OT - Steph Curry and the 3-Point Shot have ruined Basketball (aka why print media is dying)
I assume this Chicago Tribune guy is trolling, but it's still a hilariously dumb article...
Get a load of this Chicago Tribune columnist's horrible Stephen Curry take: https://t.co/9LXoEhBndU pic.twitter.com/VyzJBV3Hdd
— Deadspin (@Deadspin) March 7, 2016
h/t Nick Baumgardner
EDIT: You won't give the author clicks with this link. It goes to the Deadspin article.
Fishing title.
how you can watch steph curry highlights and not be entertained. the man's arguments confuse the hell out of me.
This. I went to the Warriors-Wizards game about a month ago and just cackled giddily the whole time. And I'm a lifelong Wizards/Bullets fan!
Steph Curry?.....not so much.
+1 Insightful
+1 Funny
First off, that article is pretty much garbage. Secondly, I don't understand why so many people insist on comparing Curry to the greats? People keep saying "Oh Curry wouldn't score so many points in Jordan's time" or "he would have been destroyed by the physicality of the game." What's the point of that? Basketball has evolved, just as any sport. Jordan dominated in a different era, while Curry is dominating modern basketball. It's apples and oranges.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
has to sustain this. He is playing at a historically remarkable level right now. If he can string 3 or 4 of these seasons together he will be recognized among the greats of all time.
and acting like ppg means anything.
Per 100 possessions, how most basketball stats (probably all) should be measured, and by every measure your comparison of Curry to Isiah Thomas is just stupid and that's the best way to put it. Looking at their stats for 7th year in the NBA for each you get this comparison:
FG%: Curry 51% ; Thomas 46%
3P%: Curry 46% ; Thomas 31%
FT%: Curry 91% ; Thomas 77%
TS%: Curry 68% ; Thomas 52%
REB: Curry 7.5 ; Thomas 4.6
AST: Curry 9.3 ; Thomas 11.3
STL: Curry 2.9 ; Thomas 2.4
PTS: Curry 43.2 ; Thomas 26.3
ORt: Curry 126 ; Thomas 108
DRt: Curry 102: Thomas 106
PER: Curry 32.3 ; Thomas 18.2
Notice anything there?
tl;dr: at this point in careers as you said, Curry per possession is significantly better than Thomas was in everything except assists and defensive rating. He gets more points, rebounds, and steals - and almost as many asissts - whiile doing at a much higher shooting % across the fucking board than Thomas did. And that 7th year of career was one of Thomas's 6th best one, alread in his decliding years. Curry is literally getting better every fucking year seriously how do people post things like this and not even try fact checking?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Curry was bothered by injuries early in his career. He played 416 games in his first six seasons compared to 474 for Thomas. Thomas played 17,425 minutes to Curry's 14,559.
There's a 14% difference in games played and 20% in minutes played. It would liberally bring Curry's totals up to 10,457 points, 860 steals, 3,439 assists, 2,062 rebounds. Steph would thus beat Isiah in points and rebounds and fall short in steals and assists.
Games played and minutes played are just one thing. There was also a significant difference in pace compared to 1981. Per 100 possessions, Thomas' average offensive rating for those six seasons was 108.2 compared to 114.3 to Curry, and his defensive rating was 106.8 to Steph's 107.2.
When you also consider that Stephen Curry has come into his own in the middle of his career, with his advanced statistics increasing literally every year of his career (16.3<19.4<21.2<21.3<24.1<28<32.3 PER), while Thomas' displayed a downward trend after his second season, it is not just disingenuous to compare and contrast Curry's injury-plagued start to another all-time great's, but it goes to show how far ahead of the pack Curry will be when all is said and done.
but those ignore things like
1. Curry's early career injuries
2. that Curry barely plays 4th quarters now.
In stats rated to per 100 possessions or per 36 minutes (how the NBA usually does it, 3 quarters of play) Curry comes out significantly ahead of Thomas at this point in their careers. Also as noted, Thomas by year 6 was already in his decline, Curry at year 7 is getting better every year still. It's nearly impossible for him to improve next year... but people said that after what he did last year so who knows.
Regardless, there is no reasonable statistical measure out there that doesn't accept Curry is having most likely the best year ever right now. Traditionalists just don't like that becuase they hate all things new.
Curry is playing a game much, much, much more tailored by rules changes to promote offense.
1) Handchecking was legal (removed 1994)
2) Longer three point line (shortened in 1994)
3) No ejection for multiple flagrant fouls (1994)
4) Only two free throws when fouled on 3 pointer (1994)
5) Smaller "no charge" area (expanded 1997)
6) Using your forearm to defend a player facing the basket was legal (removed 1997)
7) Contact by a defender with his hands and forearms both in the backcourt and frontcourt was legal (removed 1999)
8) Defenses were allowed to "re-route" players off the ball (removed 1999)
9) Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding “chucking” or “wrapping up” was legal (changed 2000)
Never mind the changes in how contact is called.
