Four (4) of the Top ten (10) 3-point shooters of All-Time played in the 90's...

[thedangerouskitchen]

one fundamental truth that has become objective, undeniable fact is that Steph Curry is the greatest 3 point shooter of all time.

WRONG... the "stats" say he's 13th all-time, with two (2) "current" players superior and five (5) players from the 90's better.

Or do the stats not matter in this case?

[Robceltsfan]

one fundamental truth that has become objective, undeniable fact is that Steph Curry is the greatest 3 point shooter of all time.

WRONG... the "stats" say he's 13th all-time, with two (2) "current" players superior and five (5) players from the 90's better.

Or do the stats not matter in this case?

Your troll takes are starting to lack quality. I’ll still respond, because it’s fun smashing your teeth in, but you’ve definitely upgraded your stupidity lately.

[Uncontroversial]

one fundamental truth that has become objective, undeniable fact is that Steph Curry is the greatest 3 point shooter of all time.

WRONG... the "stats" say he's 13th all-time, with two (2) "current" players superior and five (5) players from the 90's better.

Or do the stats not matter in this case?

Your stats dont consider volume. To be a great 3 point shooter, you must be able to take many of them, when your team needs them. Not just when you're open.

Alleged "gReAt sHoOtErS" from the 90's were just taking what the defense was giving to them. Curry isnt given anything.

Fg% alone doesnt matter. Steph shoots a high fg% with massive volume, and can get shots up at any time in any situation. Catch and shoot, off the dribble, hand in his face, clock down, 10 feet behind the line, moving sideways, falling back, back to the basket turnaround, you name it. In any of those situations, he can shoot it and have a 41%-46% chance of making it.

And obviously 3 pointers at that percentage in volume are far more valuable than 2 pointers at 50%. That's why he's won 4 rings and is an all time great.

[Uncontroversial]

this is only good, fundamentally sound basketball IF your name is Steph Curry.



That's terrible defense for defending Curry. He had a foot of space in "layup" range.

For any other player that ever lived, it's over the top to challenge him that far from the basket. Too much defense.

For most good shooters, meet him at the 3 point line.

For michael Jordan, sag 5 feet inside the 3 point line.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

one fundamental truth that has become objective, undeniable fact is that Steph Curry is the greatest 3 point shooter of all time.

WRONG... the "stats" say he's 13th all-time, with two (2) "current" players superior and five (5) players from the 90's better.

Or do the stats not matter in this case?

Your stats dont consider volume. To be a great 3 point shooter, you must be able to take many of them, when your team needs them. Not just when you're open.

Alleged "gReAt sHoOtErS" from the 90's were just taking what the defense was giving to them. Curry isnt given anything.

Fg% alone doesnt matter. Steph shoots a high fg% with massive volume, and can get shots up at any time in any situation. Catch and shoot, off the dribble, hand in his face, clock down, 10 feet behind the line, moving sideways, falling back, back to the basket turnaround, you name it. In any of those situations, he can shoot it and have a 41%-46% chance of making it.

And obviously 3 pointers at that percentage in volume are far more valuable than 2 pointers at 50%. That's why he's won 4 rings and is an all time great.

When you aren't trolling (which isn't that often), you have great takes.

[Deez]

Truth

[thedangerouskitchen]

So... ITT we learned that "context and perspective" ONLY applies to the Modern Era, and certain players.

Case in point: We're supposed to consider "Volume and stuff" when pointing out that five (5) guys from the 90's are statistically superior 3-point shooters than Steph; however when it comes to Jordan, for example, it's perfectly fine to criticize his 3PT% at face-value withOut pointing out that he took barely over one (1) long-range attempt in his career (not counting when the line was moved in).

So with that said I'd like to thank the BWGC/Modern Era fanboys for falling right into TDK's trap ITT... you guys showcased your obvious hypocrisy, double-standard and blatant bias, which no doubt flushes your credibility right down the dumper.

Alas, my work here is done!

[Uncontroversial]

So... ITT we learned that "context and perspective" ONLY applies to the Modern Era, and certain players.

Case in point: We're supposed to consider "Volume and stuff" when pointing out that five (5) guys from the 90's are statistically superior 3-point shooters than Steph; however when it comes to Jordan, for example, it's perfectly fine to criticize his 3PT% at face-value withOut pointing out that he took barely over one (1) long-range attempt in his career (not counting when the line was moved in).

