2009 Kobe bryant vs 15 Steph Curry

[juju151111]

Who is better.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

01, 03, 06-10 Kobe are all clearly better than 15 Curry

[juju151111]

01, 03, 06-10 Kobe are all clearly better than 15 Curry
No not at all.

[Vertical-24]

No not at all.

Then you must be trolling.
Curry had a terrific year and was one of my favorite players these past two seasons, but he definitely wasn't better than any of the versions of Kobe that Hamtaro listed. Outside of 3pt shooting and playing the 1, exactly what makes Curry the better player?

[juju151111]

Then you must be trolling.
Curry had a terrific year and was one of my favorite players these past two seasons, but he definitely wasn't better than any of the versions of Kobe that Hamtaro listed. Outside of 3pt shooting and playing the 1, exactly what makes Curry the better player?
Stats and Playoffs

[Wade's Rings]

Stats and Playoffs

:biggums:

[feyki]

2009 Kobe .

[Kblaze8855]

15 Steph isn't better than Kobe in any area he wouldn't be better in his rookie season.

Kobe is the better player because at the time at least....he could still play well above average defense. He may turn it off and on...but he had elite defense in him. Curry can play defense but hes not someone you just tell to go lock up _____ even in stretches. Plus whatever Currys offensive ability he isn't better on that end than prime Kobe.

And in 09 Kobe still had 35ppg talent...but he had no reason to push it there.

You could argue Steph had a better season because that isn't the same thing as best player...

But id say they had pretty similar years and Kobe was the better total player because he was all time great on offense and a solid to great defender while Curry is all time great on offense....and is merely an acceptable defender.

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

AMC :rockon: :rockon:

[MEB2kDeez]

The one who plays in California.

[RidonKs]

i'm finding steph curry one of the trickiest players in the league to evaluate. the dynamic between him and his team is like chicken and egg. does he make them go or do they make him go? i dunno, gonna have to wait and see i guess

at least this one is up for healthy debate. curry as a rookie played much smarter basketball than kobe did his first 10 years in the league. but 2009 kobe is a different animal and still athletic enough to find his shot.

i'd take kobe with a gun to my head but its close.

[GoatBoy]

Kobe, and it's really not that close

[warriorfan]

Dead even.

[Deuce Bigalow]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHrt0yFUYAAZLAj.png

[Heavincent]

15 Steph isn't better than Kobe in any area he wouldn't be better in his rookie season.

Kobe is the better player because at the time at least....he could still play well above average defense. He may turn it off and on...but he had elite defense in him. Curry can play defense but hes not someone you just tell to go lock up _____ even in stretches. Plus whatever Currys offensive ability he isn't better on that end than prime Kobe.

And in 09 Kobe still had 35ppg talent...but he had no reason to push it there.

You could argue Steph had a better season because that isn't the same thing as best player...

But id say they had pretty similar years and Kobe was the better total player because he was all time great on offense and a solid to great defender while Curry is all time great on offense....and is merely an acceptable defender.

This.

[Inferno]

15 Steph isn't better than Kobe in any area he wouldn't be better in his rookie season.

Kobe is the better player because at the time at least....he could still play well above average defense. He may turn it off and on...but he had elite defense in him. Curry can play defense but hes not someone you just tell to go lock up _____ even in stretches. Plus whatever Currys offensive ability he isn't better on that end than prime Kobe.

And in 09 Kobe still had 35ppg talent...but he had no reason to push it there.

You could argue Steph had a better season because that isn't the same thing as best player...

But id say they had pretty similar years and Kobe was the better total player because he was all time great on offense and a solid to great defender while Curry is all time great on offense....and is merely an acceptable defender.

:applause:

[Wade's Rings]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHrt0yFUYAAZLAj.png

Iggy was great this year carrying the Warriors to the Chip :bowdown:

[ArbitraryWater]

15 Steph isn't better than Kobe in any area he wouldn't be better in his rookie season.

Kobe is the better player because at the time at least....he could still play well above average defense. He may turn it off and on...but he had elite defense in him. Curry can play defense but hes not someone you just tell to go lock up _____ even in stretches. Plus whatever Currys offensive ability he isn't better on that end than prime Kobe.

And in 09 Kobe still had 35ppg talent...but he had no reason to push it there.

You could argue Steph had a better season because that isn't the same thing as best player...

But id say they had pretty similar years and Kobe was the better total player because he was all time great on offense and a solid to great defender while Curry is all time great on offense....and is merely an acceptable defender.

always with the "he had it in him" for Kobe :oldlol:

He had 35 ppg in him? How? On what? 43%? There needs to be a bit more information than pulling that random number out of nowhere, since 2009 Kobe clearly didn't have the abilities of 2006 Kobe.

I still agree, 2001, 2003, 2006-2009 Kobe > 2015 Curry.