It's like comparing passing number pre/post the rule changes allowing OL to extend their arms and limiting contact with receivers to 5 yards...
What they play now is basically "touch" basketball compared to the NBA of the mid 80's and early 90's. Now, an argument can be made that that is what SHOUlD have been done, as the NBA was devolving into football played on a court. But you can barely compare the game between eras anymore.
I was scrolling from the bottom upwards when I made my post. You said it even better than I did.
Isiah Thomas may be the best point guard the Pistons have ever trotted out, but Curry is currently having the best statistical season EVER, and could very well add three trophies to his collection at the end of it.
The eras are different but I doubt anything would really affect backcourt stars like Jordan or Curry. Most years Jordan was a bad 3-point shooter (until they moved the line because the NBA gonna NBA) but it's not like he didn't have a ton of weapons to burn you with. Jordan (if you froze him for 20 years) would've adjusted to zone defenses just fine, and hand-checking timewarp Curry would be about as ineffective as anything else tried on him considering he can score from anywhere in halfcourt (except inexplicably when sleepwalking against the Lakers). People are making noise because modern media is all about attention-whoring.
Different eras and games so it is somewhat difficult to compare (but I'll do so anyways). I do believe Jordan's ability would translate in this current era more easily than vice versa, but Curry's ability to shoot would do well in any era. The lack of hand checking has especially made it much easier on guards in the modern era. I can't imagine being able to check Jordan (or Isaiah) in today's game.
Even back when zone defense was illegal, teams would double Jordan; that meant leaving someone unguarded. Jordan averaged >5 assists/game for his career. In an era when zone defense is legal, the Jordan Rules would strongly favor doubling him.
As for Curry, hand checking might force him into quick, early shots but. . . he does that already anyway. You wanna stop that with physical play you gotta get up in his face from halfcourt but that's a very dangerous thing to do against a point guard. I don't recall anyone in any other era who had Curry's in-game shooting range. As you say, that's a weapon in ANY era.
Also, both players had/have excellent supporting casts. In their respective primes, we're not talking about offenses that are easy to stop, any way, any how.
You wanna stop that with physical play you gotta get up in his face from halfcourt
Assuming we go back to the late 80's rules - not only do you have the hand check and grabbing away from the ball, you have NO ejections for flagrant fouls. Someone would just goon him out of the game.
I see plenty of flying elbows and bloody noses today, for all the good it does, which is none. Also, again, the idea that a guy like Curry couldn't or wouldn't adapt is a fallacy, and frankly rather insulting.
Defense wasn't any better back then. It was different, and there were plenty of good defenders, but the notion that the violence made defenders better is just nostalgia by assholes who want more violence in today's game. Violence is all it ever was, and good fucking riddance.
the idea that a guy like Curry couldn't or wouldn't adapt is a fallacy
I think Curry, due to his talent, would still be a top player. His stats would be significantly worse though... just like any other player in the league.
Go back to pre-1979 and Curry could be shooting the same as today, but he'd average a touch over 5 points per game less.
I also think he'd miss a good number more games.
Defense wasn't any better back then.
Defense was significantly WORSE back then.
the notion that the violence made defenders better
Violence didn't make defenders better. It did/does make them more effective.
Can somebody summarize (in more detail than the OP) or blockquote the gist?
I'm not too lazy to click, I just don't want to give ad revenue to a hack-employing newspaper.
You won't be. The OP linked a deadspin article bashing the original piece of crap article.
Bad journalism is killing basketball and sports in general.
Bernie was a cranky, get-off-my-lawn columnist when I moved to Chicago and started reading the Tribune thirty-two years ago.
Is this the same Bernie Lincicome who couldn't stop sniffing Michael Jordan's jock for years calling him the best shooter of all time?
Time to retire old man.
Let’s start with the truth. The 3-point shot was created for people who couldn’t play basketball. It was made for people who couldn’t grow tall enough, dribble well enough, drive hard enough or move fast enough. - from the Tribune article in question
That's pretty much all you need to know about the author's opinion of Steph Curry, as he goes on to espouse a weird stance that the three point shot is akin to the intentional walk in baseball and he fails to appreciate that the three does not really distract from the complexity of the game or the skill required to play it competently. I dare say that if the author's stance is to be taken to its extreme, I could be just as good as Curry at this whole hoops thing, especially from outside.
Deadspin has a breakdown here too - LINK
My link goes to that article.
Seems like there was an article not all that long ago arguing that the dunk is ruining the game. Seems like everything is being ruined by the next generation, one way or another.
