Steph is over hyped in terms of All - Time ranking IMO. This is his first dominant season & despite his offensive prowess he's still a below average defender. I wouldn't consider his 16' campaign to be a top 5 overall season (offense + defense) ever but in terms of offense, arguably the greatest scoring season ever.

I also find it astounding how many times he's been locked (in terms of shooting low FG%'s) but his high volume of makes from 3 compensate for that. Steph turns bad shots into good shots. That's what makes dude special, unlimited range combined with ball handling & swift passing. The illegal screens help too lol.

He's not even a 50% lifetime shooter lol

Does't change the fact that he has the record for most three point shots made in a season, which he's going to break again this season, and that he has the most consecutive games with three pointers made in NBA history.

Also, most guards don't shoot 50% anyways so I don't see how that is a knock against him. Reggie Miller and Ray Allen are the two other names often mentioned in the greatest shooter of all time conversation they both shot 47.1% and 45.2% respectively; both of which are less that Curry's 47.7% career FG%.

Basic logic. If someone wants me to believe they are the greatest shooter ever, I'm going to have to see proof. Jordan was a guard and had a higher FG%. Steve Kerr was a PG and had a higher 3P%. How exactly can someone be the GOAT when they aren't as "great" in the particular area in which they are being called the GOAT? It makes no sense at all.

Curry is a great player, but you're all falling into the same sheep like, media driven trap that has befallen many "next Jordans" since the mid 90's. Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, Vince Carter, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James... they were all "the next" before Curry, which is the new "next". The NBA and ESPN has never been able to fill the void since MJ left and have had to resort to knowingly over-hyping players in order to keep attention on the sport and raitings from plummeting. Take a look at the NBA raitings over the last 30 years. When Jordan was going through his last three-peat, they were at an all-time high. After he retired in 1998, they nose dived and have never returned. 

oThink about it. Lebron is over 30, and has finally, for the first time, started to decline. Don't you think it's a bit suspicious that Curry is now the golden boy of ESPN and the league? It's all about money and creating buzz and attention. Curry is a great player, but no greater than Kobe or Lebron before him. He'll decline in a view years, and all this buzz will go away as quickly as it came and everyone will move on to the "next thing" and say HE'S the "next"... it'll never end.

I already gave you proof, you're just too blind to see it.

As for Jordan, he had a higher FG% because he was the greatest midrange and arguably finisher of all time. The closer you shoot to the rim the higher your percentages will be. I don't see how that's complicated to understand. As for Kerr's 3P%, he was a spot up shooter. He got the ball off of the pressure that MJ and Pippen drew.

As for the other crap you wrote, I don't really care. I was only arguging about Curry as a shooter and never brought him as an overall player.

Did you just "lol" at Jordan, since he's not a 50% lifetime shooter, either?

Part of the reason many consider Curry the best pure shooter is that he shoots a much higher volume of outside jumpers than someone like Allen or Kerr while still maintaining a high FGP.  

Jordan played until he was 40 lol. When he was 27 (Curry's age), his FG% was %52 and his lifetime PPG was 32 a game. 

If we're just focusing on "shooting", there hasn't been anything Curry has done percentage wise, over other legends before him. There's been some amazing long range shooters like Kerr and others who's lifetime percentage is better as well.

Curry making so and so number of threes a game is not a result of him being a better three point shooter than Kerr, Bird or anything else before him but more about the fact that he jacks up threes like the ball is going to burn his hands if he holds it for too long. When you shoot so many times, you're to MAKE that many shots. Why do you think Kobe once scored 35PPG in a season? Because he was a great shooter? No, because he shot so many times. Curry is taking more 3 point shots than just about anyone else in history, so, 1+1=2.

Beste athlete by far this year
Contender for basketball and overall sportsman goat

First of all, Bird was a career 37.6% three point shooter so by your criteria he's an average three point shooter. Not that I would personally say that. As for Curry's 3P% it's as exactly as pokoko said. The more you shoot, the higher chance you have of shooting a lower FG% (a.k.a volume shooters). The same can be said the further you shoot from the basket. Curry does both, but his FG% and 3P% are still incredibly impressive.

As for the Kobe Bryant point, you mean to tell me that to score a lot you have to shoot a lot? Wow, I didn't know that. I thought Michael just shit baskets out of thin air. Michael during the year he averaged 37.1 PPG scored 1.33 points/FGA, whereas Kobe scored 1.30/FGA during the year he averaged 35.4 PPG. A whole 0.3 point/FGA difference. That obviously must mean Michael wasn't a good scorer either by your criteria. Again, that's not something I would say about the G.O.A.T.

Also, I don't understand the insistence on why FG%/3P% is the only way to measure how great Curry is as a shooter. DeAndre Jordan has a higher FG% then Shaq, but that doesn't mean anyone would be stupid enough to say that DeAndre is a better inside/post player than Shaq was.

I'm not even a Steph Curry fan, but I'm arguing for him as a shooter. You're obviously threatened by the current generation of superstars so you attempt to dimish their stats by comparing them to Michael or thinking of ridiculous ways to try and invalidate their achievements.