So with that said I'd like to thank the BWGC/Modern Era fanboys for falling right into TDK's trap ITT... you guys showcased your obvious hypocrisy, double-standard and blatant bias, which no doubt flushes your credibility right down the dumper.

Alas, my work here is done!

having both a low fg% and low volume makes MJ a bad 3 point shooter.

Most possessions, MJ was trying to get his team 2 points. Most possessions, Curry is trying to get his team 3 points. 3 points is a 50% increase at a cost of just 5-6% efficiency. Thus, Curry is the more productive player. That's how he managed to win 4 championships in the most stacked era ever. He was able to score a lot without dominating the ball, because his scoring was so much more efficient.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

So... ITT we learned that "context and perspective" ONLY applies to the Modern Era, and certain players.

Case in point: We're supposed to consider "Volume and stuff" when pointing out that five (5) guys from the 90's are statistically superior 3-point shooters than Steph; however when it comes to Jordan, for example, it's perfectly fine to criticize his 3PT% at face-value withOut pointing out that he took barely over one (1) long-range attempt in his career (not counting when the line was moved in).

So with that said I'd like to thank the BWGC/Modern Era fanboys for falling right into TDK's trap ITT... you guys showcased your obvious hypocrisy, double-standard and blatant bias, which no doubt flushes your credibility right down the dumper.

Alas, my work here is done!

having both a low fg% and low volume makes MJ a bad 3 point shooter.

Most possessions, MJ was trying to get his team 2 points. Most possessions, Curry is trying to get his team 3 points. 3 points is a 50% increase at a cost of just 5-6% efficiency. Thus, Curry is the more productive player. That's how he managed to win 4 championships in the most stacked era ever. He was able to score a lot without dominating the ball, because his scoring was so much more efficient.

You are correct of course for the most part. He also had a damn good supporting cast for all but one of those titles which allowed that to happen too, but relative to MJ and the Bulls and their competition in the 90s, what the Warriors did was more impressive, in my opinion.

[thedangerouskitchen]

So... ITT we learned that "context and perspective" ONLY applies to the Modern Era, and certain players.

Case in point: We're supposed to consider "Volume and stuff" when pointing out that five (5) guys from the 90's are statistically superior 3-point shooters than Steph; however when it comes to Jordan, for example, it's perfectly fine to criticize his 3PT% at face-value withOut pointing out that he took barely over one (1) long-range attempt in his career (not counting when the line was moved in).

So with that said I'd like to thank the BWGC/Modern Era fanboys for falling right into TDK's trap ITT... you guys showcased your obvious hypocrisy, double-standard and blatant bias, which no doubt flushes your credibility right down the dumper.

Alas, my work here is done!

having both a low fg% and low volume makes MJ a bad 3 point shooter.

A) The 3-point shot was just a small part of the game in the 80's / most of the 90's, and B) for his career Jordan's 3PT% was actually average relative to the league.

Once again... "context and perspective" ONLY applies to today's era, and certain players.

[thedangerouskitchen]

So... ITT we learned that "context and perspective" ONLY applies to the Modern Era, and certain players.

Case in point: We're supposed to consider "Volume and stuff" when pointing out that five (5) guys from the 90's are statistically superior 3-point shooters than Steph; however when it comes to Jordan, for example, it's perfectly fine to criticize his 3PT% at face-value withOut pointing out that he took barely over one (1) long-range attempt in his career (not counting when the line was moved in).

So with that said I'd like to thank the BWGC/Modern Era fanboys for falling right into TDK's trap ITT... you guys showcased your obvious hypocrisy, double-standard and blatant bias, which no doubt flushes your credibility right down the dumper.

Alas, my work here is done!

having both a low fg% and low volume makes MJ a bad 3 point shooter.

Most possessions, MJ was trying to get his team 2 points. Most possessions, Curry is trying to get his team 3 points. 3 points is a 50% increase at a cost of just 5-6% efficiency. Thus, Curry is the more productive player. That's how he managed to win 4 championships in the most stacked era ever. He was able to score a lot without dominating the ball, because his scoring was so much more efficient.

PS... at meatball grizz putting TDK on ignore YET he's constantly posting in my threads and/or responding (indirectly) to my posts via other posters' replies.

What a gutless coward.