I like fun!
but I think Bernie Lincicome's column presents some valid analysis. He could, of course, lose the whining tone.
A basket should count what a basket counts.
An 80-yard touchdown pass counts the same as a 1-yard quarterback sneak. A goal is a goal in hockey, no matter from how far away or how invisible.
I think there is some unassailable logic in that. But the 3 point shot was adopted in the NBA in the 79-80 season and in college in the 86-87 season for the reason Patrick Redford alludes to in the article linked by the OP.
There are less post-up-centric offenses than there were 20 years ago, and if post play is your thing, you too would look at the NBA of 2016 and see the change.
And, of course, the post up offense is a lot less important than it was 35+ years ago. That was the intention of the three-point shot.
Is that a good thing? Until Steph Curry, few--perhaps only the purists--questioned it. At the time of its adoption, I don't think anyone envisioned someone becoming as insanely skilled at the three-point shot as Steph Curry.
Would 1971 Kareem Abdul Jabbar and his sky hook been as valuable to the NBA Champion Milwaukee Bucks had the three point line been in place as a well-honed staple of the game? No.
Would 2015 Steph Curry and his bombs been as valuable to the NBA Champion Golden State Warriors had there been no three point shot? No.
The three point shot has obviously changed the weight of what gets rewarded. Bernie Lincicome's article loses its coherence/integrity when he goes beyond that observation/analysis to say that Steph Curry's insane talent is really
for the last kid picked on the playground.
An 80-yard touchdown pass counts the same as a 1-yard quarterback sneak. A goal is a goal in hockey, no matter from how far away or how invisible.
I think there is some unassailable logic in that.
Really? Because last I checked, on a given play in football you can actually score 1, 2, 3 or 6 points. In baseball you can score anywhere from 1-4 points on a single pitch. And for the love of FSM stay away from tennis, where the scoring sequence is love-15-30-40-game regardless of how the points are scored and the value of the "point" (in terms of conditions for victory) changes depending on your opponent's score.
if you note that the FG, the equivalent of the three point shot (scoring from far-away), is worth LESS than the TD.
Your other two analogies are flat out wrong.
The incentive in baseball is always to score regardless of how far you are away from home. So you need to progress four bases...it can be done all at once or base by base. In all cases, one runner crosses home = one run.
The math challenged may be fooled by the appearance of the tennis scoring system. It's simply, first one to four, win by two. There are no "double/multiple point" plays.
How about free throws?
The incentive in baseball is always to score regardless of how far you are away from home.
Yeah but the value of the ball depends on where and how far you hit it. If it goes backwards it's foul. If it lands in play you have to earn the bases by running to them; anywhere from 1-4 depending on how much time you bought yourself. If it goes over the wall, automatic points. And baseball is the only competitive team sport where the field dimensions aren't standardized.
The point is that the argument is pedantic, the opposite of unassailable. You can quibble all day about the shortcomings of the comparisons but I don't need them to be ironclad; the point is that this quibbling is absurd. Sports are, in essence, arbitrary competitions. It's disingeuous to complain about a decades-old rule because of one guy.
"I think there is some unassailable logic in that"
OK. That logic is what, exactly? Anyway, a 3-point shot is not the same as a 2-point shot because one is farther away from the basket than the other (except along the sides). Thus, it's more difficult.
It sure as hell isnt dying because stupid people write stupid things. If that were the case about 95% of the inernet would disapear as well.
It's dying because the business model doesnt work anymore. A hand-held website news page that refreshes every 24 hours and when it does refresh only includes news that occurred six hours earlier is beyond obsolete and readers and advertisers both know it. It's why horse-drawn buggies arent seen on city streets anymore, why passenger trains dont exist en-masse anymore and why virtually nobody under the age of 65 owns a land-line phone anymore.
Technology killed the print media. Not idiots.
If that were the case about 95% of the inernet would disapear as well.
You nailed it to a "t". . . wait, actually, no you didn't. >:D
+ imaginary 1
Is the voting feature broken right now?
....which I will give to you once this is fixed.
His main argument is garbage. "To apply my best abductive logic, a shot from inches away should count less than one from far away....A basket should count what a basket counts. If we start assigning greater value to the length of things, Pinocchio never would stop lying."
Yeah, becuase we never do that in sports. Tell me again how a HR has the same value as a ball off the wall if we don't measure sports in distance?
we would have MTV Rock-N-Jock Rules.
There would be 10 point circles on the court (probably well within Curry's range these days) and a 25 point basket the dropped down from the ceiling inside of 2 minutes each quarter.
I'd also allow one celebrity on each team per game. Pauly Shore squaring off against Kenny G in the final minute of a Pelicans/Suns game? Yes, please!