By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheGoldenBoy on 27 February 2016
Edit Thread
AlfredoTurkey said:
TheGoldenBoy said:

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.

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.

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.