actual research done shows fielders peak in their mid-20’s.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
adding onto it...
Battier’s intelligence is more what makes him an asset than anything. I watched kings-rockets game last night (dunno y) but he completely handled Tyreke. Why? Cause he knew Tyreke goes right, and can’;t shoot a jumper. It was probably his worst game of rookie year.
Another example. Vs. Warriors when he blocked monta 6 times cause he knew monta’s move.
I don’t wanna sign Battier simple cause he’d be 35 when our core would be peaking. BUT i meant a player like him. Maybe Ariza will be that guy? Iggy would be my dream cause he’s great glue guy and great slasher/in open court.
Ariza doesn’t understand his limitations on offense. He hurts his team on offense more than he helps on defense.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 4, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
he did before this year
if you read reports. Addleman and co told him to KEEP SHOOTING early. Now they realized he’s not that player. Hence move for k-mart
The previous 2 years as a role player he was pretty effective (.594 and .544 TS%) with a pretty good assist amount for a SF.
I think put back in his role, he’ll do it better
Ok, lets say he goes back to being the 5th option on the court, is that going to help the Rockets? His defense hasn’t been proven to be anything above-average except he made key steals in the playoffs last year.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
I was under the impression that he was a good defender
he usually guarded the best wing player when he was in LA.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 5, 2010 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
I would have thought so too, but he hasn’t guarded too many guys well.
Remember how well Carmelo and Hedo did against him in the playoffs?
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
Not top 5 in the league for SF's though
That’s just crazy
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
on offense, he definitely has.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 3, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
Now, PER isn’t a very worthwhile stat, but I’m under the impression it doesn’t make any attempt to include defense (besides steals and blocks)….so exclusing Maggette’s weakest part of his game does make him a very good SF. Of course, once you start thinking about his D, that changes things, but the point is PER doesn’t….
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
But according to 82game.com it appears he is an average defender, making his tremendous offense very easy to deal with. Injuries are the main problem here.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 3, 2010 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
Still he's not a top 5 SF
1. Lebron
2. KD
3. Melo
4. Iggy/Granger/Pierce/Wallace
5. Any of the 3 above
Then maybe throw in Jack , Artest, and Butler. He’s not a top 5 SF
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Granger hasn't been amazing this year
an offensive minded player who hasn’t been good at putting the ball in the hole. His TS% is 55, which is pretty good, but doesn’t compare to Maggette’s 61.7 Iggy is counted as a shooting guard for Hollinger’s PER rankings, so let’s not use him. Wallace has probably been legitimately better than Maggette. His rebounding is insane, and his scoring has been very efficient. He’s not a good passer, or very good at taking care of the ball, but he isn’t any worse than Maggette at that. Pierce has been scoring about as efficiently as Maggette, and he’s also shooting the three very well this season. Surprisingly, he’s been rebounding worse than Maggette, but passes a lot better than both Maggette and Wallace.
I don’t really like PER, but it is good at challenging perceptions. Pierce isn’t as good as he used to be, whereas Wallace and Maggette have been better than ever. I’d probably put Maggette and Pierce on the same level, and both of them would be slightly behind Wallace.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 4, 2010 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
No doubt, overall Gerald Wallace and Pierce round out the top 5, but Maggette is still a top 5 offensive small forward.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 4, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions
Major emphasis on the offensive part
The total package? Not even close
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
I also forgot Butler
When looking at these names don’t just look at this year, I’m talking the best 5 3’s in the NBA. Not just this season
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
Oh
I was just talking about this year, because that is what PER is trying to evaluate.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Yea but no stat accurately breaks down defense anyway.
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)
whoa wierd!
This was my post and the title changed, but I didn’t change it!
Ha
It’s a ghost!
Nah, don’t be alarmed. A moderator probably changed it since “Curry Nash” just looked weird.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 3, 2010 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
Lance Armstrong
First, let me say that as a longtime lurker, I respect so many of the knowledgeable posters on here…
Now with that said, if you think that Lance got out of the sport prior to testing, you’re wrong. He was constantly tested, and always passed.
Now, does that mean that he didn’t cheat? No, of course not. He very well may have. There are long storied ways that cyclist have used to beat testing, many of which are downright nasty. But he didn’t retire to preemtively beat the testing. He as tested all along.
I said
before that Curry remined me of a mix between Steve Nash and Chris Paul. I’m not sure he will get to thier level but Curry will most likely be an All Star/solid PG and in Golden State for along time
Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
The Golden Future
PF: Anthony Randolph
PG: Stephen Curry
Can't wait until GS wins a championship!!!
