2020-2021 NBA Game Thread

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Saw a meme showing that Kelly Oubre is shooting 0-31 on non-dunk attempts this year. This Warriors team is again a laughingstock of the league and Curry being exposed as a non-star. Wtf is going on in Oakland?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Rollins literally elbow smashes Ainge in the face, instigating the entire thing. Mind-blowing.

Someone clearly thinks that Grayson is getting a raw deal by people calling out his years-long inability to control his temper.
I loved Tree as a younger man, but that was the Golden Age of Basketbrawl™. There was never a question that he was one of the dirtiest mofos around.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Saw a meme showing that Kelly Oubre is shooting 0-31 on non-dunk attempts this year. This Warriors team is again a laughingstock of the league and Curry being exposed as a non-star. Wtf is going on in Oakland?
Non star? Come on.

What is happening is that the team had 4 hall of fame players on their roster two years ago. Now they have one, and one injured, and one injured and out for the season. The 4th is in Brooklyn. I feel like that would probably hurt a team's fortunes. But calling Curry a non star is laughable.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Saw a meme showing that Kelly Oubre is shooting 0-31 on non-dunk attempts this year. This Warriors team is again a laughingstock of the league and Curry being exposed as a non-star. Wtf is going on in Oakland?
I think it might be 0-33 now, lol. On the other hand, he scored 19 ppg last year on .560 TS, and dropped 22 on 12 fga in his last preseason game, so I doubt l it’s anything beyond small-sample noise. In the meantime, his defensive activity and rebounding has been killer.

As far as Steph: he got “exposed as non-star” last night by dropping 36 points, including 14 in the last 6 minutes to dig the team out of a double-digit 4th quarter hole. Splash Brother-in-law does not get free for the game-winning shot without the entire Bulls defense selling out on Curry.

His low 3FG% is also likely to be noise, given that he casually dropped *105 threes in a row* in practice the other day. Plus, you know, the fact that he’s Steph Curry. Meanwhile, he has not missed a free throw since two seasons ago. 64 straight, including 9-9 last night, each one of which was needed down the stretch.

There’s precious little in the way of NBA basketball going on in Oakland, alas, but the SF Warriors are now 1-2 with no Klay or Draymond, a 19 y.o. rookie C who had not played organized basketball in over a year and had all of two practices, and a bunch of noobs who Kerr is trying to integrate into a new system on the fly. I think they can still make a run at a low playoff seed with a healthy Draymond and a bit more familiarity/chemistry, but we’ll see. The West as always is stacked, possibly more so than ever...
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Non star? Come on.

What is happening is that the team had 4 hall of fame players on their roster two years ago. Now they have one, and one injured, and one injured and out for the season. The 4th is in Brooklyn. I feel like that would probably hurt a team's fortunes. But calling Curry a non star is laughable.
If any other player was the lead guy on one of the leagues worst teams would they be considered a star? I’m won’t be the only one questioning Curry if this team continues down the path they are on.....I’m just in early. ;)

WTF kind of super hot take is this?
Yeah for sure I’ll admit that. What if this team goes 18-50 with blowout losses continuing from last season? At what point is he questioned....or is he ever questioned. That’s kinda where I’m going with it.
 
Last edited:

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
If any other player was the lead guy on one of the leagues worst teams would they be considered a star? I’m won’t be the only one questioning Curry if this team continues down the path they are on.....I’m just in early. ;)
So you're Max Kellerman now calling that Brady has fallen of the cliff?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Right now, I don't think the Warriors are very good. Outside of Curry, they have a bunch of stuff to figure out. I think they are trying to figure out who is going to play what role in their rotations. Oubre and Wiggins have to be in it, but they have been really bad so far this season. Then you have to figure out how to breakdown the Paschall/Wanamaker/Lee/Poole/Looney/JTA minutes. Maybe some of those guys are legit rotation players on a team that makes the playoffs, but not all of them are. Wanamaker and Looney have at least proven that at some level. Draymond coming back...he was not good last season and while he will likely be better working with Curry, it is a far cry from sharing the floor with Curry, Durant, Thompson and Iggy. Green has a very specific skill set in that he helps a lot when he is playing with stars because he does a lot of dirty work, but he can't be asked to do more because he lacks the offensive skills to be a real #2 or #3 option. I don't know how much he helps this incarnation of the Warriors.

