Hakeem never had a PER above 27 so does that make him inferior to Anthony Davis' 30 PER from this year?
Have you guys seen the 3s that Curry takes? Those aren't easy shots at all. No one has ever been even close to doing what he does off the dribble.
I'm assuming you are kind of responding to my argument so let's get down to the specifics. http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/tracking/shots/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular Season I you look at his shooting stats in detail, out of the total field goals he attempted this season, 32.3% of those were taken with "0" dribbles on Curry's part. That is pretty staggering number if you think about it and basically means almost 1/3 of his scoring chances came from his teammates' ability to find him and feeding him the ball. (BTW, I know the meaning of frequency in statistics is not the same as percentages, but the numbers are about the same if you do the math so I'll just use the frequency stat as a stand-in for the percentages.) The threes he took upon which he had to create his own shot (taken with + 3 dribbles) barely makes up about 18% of his shot attempts and is clearly more accurate when he takes his shot with 0 or only 1 dribble. He certainly is a great three point shooter off-the-dribble, but that's not where majority of his points came from this season. Also, look at how closely he was defended when Curry made his field goal attempts. Curry's shot is basically uncontested 52.2% of the time (add up the frequency number for shots taken when defender was 4-6 feet and 6+ feet away.) Again, this is partially explained by Curry's exceptional knack for off-the-ball movement, but a lot of team plays need to be well executed to allow the sharp shooter get this many open chances. (There is reason why Korver is having a best year career wise under the Hawks system and with Budenholzer as his coach.) Interestingly, Curry's three point accuracy plummets to 15% when he is defended very tight (within 0-2 feet.) Compare this to Harden's number as I don't have the stats for Iverson. Harden only takes 22.1% of his shots with 0 dribbles taken as opposed to Curry's 32.3% and Harden's uncontested open shot frequency is 39.5% as opposed to Curry's 52.2%. These numbers all point to the obvious fact that Harden has to create his own shot for himself more often than Curry does, and therefore his shots are more likely to be taken in tougher circumstances, probably contested. And if my memory serves me correctly, Iverson was literally the start and finish of Philly's offense and took way more tough shots than Harden, so Curry does not even come close to Iverson when it comes to this point. This is why I always get annoyed by people who think just because Curry is a very efficient shooter, he has to be one of those few players that come every once in a while that can carry a mediocre team with no offensive weapon other than himself to the whopping NBA finals and possibly even win a championship. Iverson was that kind of special player, Harden has the potential to be, but Curry? No. He benefited from Golden State's system that incorporates fluid ball movement that is geared towards creating good open looks for their shooters as much as he contributed to that team's success.
My point is this. Nobody believed that Iverson's team could beat any of the team that would come out of the West that year. In other words, "leading a team to the Finals" is an empty accomplishment because they weren't even considered a title contender. Iverson fit that team perfectly, or should I say the team fit Iverson perfectly. Being the only offensive threat, he was able to do his things without restraint. And he was surrounded by a team of elite defensive players to take care of the other end. But that kind of teams are destined to mediocrity. If they were in the West, they would have been a marginal playoffs team. What would this year's Warriors be like if you replaced the prime Iverson for Curry? I don't think it would be as good. Iverson's style simply could not gel well with that kind of a team. Look how he did with a talented Denver team. He still got his numbers, kind of, but didn't really make that team better.
You are absolutely wrong. 76ers actually had pretty decent record against strong Western conference teams that year, or legit title contenders as you call it. The 4 teams that were in 2001 Western conference semi finals were Lakers, Spurs, King and the Mavericks and guess what, Iverson's Philly all split the season match up 1-1 with them. So, you are just factually incorrect when you say no one expected Philly to beat one of those teams. And to imply that only Iverson was in the most ideal situation that could maximize his strengths as if this does not apply to Curry at all is just absurd. Iverson at least had immense responsibility and did most of the heavy-lifting in terms of their offense, yet Curry is just as much of a beneficiary of Golden State's system as he is a contributor. Golden State is #1 in team assists and defensive rating. Don't you think that has something got to do with Curry's success this season?
Oh please, There was nobody who thought that Philly had any chance in the finals. They were not contenders.
Until Curry can take his team to the finals by himself, AI will always be the answer. Iverson was a GREAT GREAT player. The difference between Curry and Iverson is that iverson's will to win was unmatched, and yeah he too stupid shots and was selfish to a fault but the guy was a warrior.
So, if a 76ers or Lakers player lead their team to the Finals, it wouldn't be a great accomplishment because they aren't favourites for the title. This is some awesome logic.
I did not say that they were "not a favorite." I said that nobody believed that they had any chance whatsoever to beat any West team. I clearly remembered that everybody watched the WCF as if it was the real Finals. It's that bad. (It's the 76ers' credit that they stole Game 1 from the Lakers before the Lakers woke up. Sweep was the consensus prediction.) There's a difference between "not a favorite" and "not a contender." If you can't tell the difference, then I don't know what to say. There are several teams this year that would be considered a contender but would not be a favorite when they play the Warriors.
San Antonio had the best record in the NBA at 58-24 that year with Philly and LA tied for 2nd with 56-26. The Lakers demolished the competition that year in the playoffs going 15-1 with their lone loss against Philly. It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things but that should tell you that Philly wasn't a pushover either considering San Antonio and Sacramento both got swept by LA that year. This, of course, includes splitting the regular season series, 1-1, against LA. They went 16-12 against the West that year...pretty much splitting every regular season series that year. I'd say that proves that Sixers team would have been better than marginal. And to your point, yes the team was built around Iverson...just like every team with an MVP-caliber player. To respond to his tenure in Denver, Iverson was already into his 10th year in the league..not exactly the prime time of his career wouldn't you agree? And the two years he was there the Nuggets were eliminated from the playoffs by either the eventual NBA champion (Spurs) or the NBA Finals loser (Lakers). Moral victories mean little in the big picture but people can't say "Oh well Iverson didn't do much during his time in Denver" when they were simply beat by a better team both years. (All data were pulled from basketball reference, btw )
PER is a useless accumulation of numbers, XRAPM actually shows how your team performs with you on vs off, not individual numbers. During his prime years Dream was among highest XRAPM. Iverson was never even close to the top. Hell even Francis had a higher number than Iverson his MVP season. That 76ers team was maybe the 7th or 8th best team in the NBA, they just had the privilege of playing in a garbage conference. Put Curry on that team and they are better off, although still not a title threat.
I'll say this: In today's NBA with zone defense and the game being more data centric, Iverson's game would not translate well. However, in Iverson's era where there weren't zone D and, subjectively, the defense got away with more physicality, Curry wouldn't have lasted.
I'm not calling you a liar because that would be stupid but can you show me the data on Olajuwon and Anthony Davis?
I typed it wrong, but that makes it even less logical. Not even being contenders but bringing your team to the Finals is an even bigger accomplishment, I still don't see your comment making any sense. Taking a team that's not even remotely in the contender category to the Finals is one of the most improbable and difficult things to do. How is it a lesser accomplishment than taking a contender to the Finals?
