Why is there such a big deal about all time 3 Pt Leader. I mean it's an awesome feat for sure but not sure why everyone is making such a big deal when he is probably going to better the mark by 2000. A 15yr guy for 2976 only need 2.4 3's per game if they played every game. In the day where everyone is firing 3's imnmore impressed with his end result
OT: Steph Curry
- Thread starter greenknight
- Start date
Not taking anything away from Curry, because he’s an absolute magician out there. I just wonder how many treys Pistol Pete would have made if the 3-point arc existed when he played.
Curry is the best of all time don’t need to think about pistol Pete smh
Agree that Curry is the best ever. In 43 games Pete only took 15 treys in his final season, 1979/80 (first season of the 3-point shot in the NBA). Pete made 10 of 15 from behind the arc that season. Makes me wonder what he would do in today’s game.
I heard that someone tracked Pete’s college career seeing his shot makes. He averaged about 43 points a game for his college career. If he had a three point line he would have averaged somewhere over 50 points per game for his career. And that’s without adjusting his game to take more threes, that’s just tracking the shots he made.
Actually I forget who sad it could have been Jordan not sure just saw it recently but said that Drazen Petrovic was best pure shooter to play the game.. He was crazy good
This thread is goofy. Steph Curry is so good, he's changed the way the NBA game is played. Not many players have had that kind of impact on The League. At worst, he's one of the NBA's top 20 all-time players.
One of the things that's interesting about Curry is that he wasn't all-NBA for his first few years and was the topic of a lot of trade talks - mostly because he kept injuring his ankles.
One of the things that's interesting about Curry is that he wasn't all-NBA for his first few years and was the topic of a lot of trade talks - mostly because he kept injuring his ankles.
The one area Steph is not good is he is beyond careless with the ball....turns it over alot.
One of my 3 favorite players but very casually sloppy passing
Steph's brother Seth actually has a slightly higher 3 point field goal % for his NBA career. Both are excellent. 44%
Best of Luck,
Groz
Best of Luck,
Groz
His shooting ability is other worldly. Guys like Ray Allen and Reggie Miller were elite, but neither could regularly spot up 5ft behind the line and be a a threat. Guys literally have to chase Curry the second he takes a few steps across half court.
They probably could, but the game hadnt been revolutionized yet and those shots would have been deemed bad ones.
I remember watching NBA games in 1980 when the 3-pointer was introduced, and the general feeling among many was that it was like a gimmick. I don’t even think many coaches wanted their players to take them — to your point about it being perceived as a “bad shot.”
I think some guys that were in the NBA because of their shooting would have never had careers is the NBA today.
Steve Kerr and Craig Hodges and Trent Tucker and Jeff Hornacek would they have a role in today’s NBA. I don’t follow closely now so I may be wrong.
Steve Kerr and Craig Hodges and Trent Tucker and Jeff Hornacek would they have a role in today’s NBA. I don’t follow closely now so I may be wrong.
It's actually the opposite. Elite shooters from the past would be even more valuable today because of the higher volume of shots they would take.
Take Steve Kerr for example.
His best shooting season 95-96: 122 for 237 from 3pt for a crazy 51.5%!
But he shot under 3 attempts per game - he played in all 82 games.
That's crazy for a 50% shooter.
For his career - he shot 45.4% from 3 but on only 1.8 attempts per game.
Today he would be taking a ton more shots.
Sure his shooting percentage probably goes down some but not alot.
See J.J. Reddick and Kyle Korver having long NBA careers.
If only Quincy Douby came along 10 years later he would have had a much better NBA career.
Interesting story here...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/sports/basketball/nba-three-pointer-chris-ford.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/sports/basketball/nba-three-pointer-chris-ford.html
Sir Barkley was talking about 3 Pter's at half time of Knicks game. He said only the the good shooters should be shooting the 3. His pretty much exact words....all the garbage shooters are shootings 3's they should leave to the good players to shoot
I read his article and watched him on CNN.
Pretty sure he isn't being serious.
It's a cycle: generational player comes along and changes the game.
Players mimic and struggle at first.
Over time - they do learn the skill and it becomes commonplace.
Bob mentions Bill Russell and blocks in his article.
Did anyone say Bill Russell "ruined basketball' when he perfected blocking shots?
How many players (still to this day) lose proper defensive/rebounding positioning because they are unsuccessfully trying block a shot?
Or unsuccessfully gambling to steal a pass?
Blocks and steals ruined the game - ban them!
When players started dunking - how many guys tried to dunk unsuccessfully instead of just going for a layup or easy shot?
"Dunking" ruined the game - ban it!
Every new skill "ruins" the game.
GRF, do you ever think blocked shots are overrated, statistically? I think the threat of a blocked shot may be more valuable, but harder to prove, statistically.