What about Chris Paul do you see in Curry?
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
I watched a couple games with Nash, and the more i watch, the less they compare IMO. Nash is very creative with the ball and he rarely turns it over in comparison to the times he gets assists. Curry has a terrible time penetrating and Nash at age 36 gets into the lane at will. Will Curry be able to ever drive the lane as well as a 36 year old Nash? I don’t know. I love Curry and i think he will become one of the top 10 point guards in this league soon, but i do not see a Nash in him.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 5, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
You weren't the only one, lol
The reasoning was
Compared to Jason Kidd who is more of a distributor, Nash is a scoring point guard.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 6, 2010 4:35 PM PST up reply actions
Whatever man...
If you had read the whole thing you would know that I wasn’t really putting together a well-thought out incisive piece about some new and unique issue. It was just a post that I made because I wanted to know who people think of when they see Curry play, because I thought that would be a fun post. Maybe I was wrong to say SN is a scoring point guard, but whatever. No need to insult me because of it.
by freerandolph on Mar 7, 2010 12:57 AM PST up reply actions
Well, I did kinda skim it
and missed the bit about Kidd the first time. I got to Reggie Miller, then stopped reading that paragraph because it’s a pretty bad comparison.
Sorry if I insulted you. I wasn’t trying to be mean.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 7, 2010 2:07 AM PST up reply actions
Curry already is a better
ball handler than Nash.
Rocky is back with another statement to shock the world!!!!!
Rocky…..Nash is a better ball handler than Curry, Sorry for pointing that out.
banned like chris andersen
by MDB on Mar 7, 2010 9:16 AM PST up reply actions
Ummm No
Check out Nash’s statistics from when he was a rookie. Who’s are better? Curry. Nash turns the ball over a ton still and nothing has changed. Just because you see a pretty pass by Nash on TV doesn’t necessarily mean you see his 3-5 turnovers in that game.
Not too mention that Curry has already shown more defensive ability then Nash has ever shown in his entire career.
He still has an A/TO above 3
that is considered good.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Why do you have to call out Rocky every time he posts?
We all love the Warriors..
We all hate Cohan as an owner of this franchise…
’Cause Rocky always doing his agenda with his articles. I bet we see one about this subject in the next week.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 6:34 AM PST up reply actions
You wouldn't call him out for this post? ridiculous.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
By ridiculous
I mean Rocky’s post is ridiculous.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
How so?
That Nash didn’t do anything in his rookie year?
Or the fact that
Even now Curry is the far superior defender than Nash is. A point guard that can’t even average a steal per game that’s just awful especially for someone who plays the amount of minutes that Nash does.
Nash constantly allows for the mediocre point guards to have career games! There’s really not much positive to say about the defense of Nash throughout his career.
Also, Nash is the one of the reasons why Terry Porter was fired because Porter wanted defense and Nash refused to do it.
Well, when I read your post
“Curry is already a better ballhandler than Nash.”
I interpreted it to mean that Curry is a better ballhandler than Nash, not when Nash was a rookie. Actually, I just looked at his per 36 passing stats. 7.3 assists to 3.0 TO. He only got 10 minutes a game as a rookie because he was playing behind Jason Kidd, but his A/TO back then was better than Curry’s, so I think you could contest that Curry is a better ballhandler than Nash was as a rookie.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 6:27 PM PST up reply actions
Not yet.
Remember:
1. Curry played PG 1 year in college. He was a SG his first two years. His ball handling will dramatically improve over the next year or two and TO’s will go down.
2. He’s a late bloomer. Xrays a year ago showed he’s still growing.
3. He has improved at an amazing rate over the last 4 years. He’s a lottery pick who wasn’t thought to be good enough to play in the ACC as a HS senior. Then he was the 2nd leading freshman scorer (behind Durrant) in the NCAA. Then he was an All American the next two years.
4. As he physically matures you will see his stamina improve and with that his FG% will go up and D will improve.
What you see now are glimpses of a future superstar in the making and an all time great NBA player. He will be the most improved player on the Warriors next year. Get some players back and keep the ball in his hands and he’ll be among the NBA assist and scoring leaders.
Wow, that’s a lot of optimism.
1. Curry played PG 1 year in college. He was a SG his first two years. His ball handling will dramatically improve over the next year or two and TO’s will go down.
