Celtics Roll to Convincing Win in Miami, Tie Eastern Conference Finals at 1-1
The Boston Celtics at full strength are much better than the Boston Celtics sans two starters. That should be obvious, but much of the commentary after Miami beat Boston in game one of the Eastern Conference Finals ignored or minimized that simple truth. At one point, it seemed unlikely that Al Horford and Marcus Smart would both return for game two, but they did, and the Celtics rolled to a 127-102 win. Smart scored 24 points while also leading the Celtics in assists (12) and rebounds (nine). Jayson Tatum contributed a team-high 27 points plus five rebounds and five assists. Jaylen Brown added 24 points and eight rebounds, while Grant Williams scored 19 points. Horford had an impact more significant than his 10 points and three rebounds may suggest.
Jimmy Butler had another excellent game for the Heat (29 points on 11-18 field goal shooting, six rebounds, three assists), but no other Heat player scored more than 14 points, and the Heat shot just .442 from the field, including .294 from three point range.
The Heat jumped out to an 18-8 first quarter lead in the first 4:31, but less than five minutes later the Celtics were up 23-21 after Payton Pritchard hit a three pointer. The Celtics never looked back, outscoring the Heat 35-24 in the first quarter while shooting .632 from the field and holding the Heat to .375 field goal shooting.
The Celtics had a double digit lead the rest of the way, and their 70-45 halftime advantage is the largest halftime lead in a road playoff game in the franchise's storied history.
Butler keyed a brief third quarter rally to cut the margin to 84-67, but the Celtics soon pushed their lead back to 30 (103-73) early in the fourth quarter.
Jeff Van Gundy made an excellent point during the broadcast: he noted that when the Celtics committed to Marcus Smart as their point guard (after previously using Kyrie Irving and Kemba Walker), the Celtics then had the ability to be much more flexible defensively because Smart can effectively switch on to bigger players, something that neither Irving nor Walker can do. Size matters in the NBA, and it is difficult to win at the highest level if you rely too heavily on smaller players. While it is true that Kyrie Irving played a major role on Cleveland's 2016 championship team, it is also true that in general is it more difficult to build a championship team featuring smaller players in prominent rules than it is to build a championship team that does not rely heavily on smaller players.
On the other hand, Zach Harper's bizarre commentary earlier in the day on Sirius XM NBA Radio asserting that Smart's return might hurt the Celtics because Smart is not a great passer or shooter not only did not age well--it made little sense when Harper said it. Anyone who followed the Celtics with understanding realizes that utilizing Smart as the primary playmaker brought balance to the Celtics' offense and enabled Tatum to focus on scoring without monopolizing the ball. We hear so much about how vital it is to have "range shooting" in order to score efficiently and prolifically--but in game two the Celtics scored 127 points on .512 field goal shooting with Smart shooting 8-22 from the field.
Anyone can have an incorrect take or make a prediction that does not come to pass, but when a commentator on the NBA's official radio network consistently says things that make no sense and have no basis in fact it is fair to ask what that person's qualifications are to have such a platform, and to wonder why that person continues to be provided such a platform despite demonstrated incompetence.
No, Payton Pritchard's "range shooting" is not more valuable than the total package of skills provided by Smart. Further, while we are focusing on things that are said that make no sense, it should be noted that Stephen Curry is not the only NBA player who has "gravity." I am not sure when "gravity" was plucked from physics to become an NBA term, but it has always been true that great NBA players attracted defensive attention that created open shots for their teammates. During the three NBA Finals contested by the Philadelphia 76ers and L.A. Lakers in the early 1980s, the Lakers played an illegal zone defense (sometimes the Lakers were called for it, sometimes they got away with it), sagging toward Julius Erving while daring his teammates to shoot. At that time, teams rarely shot three pointers, so the Lakers did not have to extend their defensive coverage the way that teams do now, but the principle was the same then as it is now: superstars attract defensive attention that creates open shot opportunities for their teammates. Even if the superstar is not a great shooter, he will still force the defense to tilt toward him to minimize his driving opportunities--that was true from Elgin Baylor to Julius Erving to Michael Jordan to Kobe Bryant to LeBron James to Giannis Antetokounmpo. The three point shot rule and various defensive rules changes forced tweaks in the specific defensive strategies employed over the years, but the players listed above had just as much "gravity" as anyone in pro basketball history. In this series, Tatum and Butler have the most "gravity," and anyone who is paying attention can see how their "gravity" pulls defenders toward them/away from their teammates.