[Bush4Ever.]

Curry won a title with no high-level help in 2022.

Jordan in five seasons without Pippen couldn't generate a winning record, let alone a playoff series win.

Sometimes, obvious things are obvious.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Curry won a title with no high-level help in 2022.

Jordan in five seasons without Pippen couldn't generate a winning record, let alone a playoff series win.

Sometimes, obvious things are obvious.

Agreed... Curry is so great that he managed to win a whopping one (1) Finals MVP in six (6) attempts.



Now go sit in the corner little man.

[Bush4Ever.]

Agreed... Curry is so great that he managed to win a whopping one (1) Finals MVP in six (6) attempts.

Jordan managed to generate a winning regular season a whopping zero (0) times in five (5) attempts without Pippen.

Like I said, sometimes reality is complicated. Sometimes it's not.

It's not in this comparison. Curry won with elite help and without elite help. Jordan won with elite help and failed hilariously badly without elite help. So Curry is better.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Agreed... Curry is so great that he managed to win a whopping one (1) Finals MVP in six (6) attempts.

Jordan managed to generate a winning regular season a whopping zero (0) times in five (5) attempts without Pippen.

Like I said, sometimes reality is complicated. Sometimes it's not.

It's not in this comparison. Curry won with elite help and without elite help. Jordan won with elite help and failed hilariously badly without elite help. So Curry is better.

Funny how not winning without a relatively stacked team counts against them for every other star except MJ? So weird.

[Robceltsfan]

Curry in his 4 Finals trips that resulted in wins.

2015 Finals: 26.0/5.2/6.3 44.3%/38.5%/88.5%
2017 Finals: 26.8/8.0/9.4 44.0%/38.8%/89.7%
2018 Finals: 27.5/6.0/6.8 40.2%/41.5%/100.0%
2022 Finals: 31.2/6.0/5.0 48.2%/43.7%/85.7%

Clearly looks like the guy struggles in big games!

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Curry in his 4 Finals trips that resulted in wins.

2015 Finals: 26.0/5.2/6.3 44.3%/38.5%/88.5%
2017 Finals: 26.8/8.0/9.4 44.0%/38.8%/89.7%
2018 Finals: 27.5/6.0/6.8 40.2%/41.5%/100.0%
2022 Finals: 31.2/6.0/5.0 48.2%/43.7%/85.7%

Clearly looks like the guy struggles in big games!

And he was always considered the best player on all those teams, even when Durant was there. He was and always has been, the stick the stirred the Warriors drink.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Agreed... Curry is so great that he managed to win a whopping one (1) Finals MVP in six (6) attempts.

Jordan managed to generate a winning regular season a whopping zero (0) times in five (5) attempts without Pippen.

Like I said, sometimes reality is complicated. Sometimes it's not.

It's not in this comparison. Curry won with elite help and without elite help. Jordan won with elite help and failed hilariously badly without elite help. So Curry is better.

Curry lost Finals MVP to a role-player, and he didn't win squat withOut at least two (2) other HOF teammates by his side. In fact Curry played alongside Not 1, Not 2, but three (3) HOF teammates just last season yet failed to even make the Playoffs.



Get back in the corner.

[Uncontroversial]

Curry in his 4 Finals trips that resulted in wins.

2015 Finals: 26.0/5.2/6.3 44.3%/38.5%/88.5%
2017 Finals: 26.8/8.0/9.4 44.0%/38.8%/89.7%
2018 Finals: 27.5/6.0/6.8 40.2%/41.5%/100.0%
2022 Finals: 31.2/6.0/5.0 48.2%/43.7%/85.7%

Clearly looks like the guy struggles in big games!

his efficiency was way down, but lebron led teams tend to do great defensively on the opposing star player at the expense of allowing the other players to go off. This cost Curry some Finals MVP's, but Warriors still won most of those series, and Curry was still the main factor imo.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Curry
2017 Finals: 27/8/9 on 44%/39%/90%
2018 Finals: 28/6/7 on 40%/42%/100%

Durant
2017 Finals: 35/8/5 on 56%/47%/93%
2018 Finals: 29/11/8 on 53%/41%/96%

But But But... Curry was the best player, hurrr durrrr, for "reasons" that only make sense to someone who thinks Bill Russell is the GOAT, or showcases themselves as second-rate trolls.