I mean, I think his turnovers will go down as he stops making rookie mistakes and figures out when he can’t get a pass through, but this is a bit of a ridiculous line of thought for his ballhandling. It doesn’t really matter what official position he played at Davidson – he was their entire offense. He had the ball in his hands all the time – he wasn’t lacking in developing his ballhandling. I don’t see any reason to think a 21 year old who’s played with the ball in his hands like Curry has for his whole life is all of a sudden going to dramatically improve in that regard.
2. He’s a late bloomer. Xrays a year ago showed he’s still growing.
Wasn’t it more along the lines of a doctor saw some signs that he still could grow, not that he’s guaranteed to grow another inch+ or anything…?
4. As he physically matures you will see his stamina improve and with that his FG% will go up and D will improve.
Not seeing it, stamina doesn’t seem to be a problem with him, and he already is pretty physically mature – that’s what happens when you come into the league at 21 – for most people, their physical peak is around age 25 or so – so it’s not that he’s there, but he’s probably pretty close.
I guess I just don’t see why you assume Curry is going to improve some ridiculous amount that NBA players just typically don’t do….?
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 7:03 AM PST up reply actions
I’m a season ticket holder at Davidson for many years. I’ve had the pleasure of watching this guy make amazing leaps in his talent level every year. If you haven’t figured it out yet … Steph is not a typical NBA player. Stay tuned and you will be amazed how much better he will be next year.
1. His 1st two years Curry did not have the ball in his hands all the time… or even most of the time. He mainly came off a lot of screens and occasionally went one on one. We had an all conference PG (Jason Richards) who signed as a free agent with the Miami Heat and then tore his ACL. Jason controlled the offense and made all those assists which led to Steph’s scores in the NCAA (13 assists against Wisconsin with 0 turnovers).
2. Steph entered Davidson at 6’0’’. He left at 6’2.5’’ last year. At the time he left xrays showed the potential for more growth. Whether or not he adds height the further bone development will add strength and some bulk (I’m a physician as well).
3. I assure you Steph will develop much more stamina and 4th quarter FG% will go up. Watch and see.
4. He has been underestimated at every step of his career. DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING TO BE TYPICAL ABOUT STEPH CURRY. You have an extraordinary man and talent.
Why play the odds when we can assume he’s unique…? Reply button helps…..
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
We’re all unique. Steph is an extraordinary young man … inside and outside of the NBA . That was my only point. And yes, expect a relatively unique degree of improvement over the next two years compared to other NBA rookies. Just my prediction for what little it’s worth.
Sad to see him play with no legs last night. When you see no step back moves the legs are not there … reminded me of the end of last year when he came back too early from an ankle injury.
That must have been an unique experience to watch the best college basketball player in the last 5 years for 3 straight years.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 7:47 PM PST up reply actions
Best college basketball player in the last 5 years, eh? Strong assertion.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 8:15 PM PST up reply actions
To stay more than 2 years.
And i think Hansborough was highly overrated.
Curry was the most valuable player in college basketball the last two years. He was that team.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 9:37 PM PST up reply actions
Curry was the most valuable player in college basketball the last two years. He was that team.
I think you have a stronger case for this point than “best player overall”. He definitely meant a ton to his team, given the rest of them weren’t that good….
by Missing Barry on Mar 9, 2010 7:30 AM PST up reply actions
Depends on your definition of “good”. The 2008 team had additional 3 guys who are now professional players … two in Europe and one in the D League currently injured. Relative to NBA draft picks I suppose they were not quite as good. At Davidson basketball players have to be students too. Their average SATs are in the 1250-1300 range (old scale). Duke’s by comparison is around 980 the last time Coach K let it become public a few years ago.
Steph is the only player in the last 20 years under coach McKillop who has not graduated from Davidson. He is now 5 or 6 courses shy of a diploma and he has promised Coach McKillop and the school that he will graduate.
Can you go into more details on those players? Europe comprises a lot of different leagues, and the talent levels range from the best basketball outside the NBA to mediocre college players, so it’d be useful to know what country/league they play in. I know I wasn’t impressed by the talent around Curry at Davidson any of the times I tuned in….
by Missing Barry on Mar 9, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
This back and forth on Curry is something I will remember as I hope you are right....but I still wont bet the farm on it.
Anyway the best thing the warriors have done in a while was to draft this young man…..hope we have same foresight this year…
You can't compare the two
It took Nash till his fifth season to make any noise in the league. Curry has already made noise. The only comparison you could make is that they’re fun to watch when they are in the open court and they can shoot the basketball.
Defensively there’s no comparison Curry is the far superior defender. Nash couldn’t even guard a high school point guard.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