Wiseman looks good and the Warriors should absolutely play him as much as possible; but he is a rookie that is going to make a lot of mistakes, especially on defense. I think it is totally worth playing him to develop him, but at the same time you are going to have to live with the mistakes, and a veteran team with title aspirations may not like that as much. Unfortunately, I think he is the Warriors' second best player at this point in time.

In regards to Steph; he looked good against a miserable Bulls defense, but looked pretty bad against Milwaukee and Brooklyn. He hasn't played for a while so I'm not shocked he is a slow starter, but I also think that it is reasonable to expect that a small guard who will be 33 might be juuuuust past his prime. For the Warriors to compete this year they are really going to need Curry to be close to MVP-level Curry, and they can't afford for him to be like, 90 percent as good, even if that still makes Curry a Top 15 player in the NBA. I also think that defenses are just way better at guarding Curry and trapping him then they were in 2014 or 2015 when he was basically unstoppable. Teams have gotten smaller, faster and more sophisticated when it comes to running players off of the three point line and guarding players 30+ feet from the basket.

It's still early, and the Warrior hadn't played since March, so I'm not declaring them dead, but I wouldn't be surprised if they finished well under .500 in a very competitive West.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Lol, wait, you’re being serious with this, HRB? I thought you were just parroting something you read on Twitter. Or that Curt Schilling had hacked into your account.

A quick tally:

• Two-time league MVP, only unanimous MVP ever.
• Best FT shooter in NBA history (the only context-independent metric we have)
• Most efficient 20+ ppg scorer in NBA history
• Most efficient 20+ ppg scorer in NBA playoff history (or #2 after AD, depending on your minimum total minutes cut-off)
• Best high-volume three point shooter in NBA history; hit 402 threes in a season; is to three ball what Babe Ruth is to home runs
• Led team two a 140-24 record, two Western Conference championships, and a title as by far its best player.
• Best NBA player from 2014-19 by 538 advanced stats which attempt to factor in quality of teammate.

On the other hand, we have...

• The partial-strength Warriors took two bad losses coming of a pandemic and a laughably abbreviated training camp.

Tough call.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Lol, wait, you’re being serious with this, HRB? I thought you were just parroting something you read on Twitter. Or that Curt Schilling had hacked into your account.

A quick tally:

• Two-time league MVP,; only unanimous MVP ever.
• Best FT shooter in NBA history (the only context-independent metric we have)
• Most efficient 20+ ppg scorer in NBA history
• Most efficient 20+ ppg scorer in NBA playoff history (or #2 after AD, depending on your minimum total minutes cut-off)
• Best high-volume three point shooter in NBA history; hit 402 threes in a season; is to three ball what Babe Ruth is to home runs
• Led team two a 140-24 record, two Western Conference championships, and a title as by far its best player.
• Best NBA player from 2014-19 by 538 advanced stats which attempt to factor in quality of teammate.

On the other hand, we have...

• The partial-strength Warriors took two bad losses coming of a pandemic and a laughably abbreviated training camp.

Tough call.
What do any of his past accomplishments have to do with the present? Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today. Is that so wrong?
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
What do any of his past accomplishments have to do with the present? Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today. Is that so wrong?
Yes, it's irresponsibly wrong.

He's averaging 25 points year to date and he put up 36 yesterday in a win. He's a star. Until he's not,(which would require scores of games of lesser performance) he will continue to be a star.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Steph Curry is like a top five offensive player of all time still arguably in his prime and we got guys saying hes a non star? What in the world?
He'd look 100% better if Golden State just took its chemo and got rid of Wiggins. He's stage 5 cancer. I wonder if the Knicks are desperate enough to trade Randall and Frankie Smokes for him? I suppose that would be one way to make a Hrden deal work, find someone like the Knicks to pony up some flotsam deals for Wiggins and then bundle those with the other Trash Brother and bring in Harden, Gordon, and possibly House.

(Say something like Wiggins to New York, Randall, Frankie Smokes, DSJ, Alec Burks, KO Jr, Minnesota #1, Golden State '21 #1, plus picks to Houston, and Harden/Gordon, and House to Golden State.)
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
What do any of his past accomplishments have to do with the present? Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today. Is that so wrong?
It seems a fair question to me. I think Curry is still a great player, but there's definitely a non zero chance that that is not the case.