1. I would guess that more than half of all blocked shots go out of bounds, so the same team retains possession.
2. Attempting to block a shot sometimes becomes a foul instead.
3. Some blocked shots turn out to be goaltending.
4. By going for blocks you’re sometimes out of position for a rebound, when you whiff.
5. Some blocked shots or goaltended shots were not going in the hoop anyway.
Edit: #6 - An attempted block could lead to an “and-1” for the shooter.
Last edited:
I gave you 5 examples (now 6 with my edit) of blocked shots (or attempted blocked shots) having neutral or negative outcomes.
I can see the importance if the blocked ball goes to a fellow defender, or if you cleanly block a sure layup or dunk (but even then you’re risking an and-1), or if it ends the game that you win by one score. And I can see how the threat of a block might alter some shots, otherwise I wonder if statistically they’re a plus, when you factor in all the negative outcomes.
An example from another sport is stolen bases. Unless you’re successful 70% of the time when you attempt to steal a base, it’s not worth the risk. It looks good, it’s entertaining, and it’s a great stat to keep track of, but most of the time the threat of getting caught outweighs the risk.
Last edited:
I think the most common outcome that you may not be considering is altering a shot in the attempt to block.
I don’t watch much NBA but assume defensive intensity plays a role here too right? Watching these guys aside from banging underneath sometimes the d looks like 90s All-Star game intensity…
Would Curry who is rather slight last against a Pistons team?
Would Curry who is rather slight last against a Pistons team?
Billy
I don’t disagree with the negative offsets.
You bring up the big one. If there is a known shot blocker the number of drives to the hoop are less.
I don’t disagree with the negative offsets.
You bring up the big one. If there is a known shot blocker the number of drives to the hoop are less.
We actually lost 3 of our best defensive players, two of which were not prolific shot-blockers.
PS: this year we have already committed numerous fouls when trying to block a 3-point shot. A shot with a 40% chance of going in, and we practically hand them 3 points at the line. In at least one case it was a 4-point play, with the and-1.
Last edited:
Actually the threat of blocked shots alters a team’s offense. You mention possible negative outcomes of a block, however the huge positive you ignore is the impact on a game plan when a team has a legitimate shot blocker(s). They take away part of your game. Blocked shots are also potential momentum changing plays and no way do 50% of blocked shots go out of bounds.
While your negative list is legit, i’d rather have a blocked shot then not. Keep in mind your neutral and negative outcomes are pretty much present on every play, block attempt notwithstanding.
I don’t disagree. In fact I mentioned several positive outcomes of a cleanly blocked shot as well as the threat of a blocked shot. I think the negative outcomes of attempting to block a shot negate the positive outcomes.
Your point about changing an offensive strategy when faced with a shot blocker works both ways. If you attack a shot blocker he will undoubtedly pick up some fouls as a result, which will cause him to sit more than normal, and the team loses a good rebounder for those extra minutes. So there’s a tradeoff there.
Also, for a majority of teams the 3-point shot is becoming or has become the main offensive threat, so the impact of a rim protector is diminished.
Lastly, not all blocked shot attempts are from your rim protector. Many attempts to block outside shots are met with negative consequences, the most egregious being fouling a 3-point shooter.
Last edited:
You're missing the point.
Bob Ryan (and others) say Curry is great and should shoot 3s. But Curry is influencing less skilled players to also try and shoot 3s. These other players shooting so many 3s is a negative because they miss the shot.
Less skilled players attempting a skill that only the elite/revolutionary players should attempt = "ruining the NBA".
You are actually proving the crazy analogy I made.
Shot blocking was a revolutionary skill just like 3pt shooting.
Legitimate shot blockers (such as Bill Russell or Dikembe Mutombo) should be going after blocks because they positively impact the game.
But look at how many less skilled players attempt to block shots. They lead to all these negatives - fouling shooters, dumb fouls, And-1's on easy layups, fouling 3pt shooters, out of position for a rebound.
Less skilled players attempting a skill that only the elite/revolutionary players should attempt = "ruining the NBA".
But nobody complains "Bill Russell ruined the NBA because he was an elite shot blocker" like they say "Steph Curry ruined the NBA because he is an elite 3pt shooter".
yikes… shot blocking is a revolutionary skill? Less skilled players shouldn’t attempt to block a shot? Perhaps they should play D with their hands at their side and only let players with revolutionary shot blocking skills use their hands… wait are you by chance a soccer player? 
Crazy, your word, would be to encourage less aggressive D because of possible negatives like fouls
I‘m sure you and Bob Ryan have an nice obscure point to make, but for me Bill Russell didn’t ruin basketball and I want to see aggressive defense including blocked shots.
PS - all in good fun I just think your take on blocked shots is a tad, well, crazy
If those shots are bad the analytics guys will figure it out eventually. I suspect they are actually not bad and Bob Ryan is just yelling at a cloud but I do not know for sure.
I find it interesting that Steph Curry's elite 3 point shooting is ruining the NBA because he's "influencing" bad shooters to take 3s, yet Rick Barry had no influence on bad free throw shooters and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had no influence on centers with no post moves.