Miami's game one win is a distant memory now. The Celtics enjoy homecourt advantage, and the Heat will have to take at least one game in Boston to win this series.
Labels: Al Horford, Boston Celtics, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, Jimmy Butler, Marcus Smart, Miami Heat
posted by David Friedman @ 1:27 AM
12 Comments:
I could be wrong but I always thought the main idea with the gravity term is how far from the hoop can you pull the defense? Curry shoots the fastest and from the farthest so he pulls people the most away. It doesn't mean other people don't also pull the defense but they don't pull it as far away from where the offense is trying to go because their effective range is closer. Giannis pulls guys into the lane which is great for his jump-shooters but those guys are still in the mix and can help on a Jrue drive or try to close out on those shooters if he passes to them compared to if Curry has a guy out at 30 feet or blind to the ballhandler because they're busy chasing him around the line to make sure he doesn't get a catch and shoot.
Heck we were doubling him at 30 feet for large chunks of last night because Kidd was so afraid of his range and it burned us even with him shooting sort of crappy. I don't really remember seeing us double anyone else out that far except maybe Trae who's just Kirkland Signature Curry anyway. Booker's a pretty good shooter too but we didn't spring doubles on him until he got to like 16 feet so when he passed out of them our guys could recover pretty easy. But with Curry they're usually just out to sea on the initial action and usually scrambling to play catch-up the rest of the possession even when that action doesn't end in a shot.
If it's just about creating for teammates I think that's a larger skillset that gravity is just one part of and plenty of people create for their teammates in lots of other ways like passing or forcing rotations and interior doubles or screening better than Curry does but at the tape measure level of pulling his guy or guys as far away from the rim as possible I do think he's the best at that one particular thing. Other things are probably more important that other players do better but that's a thing he does better than anyone because he can shoot better and faster from farther.
Anonymous:
I have never seen a precise definition of "gravity" in a basketball context, but the way that the word is typically used suggests that it refers to a player who attracts more defensive attention than any other player ever has. We hear or read things like "Stephen Curry's gravity distorts defenses more than any other player ever" ("gravity" seems to be reserved for Curry alone; I have yet to hear or read about any other player's "gravity"). So, I hear and read this "gravity" stuff, and then I watch Curry play. Curry is a superb shooter and a great player--but he is not attracting more defensive attention than any player in basketball history. It is not difficult for an informed person to find pictures, videos, and accounts of great players who attracted more defensive attention than Curry. Further, Curry is a small player who can be bothered by height and worn down by physicality. He has never been the best player in an NBA Finals. Therefore, the notion of Stephen Curry's supposedly unique "gravity" seems to be vastly exaggerated. If I were coaching, I would be much more concerned if I had to design a defense to deal with prime Kobe or prime LeBron than prime Curry. Then, if we want to look at what young folks might consider "ancient history," prime Jordan and prime Erving presented more challenges to defenses than Curry. "But Curry won three titles and Erving only won one," you might respond. Or, "Jordan won titles in the pre-analytics era when coaches were too dumb to know how to use the three point shot. Modern teams would destroy the Bulls because Luc Longley would not be able to guard anyone." First, Erving won three titles, not one--no matter how often the NBA and its media partners lie about this. Second, teams had to tilt their defenses tremendously to deal with Erving, particularly during his first 10-12 seasons. As for Jordan's Bulls, they would stifle Curry; Harper would start on him, Randy Brown would harass him for short minutes, and then--if necessary--Jordan or Pippen could take him out completely during crunchtime. If Curry cannot figure out Dellavedova and Kyrie Irving during the NBA Finals, forget about dealing with the 1996 Bulls. Longley's size and ability to score in the post would bother GS the same way that every big man who can score in the post bothers them. The GS teams with Durant would be a bigger challenge--literally--but Pippen would do as well on Durant as anyone in the modern game, and then Harper, Jordan and others would deal with Curry.