Calling it irresponsibly wrong, I just don't get. What's irresponsible about wondering about how good a player is?
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
What if this team goes 18-50 with blowout losses continuing from last season?
File under "begging the question." What if any superstar's team goes 18-50 with blowout losses?

Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today.
You weren't just "wondering" — you made a claim that "Curry [is] being exposed as a non-star" based on small sample theater of three games. Curry is 32 — over three years younger than LeBron; the same age as Jordan at the very beginning of his second three-peat; or (if we want to pick a guy with the same skillset, size, and body type) Steve Nash in his second MVP season. He trains and takes care of his body as religiously as those guys. @Kliq It's not just 2014 and 2015 when he was unstoppable — he was equally or more unstoppable in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The last time we saw him in games that mattered was the 2019 Finals, when at age 31 he put-up 30.5 ppg on 60% true shooting, 5.2 rpg, and 6.0 apg, roughly the same numbers as Finals MVP Kawhi, despite being box-and-one'd to death in the absence of KD. The series before that he wrecked Portland and Dame in four straight without KD; and the series before that he crushed the souls of an NBA-champion quality Rockets team that was licking its chops at being able to face him without KD.

Since then all we have is an eight-game sample of early-season / post-injury games in which all he's done is hit 100% of his FTs while putting up essentially the same numbers he always does, outside of clanging a whole bunch of good looks from three. For whatever reason, historically, he has always started off seasons slow from three by his standards (.424 career from 3 before the break; a cool .454 career after). My hunch is it's partly due to all the offseason lifting he does, as his muscle-memory adapts to his muscles. Hitting 105 straight threes in practice while deciding to stop to missing FTs altogether suggests there's nothing suddenly amiss with his shooting.

As long as we're do the recency bias thing, though: the last quarter we saw him in featured Billy Donovan focusing his entire defense on him with the game on the line, desperate for a first win; and Curry with a skeleton crew of teammates including the Trash Brothers, Poole, Paschall, Lee, and Looney. As noted, he dropped 14 in the final 6 minutes with multiple defenders draped all over him, effectively willing the team to a win.

Small samples, begging-the-question, and burden of proof fallacies aside: the default assumption is that a 32 year old superstar who takes great care of his body and has no major physical ailments (knocking wood) is damn close to 100% of the player he was at 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
 
Last edited:

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
He'd look 100% better if Golden State just took its chemo and got rid of Wiggins. He's stage 5 cancer. I wonder if the Knicks are desperate enough to trade Randall and Frankie Smokes for him? I suppose that would be one way to make a Hrden deal work, find someone like the Knicks to pony up some flotsam deals for Wiggins and then bundle those with the other Trash Brother and bring in Harden, Gordon, and possibly House.

(Say something like Wiggins to New York, Randall, Frankie Smokes, DSJ, Alec Burks, KO Jr, Minnesota #1, Golden State '21 #1, plus picks to Houston, and Harden/Gordon, and House to Golden State.)
Wiggins kinda sucks as a player, but your characterization of him as any kind of a clubhouse cancer is pretty wildly off-base. He was by all accounts extremely well-liked in Minnesota, and continues to be that in SF. He has a rep as a nice guy (maybe too nice?) and really hard worker; and to the extent that the "best ability is availability" cliché is true, he's arguably the most durable player in the association. He laces 'em every single night and does his thing for 30+ mpg, for better or (quite often) worse,

His main issue is not that he's carcinogenic but simply that isn't that good at basketball. He's mediocre at best as a shooter, passer, rebounder, and defender, without excelling any one area. He really is the second coming of Harry Barnes in a lot ways.

Edit: as far as the trade ... obviously, I do that a second. Or any deal that involves getting Harden without giving up Steph, Klay, or Wiseman (as long as the Splash Bros are okay with it). But it's hard to see a deal like that being struck without Wiseman.
 
Last edited:

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
It seems a fair question to me. I think Curry is still a great player, but there's definitely a non zero chance that that is not the case.
You can say that about anyone. The point is that a three-game sample tells us nothing we did not already know.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Wiggins kinda sucks as a player, but your characterization of him as any kind of a clubhouse cancer is pretty wildly off-base. He's was by all accounts extremely well-liked in Minnesota, and continues to be that in SF. ...

