I really don't care if people agree with me. This is a Rockets forum, and most of the people in this thread are Harden fans. There's an inherent bias. Also, plenty of people have disagreed with me, but none of my arguments has been "beaten down and exposed". On the contrary, I believe I've argued them into submission. You're assuming that, because so many Harden fans disagree with me, I must be wrong. Why haven't you considered that I'm simply being objective? Being part of the majority voice on a fan site doesn't make you right. Out of curiosity, do you peruse other basketball forums? If so, you'd see that a lot of my views are echoed outside of Harden-centric fan bases.
You do care or you would not keep coming back for abuse. Sorry, but no. Your arguments have been exposed as absurd and exposed multiple times. You haven't argued anyone into submission from what I have read, people have laughed at you and decided watching you beat head into a wall is only entertaining to a point. Spoiler: Okay.... I'm not assuming anything, I have read what you have written and 90% of it has been absurd (but entertaining). You are clearly not objective, as you do everything to contort facts to fit your narrative - that is the entertaining part. Perhaps you should consider that YOU have zero objectivity.
I really don't care if people agree with me or not. How does it affect me in any way? Sorry, but no. My arguments haven't been exposed. Logic is still firmly on my side, and I don't care if people pity me b/c I pity them. Which facts have I contorted to fit my narrative?
Almost anyone currently following the nba will tell you Harden is either the best or a top 3 playmaker in the nba with Lebron and Paul. Don’t play the Rockets fan board card bozo
Again, it depends on how you define "playmaker". If you include the shot opportunities created by Curry off-ball, then he'd have to be up there as well. Also, I've been civil, but that ends here. If you're going to continue with the insults, I'll respond accordingly.
Yeah, this coincides with what you're saying: https://clutchpoints.com/nba-today-ranking-the-five-greatest-playmakers-in-the-league/#:~:text=Chris Paul has been known,to-no signs of decline. Steph Curry doesn't even make it into honorable mention! And there's this, which puts Chris Paul as the top "playmaking" PG, though Curry at least gets a mention here: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2929584-who-are-the-nbas-best-playmakers-right-now Here's an article that describes a basic methodology for quantifying playmaking performance, and they explicitly note that they exclude spot-up shooting and cutting from consideration. Essentially, they just add up unassisted points scored by the player and points scored via the players assists. I think that does a pretty good job of capturing what most of us think of when we think "playmaker". Of course, players who control an offense with the ball in their hand will score better by this definition. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2929584-who-are-the-nbas-best-playmakers-right-now To qualify for the rankings, players must have suited up in at least 30 games by Friday, Feb. 3, and used at least 15 possessions per contest. A possession, in this case, is defined as finishing a play with a field-goal attempt, trip to the free-throw stripe, assist or turnover. Then, they had to emerge with a strong score in the following calculation for playmaker rating: Determine how many of a player's points per game came in unassisted fashion, since spot-up shooting and cutting don't fall under the playmaking umbrella. This was done using NBA.com's data, though it's worth noting there's a potential drawback by not incorporating self-created free-throw attempts. Add a player's points created by assist per game, as that takes into account passes leading to more than two points. Divide the sum by possessions used, then multiply by 100 (for the sake of aesthetics).
Another article on best playmakers, from June of last year: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/6/15/21290999/top-5-nba-playmakers-lebron-james Rob's top 5: LeBron, Harden, Doncic, Jokic, and Lillard. Of course, Curry missed last season, so that could have something to do with his exclusion from the list. But the sub-header of the article is telling: Who’s the best with the ball in their hands? From Lillard to LeBron, here are the players who make things happen in today’s game. A playmaker is someone who is adept at creating scores for his offense with the ball in his hands. That's the common understanding of that word.
Nobody seriously believes off the ball gravity is more important then on the ball playmaking. In that case Steph is a better playmaker then magic Johnson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Lebron James,, you can’t possibly believe what you are peddling. It’s borderline farcical
It depends on the extent of the "gravity" and the quality of the on ball playmaking, doesn't it? Steph's off the ball gravity probably does more for an offense than John Wall's on the ball playmaking. Where I land on this is we should use terms they way they are commonly understood, so we are not just wasting time arguing semantics. Playmaking is commonly understood to refer specifically to on-ball points creation. Curry's unique abilities can super-charge a 5-man lineup that has multiple smart passers/scorers. I wouldn't dismiss what Curry brings to the table as inferior, necessarily, but it isn't what most of us thinking of as playmaking.
Do you seriously with a straight face believe Currys off the ball gravity is better then Hardens on the ball playmaking?... Let’s not bring John Wall or another other above average guys to make an argument. He is comparing Curry playmaking to an all time great like harden
And the reason that's the common interpretation is that there's never been a player like Curry who demands so much defensive attention off-ball that it actually creates consistent scoring opportunities for his teammates. Curry was the engine for multiple GSW titles. If he's not considered an elite "playmaker" by its common interpretation, then that interpretation is clearly outdated and needs to be reevaluated.
No one believes this. However, I do believe that Curry's off-ball gravity plus his on-ball playmaking make him a better overall playmaker than Harden.
Incorrect. Draymond runs the on-ball playmaking because, if he doesn't, he's absolutely useless on offense. Curry is a significantly better on-ball playmaker than Draymond Green, but the Warriors are a better team when Draymond Green gets involved in the passing.
I was responding to this statement: "Nobody seriously believes off the ball gravity is more important then on the ball playmaking." It depends on the quality of the playmaking and the extent of the off-ball gravity. Surely, you don't disagree. It's also not either/or with great players. They give you both, in varying proportions. If we want to talk about "which is better?" between Curry and Harden, we should think about what would be an appropriate metric to judge that. It can't just be a metric for on-ball playmaking (like points + assists). One option would be to look at multi-year adjusted offensive plus/minus statistics. ESPN's Real Plus/Minus and 538's RAPTOR are the two popular ones I'm aware of. I believe Curry and Harden are 1 and 2 over the last several years by those metrics as far as offensive impact.
Or just come up with a different term that captures what you are talking about and argue that "playmaking" (as it is understood by virtually everyone) isn't the only way to be a great offensive player. They are clearly different ways of impacting an offense, and the distinction is important, so why conflate them by using the same word?
elite playmaking will always be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elite ball gravity if there's such a thing
Because the word "playmaking" SHOULD encompass all forms of playmaking, not just on-ball playmaking. Logically, "on-ball" and "off-ball" should both be subsets of "playmaking", but "off-ball playmaking" gets ignored because only a handful of guys are capable of it. As such, any "different term" would get ignored for this same reason.