It is worth noting that Rodman would most likely get Green ejected. If Green cannot keep his cool in today's softer era, he would have no chance keeping his cool against Rodman. If the series is played under today's rules, then you have to take into account that Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc would have developed three point shots just like modern players did (and Kerr would be even better now than he was in the 1990s, though he might be surprised to see that the opposing coach is an older version of himself). With all due respect, if Brook Lopez can add the three point shot to his game after entering the league as a non-shooter, then I am confident that Jordan and Pippen could have become efficient volume three point shooters if they chose to do so. They were effective enough in their era.
For whatever it may be worth, I was curious about this self-same topic some time back and fritted away an hour or two looking into it. Reddit credits the origin of the term to Zach Lowe talking about the way Dwyane Wade's off-ball cutting and Kyle Korver's off-the-ball shooting compromised defenses, both before Curry rose to prominence, so our anonymous friend seems to be on the right track that the term was at least originally intended to be primarily an off-ball indicator.
Whether or not that's how whoever it is you're mad at uses it is naturally another matter entirely, but if it tips the scales any I've always understood it more his way than yours, and through that lens it does make sense as most significantly applying to Curry. He's the only upper crust offensive player ever who's likely more dangerous off the ball than on it, which can be seen as either a virtue or a demerit depending on how you look at it, I suppose.
You're absolutely bang-on that anyone using the term to suggest that Curry is a better player than Jordan is mental, but I confess I've not seen anyone seriously suggesting such. Seems most commentators place Curry somewhere in the 10-20 range, which I'd wager is about ten spots higher than you'd likely place him, but not wholly deranged.
Jazz Man:
If "gravity" refers to off-ball movement/off-ball shooting skill, then I find it difficult to believe that Curry has more "gravity" than John Havlicek. Havlicek played more mpg, was better than Curry at everything except three point shooting (which did not exist during Havlicek's career), and he was much bigger than Curry as well. Havlicek was the best player for at least one championship team, and a top player for seven others. He was also a much better defensive player than Curry could dream of being. So, I will again submit that "gravity" as a term meant to extol Curry being far greater than other all-time great players is misleading at best, and most likely just incorrect.
I am not convinced that Curry is better at off-ball movement/off-ball shooting than Reggie Miller or Richard Hamilton, either.
I just found a post by a Bulls fan praising the gravity of Mike Dunleavy. I am not making this up. Dunleavy's gravity was proven by one video clip showing him cutting through the lane, after which a poor defensive team had five people looking at him, leaving one of Dunleavy's teammates wide open for a back door lob for a dunk. That is not "gravity." That is stupidity.
I don't have a link handy and am not going to look for it now, but I believe that there are a number of commentators who argue that Curry is a top 10 player all-time based on this "gravity" business. I am trying to think of a legit top 10 player all-time who would even notice Dellavedova guarding him. How many points is West giving to Dellavedova? At least 40. Mind you, West is in his 80s now :)
Look at some early 1990s footage of the Bulls (before they had Harper or Randy Brown) guarding Mark Price in the playoffs. Price is a bit smaller than Curry, but what the Bulls did to him is a good indicator of what they would have done to Curry if Curry played back then. If you move the 1990s Bulls to today then Curry would have to guard Harper, Jordan, or Pippen out to the three point line because those guys would be top three point shooters in this era like every other elite wing is now. Jordan and Pippen were credible three point shooters in the 1990s before that became a huge part of the game.
Curry can't see my top 10 with the Hubble Telescope. Maybe he is 30th, at best. I've got my top 14 (Pantheon), then I have several players in no particular order who are in the next 10-15 (including but not limited to Pettit, Havlicek, Barry, Moses Malone, Pippen, Olajuwon, Durant, Giannis), and Curry is in the next group after that. No way I am putting a 6-3 guard not named Jerry West ahead of players 6-6 or taller who played both ends of the court.
Oh my. Getting quite spicy.
When you say Curry is not as good as Jordan, I agree without blinking.
When you say he's not as good as Durant, I lack your passion and conviction but the reasoning makes sense.