His main issue is not that he's carcinogenic but simply that isn't that good at basketball. He's mediocre at best as a shooter, passer, rebounder, and defender, without excelling any one area. He really is the second coming of Harry Barnes in a lot ways.
And yet teams immediately get worse when they acquire him. And the players around him get worse once they start playing with him. He's that guy that fans and GMs dream on, but when you're ginormous downgrade from Mr. DARcy, you need to be playing for the Knicks.

He has a rep as a nice guy (maybe too nice?) and really hard worker; and to the extent that the "best ability is availability" cliché is true, he's arguably the most durable player in the association.
Wiggins is definitely the exception to that.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
File under "begging the question." What if any superstar's team goes 18-50 with blowout losses?
Pretty simple. I would question that player being a superstar. Doc Rivers coached a team to .500 with Ron Mercer as arguably his best player and 5 Undrafted Rookie FA in his rotation.....and he didn’t even play.


You weren't just "wondering" — you made a claim that "Curry [is] being exposed as a non-star" based on small sample theater of three games.
Yes, he was a non-factor in the two blowout losses before lighting up Coby White and Zach Levine......so I was wondering when others would begin questioning him should it continue.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
And yet teams immediately get worse when they acquire him.
Based on? The Warriors are the only that has ever acquired him, and they were (by W-L record and eye test) a bit less awful with Wiggins than they had been with Mr. DARcy. (Unless you're counting the Wolves sending off their franchise player to draft him as 19 yo. rookie, which doesn't seem particularly fair).

As crummy as Wiggins has been over his career, his crummy teams have actually been a bit better (i.e. lass bad) with him on the floor than on the bench. Which is actually not the case with DARcy. Net-off per 100 possessions, career: Wiggins +2.6, Russell -3.3. Not that being slightly less bad than DLo is any kind of ringing endorsement, just saying.

Honestly curious - and maybe you don't know - but if Wiggins is such a hard worker, how come he never seems to get better given his physical gifts? And what is he working on all of the time that he is working?
Some people just aren't that good at stuff, you know? He may have "physical gifts" in a track and field sense, but that quite often does not translate to the feel for a game that make an NBA star. The areas where Wiggins is most lacking — feel, court vision, awareness, rebounding, physicality, e.g.. — are not really things that can be improved to a significant degree with hard work. Shooting can to a degree, but even that has it limits. LeBron has never been a very good FT shooter, for example, despite his legendary work ethic.

Is it really hard to believe that a player can fall short of NBA stardom for some other reason than being a cancer or having a bad work ethic?
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
Once again, if you like very insider NBA content, the All The Smoke Podcast with Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson is a must listen. Barnes has fantastic, open ended questions and given their guests familiarity with them, you get candid, expansive answers that I haven't heard anywhere else. Jackson is always good for two or three fascinating anecdotes too.

In the latest episode, they have Amar'e Stoudemire (who was playing overseas earlier this year and won a ring in Israel) discussing his career and transition to the Nets coaching staff. They tell a story about Don Nelson making Barnes and Jackson cover Stoudamire after he buries Adonal Foyle with a dunk during a Suns/Warriors game - its fantastic given all of the personalities involved.

In summary, I find this far more informative and entertaining than the countless hoops podcasts being done by some very smart, talented people if only because they discuss what happens in the trenches versus the outsider content which features a lot of noise and not much signal.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Pretty simple. I would question that player being a superstar.
Fair. So cross that bridge if you get to it, rather than assuming the premise in your conclusion. Your "questioning" of Steph can be applied to LeBron, Durant, Lillard, or any other superstar. And again, your initial comment that got me and others fired up was a claim, not a question.

Yes, he was a non-factor in the two blowout losses before lighting up Coby White and Zach Levine......so I was wondering when others would begin questioning him should it continue.
Define "non-factor." He put up 20 pts 4 reb 10 ast in 30 minutes in Game 1, and 19 pts 4 reb 6 ast in 29 minutes in Game 2. Roughly the same numbers as LeBron and Lillard in their first two games. When do we get to begin "questioning" them?
 
