Jump to content

NBA Finals - The Problem with Steph Curry


Maithanet

Recommended Posts

That hot shooting by the Celtics is most likely unsustainable, but they seem to figure out their defence in the fourth and didn't conceded a single point for 5 minutes even with Curry on the court, which is incredibly impressive. And Tatum will most likely shoot much better from now on.

Poole really struggled on both ends which was crucial for the Celtics comebacks at the start of 2nd and 4th quarter, the size of the Celtics seemed to bother him a lot.

Horford with another sensational game, the extended rest during the Finals should work in his favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

I feel that Green's shooting disappeared after KD joined them, hasn't been reliable since and he was only decent to begin with. Seems bad for them that the Warriors are up by so little with Curry practically not missing though.

His shooting his been woeful all year and indeed previous seasons as well. He's a big liability on offense and GS knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Calibandar said:

His shooting his been woeful all year and indeed previous seasons as well. He's a big liability on offense and GS knows it.

The thing about Green's shooting is that he does have good games. You just don't know when you're going to get them. It's not like he's consistently bad. Regardless, I think its a bit of a stretch to call him a liability given that he and Curry are the fulcrums of their offense.

I think that GS for all the fuss made of their playoff experience just lost their composure after the Celtics made consecutive shots. The way they didn't want anything to do with the ball was like the Jazz waiting for Mitchell to bail them out. They just turned passive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

The thing about Green's shooting is that he does have good games. You just don't know when you're going to get them. It's not like he's consistently bad. Regardless, I think its a bit of a stretch to call him a liability given that he and Curry are the fulcrums of their offense.

His shooting is consistently bad. He is wide open at all times yet hasn't made more than 2 threes in a game all season and has made zero threes in 2/3 of his games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mentioning Celtic having unsustainable shooting in the 4th is kind of missing the point of what happened in that 4th quarter imo.

They held GS to 16 frikn points in the 4th. That's what's sealed the fate. They could've still missed several of those 3's and pulled this out the way they locked in.

Anyways we got ourselves a genuinely competitive series one would think. Thats all the fans should expect, hooah for the Association!

Eta:

Horford has never been better, dude is in beast mode

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

They held GS to 16 frikn points in the 4th. That's what's sealed the fate. They could've still missed several of those 3's and pulled this out the way they locked in.

I'd love to see the percentage of shots missed by the Warriors in the fourth that were open. Boston was getting better looks, but the Warriors were getting good looks too and just couldn't hit anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, David Selig said:

His shooting is consistently bad. He is wide open at all times yet hasn't made more than 2 threes in a game all season and has made zero threes in 2/3 of his games.

He also makes 50-100% of his threes in half the games he shoots them in the regular season*. He makes zero in almost all of the other half, but it's not like I was calling him a great shooter. I think that its a promising enough showing.

*Given that he doesn't actually shoot much, he either makes 0%, 33%, 50% or 100%. He took four shots once, he made two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a really complicated way to hide that he shot .296 from three this year. It’s been five years since he shot over .300 there. At one point earlier in his career he was a 33% or slightly more 3 point shooter which was at least passable. He’s not been that in years and is pretty much a liability when he shoots threes. His 2pt percentage has increased but overall his volume of all shots has dropped so he’s really not a scoring threat at all anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33% is where its passable? 

30% and 33% in actual shots is the difference between 10 of 30 and 11 of 30. He's not taking 30 three pointers in this series and its not like he'll hit his season rate for better or worse. I think its a perfectly negligible difference. Sampling margin of error even. But that's not even what I was talking about, I just thought that he's looked good, shown promise but is ultimately not reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the slightly more Aka the year where he shot .380 and that’s actually good. I think if you can get above 35 you’re okay (since that’s the average) but you really want to be above like 37-38 to be considered good. And no sub 30 is not good. It’s not like he is a guy with variance and one year he’ll do well and the next not. He’s been just bad for years and Boston willl be happy anytime he shoots at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked my maths and its actually 9/30 and 10/30. 35% is 10.5/30 shots. That's the difference you're talking about, when labelling him as liability/passable/okay.

Look, I understand if its Curry/Thompson/Poole. It makes a difference at their volume and the gravity they're expected to pull as the primary and secondary options. I don't think it applies the same way to Green. 

By the way, Derrick White hit .306 for Boston in the regular season. GS sure is happy he's taking threes in game one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Arakasi said:

Well the slightly more Aka the year where he shot .380 and that’s actually good. I think if you can get above 35 you’re okay (since that’s the average) but you really want to be above like 37-38 to be considered good. And no sub 30 is not good. It’s not like he is a guy with variance and one year he’ll do well and the next not. He’s been just bad for years and Boston willl be happy anytime he shoots at all.

Exactly. His utter lack of production offensively is a known problem. They keep him in the team because of other things that make him important, but they would love to have the Green from a few years ago who at least occasionally has a good offensive game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s good when you just don’t have to defend a player. And unlike someone like Rondo or Westbrook he’s never shown any signs of having hot streaks to make up for his crap shooting. And if you want to discount a 5% shooting difference that seems odd since that’s what Curry has too. He’s only making some small amount per ten different but it’s the consistency and track record that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, if you want to compare his peak and his current, then yes, there's a difference. I pointed out as much in my first post on this topic.

But if you're saying that between 30% and 33%, on his current volume, is a big difference, then no, its not. Its a sampling difference. If you're saying he's a bad shooter, I agree. I think he has the capacity to perform better, but that's another topic. Where I disagree is that if he somehow converted two more shots over the course of a season, he's suddenly an okay shooter and a shooting threat instead of a liability. That's ridiculous. 

And I don't know what's odd about Curry having different standards. I said as much in the previous post. Volume and role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things I really like about this Finals:

Both teams are well run organizations that drafted and developed their core stars and have some young players doing important things for them.

If the Warriors win, it's like a slap in the face to KD. If the Celtics win, it's like a slap in the face to Kyrie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Two things I really like about this Finals:

Both teams are well run organizations that drafted and developed their core stars and have some young players doing important things for them.

If the Warriors win, it's like a slap in the face to KD. If the Celtics win, it's like a slap in the face to Kyrie.

That's the real comedy gold throughout all of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, WarGalley said:

I don’t know how the Warriors got ahead at the end of the 1st with how they played. Celtics looking really scary. Can’t believed this is the same team that played against the Heat. 

Celtics also not looking overwhelming. They're kind of unkillable, but I'm not certain if they can consistently kill you either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...