When you say he's not as more effective off the ball than Richard Hamilton, I'm afraid my monocle pops. Hamilton was a good player and sharp off the ball but let's not pretend that teams we guarding him out to thirty feet or panic trapping him when he didn't have the ball.
I didn't see Havlicek play first hand but it is hard for me to grasp the idea that any player pre-three point line could pull the defense farther away from the hoop than the best shooter of the post-three point line era. I have to imagine most of Havlicek's opponents would have been thrilled if he started shooting thirty footers instead of attacking the hoop.
As for Reggie, he himself regularly praises Curry as the better version of himself, so if he were better at it perhaps someone ought to let him know.
I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that the Warriors would beat the Bulls in these comments, or at any rate I certainly am not. But I will note that your Mark Price comparison may not be as sound as you hope given that Price shot 49% from the field and 47% from three against the Bulls across 19 playoff games. Those numbers are better than his career numbers against them in the regular season, even. I imagine Curry would take those splits with a smile. Of course Price shot a lower volume than Curry does but that's true of the regular season as well and Curry has the better splits there so it seems fair play to me to work on the idea that the exchange rate would more or less hold. Price averaged 17.6 points in those series, which would be good for the fourth best scoring average of his career if applied over a full season. The fourth best scoring rate of Curry's career is 26.4, which on those shooting numbers would be quite the strong series for him indeed.
The Bulls would beat the Warriors because the Bulls have two of the greatest 20-25 players ever including perhaps the single greatest, and the Warriors have, conservatively, one of the best 15-30 players ever. The Bulls would beat any other team that only has one of the Top 30 as well, I posit, and most or all of the ones that have two. But Mark Price does not seem to be ample evidence that they would win by neutering Curry's offense.
I also never like the assumption that any old player would shoot threes at an elite level if they played now. They might, but there'd be an opportunity cost if they did. Jordan and Pippen had two of the greatest work ethics in the sport and it's fair to assume they spent as much time honing their skills as could reasonably be expected, so if you take away a few thousand of those hours to focus on three point shooting they're going to lose something else in the the trade. Is it worth it for MJ to become a better three point shooter if it costs him his turnaround or the like?
None of this is to suggest that the Warriors would win, mind. Just that your arguments for why they would lose strike me as a bit fanciful. I think the Bulls would live with Curry getting 25-30 while they dominate the glass, strangle Thompson and whichever other secondary scorers, and run to easy baskets off plentiful Warriors turnovers.
Jazz Man:
I said that "I am not convinced that Curry is better at off-ball movement/off-ball shooting than Reggie Miller or Richard Hamilton, either." So I did not take a firm position either way. I just indicated that those are closer calls (and better comparisons) than the ones being offered by those who are trying to elevate Curry to a historical ranking he does not deserve.
Put a different way, I am not convinced that Curry actually has to be guarded by multiple people 30 feet from the basket, just like I am not convinced that five defenders should stare at Mike Dunleavy while his teammate catches a lob for a dunk.
The teams that beat the Warriors in the playoffs are not regularly committing multiple people to Curry 30 feet from the basket.
I think that a good case could be made that the off-ball movement and shooting ability of a 6-6 Hamilton and a 6-7 Miller is at least as disruptive as the off-ball movement and shooting ability of a 6-3 Curry. Curry's teams won more because he had better players around him than Hamilton (who won one title) and Miller (who did not win any titles). Hamilton or Miller might have seemed to have more "gravity" if the opposing team also had to account for Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson.
Havlicek was a perpetual motion machine who ran opposing players into the ground. I don't care if he was 30 feet from the basket or 15 feet from the basket. He moved non-stop, he was just as good of a scorer in his prime as Curry, and he was a much better rebounder, passer, and defender--and all of those things matter when evaluating a player's overall greatness.
Let's say for the sake of discussion that Curry had just as much "gravity" as Havlicek. Everything else that Havlicek did better than Curry made Havlicek a much better all-around player, and even a better offensive player. Who do you think is more difficult to guard, a 6-5 player who can play forward or guard, or a 6-3 player who can only play guard?
I agree with Miller that Curry is a better all-around player than he was, but if we are talking specifically about off-ball movement I am not convinced that Curry is better at that. Curry is a better passer and rebounder than Miller, and possibly a better defender, though that area is not a strong suit for either player.