Last edited:

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,208
Bangkok
If Wood is legitimately this good, we’re going to end up as a top 3 seed. There’s no need to trade Harden, his best fit is where he is.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
If Wood is legitimately this good, we’re going to end up as a top 3 seed. There’s no need to trade Harden, his best fit is where he is.
I don’t know if he’s that good but he is phenomenal in your system with the ball in Hardens hands. Instant chemistry between the two.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,503
Some people just aren't that good at stuff, you know? He may have "physical gifts" in a track and field sense, but that quite often does not translate to the feel for a game that make an NBA star. The areas where Wiggins is most lacking — feel, court vision, awareness, rebounding, physicality, e.g.. — are not really things that can be improved to a significant degree with hard work. Shooting can to a degree, but even that has it limits. LeBron has never been a very good FT shooter, for example, despite his legendary work ethic.

Is it really hard to believe that a player can fall short of NBA stardom for some other reason than being a cancer or having a bad work ethic?
Thanks for response. Seems to me that faith, consistency, and hard work pay off, but . . . . :)

Typically when people put work in they get better and I don't follow Wiggins at all but consensus suggests that he really hasn't gotten better at much. So I don't know; just curious.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,208
Bangkok
Harden with 28/6/4 at the half, 8/10 from the field, 4/5 from three, 8/8 FTs. We can't trade him. We'll never get back anywhere close to what his true value is. We'll win a bunch of games with a full roster.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Harden with 28/6/4 at the half, 8/10 from the field, 4/5 from three, 8/8 FTs. We can't trade him. We'll never get back anywhere close to what his true value is. We'll win a bunch of games with a full roster.
Yeah, Wood and Harden have been a terrific combo. Houston is going to push 50 wins with them. There’s zero urgency to trade Harden if teams are offering pennies on the dollar. They can always get that little in the offseason.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Pretty simple. I would question that player being a superstar. Doc Rivers coached a team to .500 with Ron Mercer as arguably his best player and 5 Undrafted Rookie FA in his rotation.....and he didn’t even play.



Yes, he was a non-factor in the two blowout losses before lighting up Coby White and Zach Levine......so I was wondering when others would begin questioning him should it continue.
I remember how Lebron stopped being a superstar two years ago but then became one again last year.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
If Portland could ever keep its starter healthy into the post-season, they could make some noise!
Portland's problem last season was that they just had no depth at the wings position and lacked the players with the size and athleticism to guard LeBron/Davis. Getting Covington was a good move; and they are relying on Derrick Jones Jr. a ton to contribute, he has played big minutes so far. They won tonight because they got a monster game out of Gary Trent Jr., who had 28 points in 23 minutes and went 7/11 from three.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
Oh and you people can hate all you want. James Harden is a gift. I love him and the good news is now there is a lot more James to love.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
If the Warriors don't get Green back, and have to play this castoff crew all season, Steph will be the Trae Young from the last two seasons. He still will put up numbers, but his team will lose. It will be interesting to see how Curry responds to playing with a bunch of guys, after a long run of playing with great players.

But I get what HRB is hot-taking. If you're an NBA superstar, your team should be at least a .500 team, even if you're playing with four guys from Moses Malone's neighborhood.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
But I get what HRB is hot-taking. If you're an NBA superstar, your team should be at least a .500 team, even if you're playing with four guys from Moses Malone's neighborhood.
We need to have a talk about Kareem then.

He won league MVP during one of the two years in his prime where he failed to drag a team to the playoffs, and some people have him in the GOAT conversation.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
We need to talk about Kevin Garnett too. His last 2 years on the Wolves, woof.

Anthony Davis is also a bum.

The posterchild for this argument is probably DeMarcus Cousins, who I guess one could argue was overrated since he never won anything.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
If the Warriors don't get Green back, and have to play this castoff crew all season, Steph will be the Trae Young from the last two seasons. He still will put up numbers, but his team will lose. It will be interesting to see how Curry responds to playing with a bunch of guys, after a long run of playing with great players.

But I get what HRB is hot-taking. If you're an NBA superstar, your team should be at least a .500 team, even if you're playing with four guys from Moses Malone's neighborhood.
Not to belabor the point, but HRB’s Hot Take (TM) did not include any caveats about “if the team sucks with him as leader” and did not use the term “superstar.” Those were both weasely goalpost moves. The original claim is at the top of the page: “Stephen Curry is being exposed as a non-star.”