Regarding Price, look at how the Cavs did against the Bulls in the regular season during those years and then how they did in the playoffs. In theory, small quick point guards would give big guards the most trouble, but the Bulls figured out how to win those playoff series.
I don't think that practicing three pointers would have negatively impacted the other skills that Jordan and Pippen had. Instead of spending time shooting 18-20 foot jumpers, they would have devoted that time to shooting 23 foot jumpers.
I think there are two ideas at play here and it's plausible we agree on both, but mingling them is making an argument of it.
Idea one is a two-parter, of what is gravity and who has the most? If we go with the premise espoused above that it's the ability to drag defenses as far away from the rim as possible, we ought to be able to agree that Curry is the best, or at the very least one of the best, at this particular skill.
The second idea is a question of how much that skill actually matters relative to every other also important skill in basketball. I don't have the answer to that, I'm afraid. It's an element that's difficult to quantify statistically, and even more difficult to quantify without delving into your maligned advanced basketball statistics. It certainly helps a team, but how much is subject to interpretation. At the very least I agree with you that it wouldn't nearly outweigh the many areas in which someone like Jordan has significant advantages over Curry.
I'm not advocating for Curry over any of the lads you're mentioning, I'm just suggesting that the fellow most famous for drilling threes from the logo is probably the fellow most defense are going to chase the farthest, and that's likely why he most gets tagged with the gravity term (although I noticed today that Tim Cato also used the same term writing about Reggie Bullock and Klay Thompson, so it's hardly a Curry exclusive).
As for the Bulls and Cavs, again I don't take any issue with your larger conclusion. I just don't see much evidence that the Bulls slowed Price down as a scorer, but they obviously did more than enough other good stuff to make mostly short work of his teams. I expect it'd be much the same against Curry, though perhaps with a bit more degree of difficulty, given that Curry is better than Price.
Where I will engage in a bit of light disagreement, though, is in the idea that Havlicek was harder to guard. I'm limited a bit since I have to go off clips and statistics for Hondo, but I have to assume that the lad who averaged more points at their relative peaks on considerably better percentages, even just from two if we want to dismiss his greatest weapon entirely since it didn't exist in Havlicek's era, is a bit of a tougher cover. Havlicek's best offensive season was 29 points a game on 45% shooting from two for a team that missed the playoffs. Curry's was 30 points on 57% for a team that made the Finals. In fact, the best 2PT FG% of Havlicek's career would be the second worst of Curry's.
I would say that if Havlicek were as tough a cover, or as effective a scorer, as Curry given his vastly superior defensive game, he'd likely be someone we'd hear about more often in the endless GOAT debates. Certainly the only other player I can think of who's a multiple time scoring champ with more than a full hand's worth of rings and impeccable defensive resume eats a lot of the airtime in such discussions.
Now, would Curry be an easier cover in the 60s or 70s with no 3? Undoubtedly. But we can only grade him as he is, and as he is he's an extremely difficult cover. From my limited knowledge, Havlicek seems much more effective in a smaller offensive role. It seems history at least circumstantially agrees with me, as the Celtics tended to win most when he averaged 17-22 PPG as part of a committee and not when he upped his volume as the primary option.
I also think you're a bit rosy in your estimation of the opportunity cost for Pippen and Jordan to become great three point shooters. It's a hard skill to add, and even some of the most competitive current generation stars like Butler and Giannis haven't mastered it yet, and I don't think they'd be able to add it without devoting time and effort that once went to something else, or that it would be as simple as turning all their practice twenty footers into practice twenty three footers.