Draymond should be back in a game or two, so we may not be able to isolate Curry’s individual impact on a team of scrubs to the degree everyone seems to want, though the fact that he was the single most positively impactful player in the league from 2014-2019 by 538 metrics that at least attempt to measure isolated individual impact should tell you something. There was also a stat I saw that noted that the during the Big 4 era, the Warriors with Curry and *none of KD, Klay, or Draymond* had played at the level of a 60-win team (though obviously the sample in that stat must have been quite small).

Anyway, yes, that was all the age 26-31 Curry as opposed to the geriatric 32 year old version we see now. You can check out the last minute or so if the highlights from the last game (all during crunchtime with the Ws on the ropes) and judge for yourself to what degree he has or has not declined:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtBWEQCv8MI


As far as the overall state of the Ws, I thought this piece by Seerat Sohi was one of the smartest I’ve read: https://sports.yahoo.com/the-warriors-have-changed-and-so-must-steph-curry-to-avoid-a-lost-season-005905285.html
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Anyway, yes, that was all the age 26-31 Curry as opposed to the geriatric 32 year old version we see now. You can check out the last minute or so if the highlights from the last game (all during crunchtime with the Ws on the ropes) and judge for yourself to what degree he has or has not declined:
That was 26-30 Curry. The 31 year old Curry did not play basketball so thinking the 32 year old Curry might be pretty different than the 26-30 Curry is fair. HRB's take is obviously hot and hyperbole but I don't think questioning Curry or Durant this year is (was) unfair. Both look perfectly fine to me in the early going though.

His take isn't even all that hot since some people didn't even have Curry or Durant in their top 10 to begin the year. I think that's fair too. Well, ok. It's still pretty hot. It's one thing to argue if he's in the top 10 after missing a year to injury, and another completely to call him a non star.

People did the same with Kawhi, and to a lesser extend Paul George too.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
That was 26-30 Curry. The 31 year old Curry did not play basketball so thinking the 32 year old Curry might be pretty different than the 26-30 Curry is fair. HRB's take is obviously hot and hyperbole but I don't think questioning Curry or Durant this year is (was) unfair. Both look perfectly fine to me in the early going though.

His take isn't even all that hot since some people didn't even have Curry or Durant in their top 10 to begin the year. I think that's fair too. Well, ok. It's still pretty hot. It's one thing to argue if he's in the top 10 after missing a year to injury, and another completely to call him a non star.

People did the same with Kawhi, and to a lesser extend Paul George too.
Curry was 31 in the 2019 Finals when he put up 31 ppg 5 rpg 6 apg on 60% true shooting while being box-and-one’d.

I’m fine with questioning if/when the decline begins or has begun (I’ve been doing that for LeBron for at least five years, lol) but as you note, that’s not remotely the same as HRB’s original claim.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Darius Bazley was 3-8 last night, 2-4 from 3. 9 points, 11 rebounds and a steal.

And Lugentz Dort went 9/11, 5/7 from 3 with 26 points, 2 rebounds and 2 steals. Previous game he had 15 points and 5 rebounds. Undrafted guy last season.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
If the Warriors made Curry available today via a trade and were intent on moving him, what sort of package do you think they would receive? I strongly suspect the return for Curry would be considered a "superstar" haul (I don't care to get into the weeds about what that might look like because that trade is not happening). While HRB may be cutting edge on Steph Curry's career being over, teams and players around the league still regard him as an elite player. Without directly comparing the two players, I think a Curry trade package would look more like the Harden deals being discussed in the media versus a mid-level trade of assets.

Finally, we all know nobody here would want the Celtics to give up significant assets to get Curry (I would) so the point is, while MBPC would never give up even middling players for this version of Steph Curry, most teams would pay dearly.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Anyone know what the PPS (points per shot) record is?

Wondering if Trae Young has a real shot at it this year. First 3 games this year, 14 FT, 17 FT, 15 FT. He currently has 102 points on 49 FGA.

Hawks look incredibly young and promising, the Cavs have a young talented roster anchored by 2 vets. Suns are greatly improved, the Kings and Wolves have talented rosters. What is going on? Who is the doormat of the league now?

Oh wait... it's still the Knicks.

Also my take of Sabonis>Brown and being a future top 15 player is off to an interesting Start. Sabonis is currently 4/9 from 3 and I thought it was all but a given he'd add that shot. 24.3 points, 11.0 rebounds, 7.0 assists on .574/.444/.577 shooting in the first 3. Of course Brown has been a monster so far this year too and has shown unseen before passing ability.