In Hondo's defense the paint was quite clogged during his time (and for the most part was clogged up until the last 7ish years although some teams were ahead of the curve like the SSOL Suns and Magic/Cavs) so 45% in his period for a perimeter player is definitely not the same as Steph shooting 57% on 2s for a Warriors team that was running an offense (and utilizing spacing) that's now become far more common place (it's impossible for Steph to stand out as much today because the league caught on to what him and the Warriors were doing, that was honestly a perfect storm kind of regular season). One must simply watch available film on the 2015 Warriors and then 2016 Warriors and it will be very easy what changes the Warriors made on offense to make things much easier for him
I personally can't ignore that when evaluating players because I know there were a few guys that if given modern spacing would be essentially unguardable. Jordan, Kobe, Erving, Baylor, etc. but they didn't experience that at all, even with Kobe the Lakers were still way behind the rest of the league when it came to utilizing spacing. They were still running traditional lineups by his last year with a bunch of inexperienced/washed players. Maybe Havlicek who from what I know of (he was before my time) was a great athlete and also had incredible conditioning (maybe the strongest lungs in league history?) would be such a player alongside that above group
As for Steph's all-time ranking I don't see him as a top 10-15 player now at age 34 and see little reason to see him as such when he retires. It's not just the obvious size issues but he's not what I'd consider a two-way player and he's not someone I'd confidently pick in a series vs several evenly matched teams led by a dominant wing or big; he might be the 2nd or 3rd 6'3 and under player I'd consider (West is the first) but we're not giving someone bonus points for being maybe top 2-3 ever at his size, not when size still matters in the sport. He is who he is and what he is is inferior to at least 10-15 other guys, probably at least 20-25 other guys
But kids adore him as do the analytics community so he'll be put in those discussions for a long time even though I personally don't believe he merits them, at least not top 10-15 talks
Jazz Man:
If Curry is willing to shoot 20 three pointers a game from 30 feet, as the opponent I would be happy to single cover him that far out. His "gravity" means nothing to me in that sense. He will not make more than 6-20 single-covered 30 feet from the hoop, and we will be running out on his misses, which I would estimate would lead to a very high two point percentage (fast break layups) at the other end of the court. Again, teams being stupid enough to pay so much attention to one player that another player gets a layup (as in the Dunleavy example that I mentioned) is proof of stupidity, not "gravity."
So, I don't find it particularly relevant if Curry has to be guarded more closely at 30 feet than any other player. He is not going to beat a well-coached team by firing away from 30 feet.
Regarding your second example, that is my main point: the value of Curry's alleged "gravity" is vastly overstated by commentators who are trying to sound more analytical/intelligent than they are, and by fans who love Curry.
Havlicek routinely played higher minutes than Curry, and he notoriously ran his opponents to death. He was a vastly superior all-around player than Curry. Havlicek was selected to the NBA's 35th Anniversary Team, so at least circa 1980 he was ranked no lower than the 11th greatest player of all-time.
Basic logic explains why Havlicek was harder to guard than Curry: Havlicek was bigger, stronger, at least as fast, played more minutes (so the opposing team has to devote more resources to him for a longer period of time), and moved at least as much (I would argue more) off of the ball. If you think it is easier to guard a smaller, weaker, slower player who plays fewer minutes, then we will just agree to disagree.
Havlicek won a Finals MVP (something Curry has yet to do), and Havlicek was an All-Star/All-NBA performer for eight championship teams.
Then, factor in that Havlicek is also going to effectively guard your best perimeter player. Really, he is a combination of Curry and Thompson in one player.
It is interesting to ponder how well Curry would move without the ball in the 1970s with Havlicek hand checking him, and grabbing his hips. Players who played against Havlicek marveled at how strong his hands were, and how he could immobilize opponents without being called for fouls.
Anonymous:
You made a key point: "I know there were a few guys that if given modern spacing would be essentially unguardable. Jordan, Kobe, Erving, Baylor, etc. but they didn't experience that at all, even with Kobe the Lakers were still way behind the rest of the league when it came to utilizing spacing."
All of the talk about Curry's "gravity" ignores the reality that if he and the players you listed played under the same rules Curry would be the most easily guarded player in that group by a wide margin.
I respect Curry's game. I ranked him higher entering the NBA than most commentators. I just don't agree with the demonstrably false notion that he has more "gravity" (by any relevant definition) than any player ever, nor do I agree with the demonstrably false notion that he ranks among the top 10-15 players of all-time.
I don't want to make a marathon of this, so I'll just chime in the one last time and leave it lie.
I think you may be under-estimating Curry's accuracy from 30+. I could not find statistics for that range precisely, but I did find them for 24+, which will have to do as a surrogate. Over the last seven healthy seasons he's had, he's shot 44.8 (2015), 45.6 (2016), 41.9 (2017), 43 (2018), 44.2 (2019), 42.7 (2021), and 38.3 (2022) on shots from that distance, all from a pretty healthy volume of attempts. The worst of those numbers would be right about 7.6 makes out of 20, while the strongest would be about 9.1 makes. Even with some long rebounds in your favor, 27 points on 20 shots is a lot to give away.
More broadly, if Curry were so easy to guard don't you think more teams would do it that way? And more teams would beat the Warriors doing so? The whole league can't be "stupid" can it?
As for Havlicek I'll have to defer to your superior familiarity for the most part, though I'll offer a bit of light resistance that's he's faster. Just on the eye-test from the "Best of John Havlicek" videos I've been poking through, he looks to be about as fast as someone like Klay Thompson, which is still quite fast, but not as quick as Curry. This is not a scientific comparison by any means but it did raise my eyebrow to that claim.
I don't actually have an informed opinion over whether Hondo was better than Curry overall. It sounds like he might have been given his sterling reputation for defense and rebounding. It does seem logical that if he were harder to guard that Curry he either would have scored more, scored more efficiently, or had more team success in his highest scoring seasons. It isn't wholly a question of era either, as other guards and forwards like West or Archibald or Barry did score at rates closer to Curry's during Havlicek's prime. On the other side of the divide, Curry's teams have been most successful when he's scoring at least 25 a game, which he has done 6 times to Havlicek's 2. The markers for an unstoppable scorer just aren't immediately evident for Hondo but they are for Curry. I imagine we won't see eye to eye on that, which I suppose is fair enough.
Looping back to the "gravity" point briefly, I don't share your confidence in knowing how to evaluate it. I just can't parse how important it actually is. I can see and understand the argument that it supercharges his team's offense, and I can likewise see and understand your argument that it's an overrated minor attribute. I try not to declaim on subjects I don't feel I fully understand, so I find myself largely agnostic on Curry's all-time ranking. If his throatiest supporters are correct that it makes him the most impactful offensive player ever, then he'd certainly merit consideration to be quite high on the list. If you're correct that it's irrelevant, and he's largely the beneficiary of a good front office moreso than a transcendent force in his own right, obviously he'd be much lower. I just can't land on a reliable way to evaluate the concept with sufficient precision. Well, "can't" is a strong word. If someone wanted to pay me to take a few months off and paw through game tape with my finger on the pause button and a surfeit of spreadsheets before me, I wager I could get to the bottom of it, but alas my wishes are not fishes.
Cheers!
Jazz Man:
If Curry can win games by attempting 20 three pointers per game from 30 feet out against single coverage, then there is no defense for him. If he could do that, then he would have won every championship the past several years as the best player on his team, and he would not have been the second option behind Durant. So, I will stand by my assertion that single covering Curry 30 feet from the hoop should be sufficient. I am not saying just let him shoot, but I am saying that I am skeptical that his "gravity" is so great that a second defender is needed to check him that far away from the hoop.
The point is not how hard it is to guard Curry--30 feet from the hoop or otherwise--but rather how hard is it to guard his team. He won one title as the number one option, and that was at the expense of an injury-riddled Cleveland team. Curry was not selected Finals MVP, nor was he typically the best or second best player on the court at any given time during the 2015 Finals. Curry's 2016 team blew a 3-1 lead against the healthy version of the team that the Warriors beat in 2015. Then, as the tale goes, Draymond Green begged Kevin Durant to join the Warriors because they needed him. Durant sure had a lot of "gravity" during the 2017 and 2018 Finals. After Durant got hurt and then left, the Warriors had not won a playoff series until this year. So far this year, they have beaten the Nuggets without Murray and Porter, followed by the Grizzlies without Morant. They are up 3-0 against a Dallas team that no one considered a contender. No serious observer would say that Curry has been the best player during the 2022 playoffs. Maybe he is top five.
Simply put, if Curry's "gravity" was as unique and powerful as his admirers say, then Curry would have accomplished more individually and he would have played a bigger role during the title runs. The burden of proof rests with those who say Curry is unique, not those who say that there are limits to the impact that a 6-3 player can have.
Post a Comment
<< Home