Not 2010 Kobe though.

[Goro]

Curry

[Cleverness]

15 Steph isn't better than Kobe in any area he wouldn't be better in his rookie season.

Kobe is the better player because at the time at least....he could still play well above average defense. He may turn it off and on...but he had elite defense in him. Curry can play defense but hes not someone you just tell to go lock up _____ even in stretches. Plus whatever Currys offensive ability he isn't better on that end than prime Kobe.

And in 09 Kobe still had 35ppg talent...but he had no reason to push it there.

You could argue Steph had a better season because that isn't the same thing as best player...

But id say they had pretty similar years and Kobe was the better total player because he was all time great on offense and a solid to great defender while Curry is all time great on offense....and is merely an acceptable defender.


:bowdown:

Agreed all the way up to "merely an acceptable defender"

2015 Curry was #1 in steals without too many risks and #15 in defensive win shares last season (DeAndre Jordan #1, Draymond #2, M Gasol #3)

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12648764/how-stephen-curry-developed-top-flight-defender


In three games against Curry, Westbrook shot far below his averages, at 32.9 percent from the field and 26.3 percent from deep

The opponents he guards have shot just 36.8 percent on the season. He's averaging a career high in steals and a career low in fouls.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't think I'm going to credit a great defensive teams 5th best defensive player for causing an off night to an opposing superstar. I didn't call Curry a bad defender he's just not someone you were going to pick for the express purpose of getting you a stop.

Kobe before he got completely old would absolutely have been selected for that task by many NBA coaches. its an OK defender versus a good defender who has the potential to be a stopper at need.

When it's a wash offensively I don't see how I come to the conclusion that the worse defender is the better player.

I don't think it's a knock to be a worse overall player than prime Kobe.

The only people to be flat out better than pre washed up Kobe are all time elites.

you could argue a few people who aren't put on that level were as well but they were pretty much all destroyed by injury when they were on that path.

[juju151111]

I don't think I'm going to credit a great defensive teams 5th best defensive player for causing an off night to an opposing superstar. I didn't call Curry a bad defender he's just not someone you were going to pick for the express purpose of getting you a stop.

Kobe before he got completely old would absolutely have been selected for that task by many NBA coaches. its an OK defender versus a good defender who has the potential to be a stopper at need.

When it's a wash offensively I don't see how I come to the conclusion that the worse defender is the better player.

I don't think it's a knock to be a worse overall player than prime Kobe.

The only people to be flat out better than pre washed up Kobe are all time elites.

you could argue a few people who aren't put on that level were as well but they were pretty much all destroyed by injury when they were on that path.
Why are you talking about what Kobe could do? Curry was a + in DRAPM which means his team defense was up to par.

[HighFlyer23]

A little mulatto girl isn't better than Kobe

[warriorfan]

Why are you talking about what Kobe could do? Curry was a + in DRAPM which means his team defense was up to par.

What he is saying is that Kobe coasted more than Curry did on defense for the most part, but when needed too he could lock down people harder than Curry. I agree with what he says for the most part but the numbers don't lie, Curry is a pretty solid defender. Non biased eye test from the last season shows this too. Curry hardly gets burned and almost never loses his man. Curry has very fast hands and nearly leads the league in steals.

[juju151111]

What he is saying is that Kobe coasted more than Curry did on defense for the most part, but when needed too he could lock down people harder than Curry. I agree with what he says for the most part but the numbers don't lie, Curry is a pretty solid defender. Non biased eye test from the last season shows this too. Curry hardly gets burned and almost never loses his man. Curry has very fast hands and nearly leads the league in steals.
Agreed but you can't judge people on what they could do. Curry could of played 37 mins and averge more points stls and asts

[Cold soul]

Kobe the superior player during his prime in majority of all aspects of basketball. This is disrespectful to even think of making this comparison. Curry peak might not even be top 50 in NBA histroy.

[juju151111]

Kobe the superior player during his prime in majority of all aspects of basketball. This is disrespectful to even think of making this comparison. Curry peak might not even be top 50 in NBA histroy.
Bs Last year Curry put up similar numbers to alot of Kobe years.

[catch24]

If 2009 Kobe and 15 Steph Curry are comparable

Then so are 1996-1998 Jordan and 15 Curry

:confusedshrug:

[IGOTGAME]

Curry is becoming one of the most overrated players to ever play

[juju151111]

Curry is becoming one of the most overrated players to ever play
Whats overrated about him?

[Cold soul]

Bs Last year Curry put up similar numbers to alot of Kobe years.

Lol no Curry isn't on that tier of player sorry he doesn't have close to same impact on the game.

[SugarHill]

Curry is becoming one of the most overrated players to ever play
:applause:

[juju151111]

If 2009 Kobe and 15 Steph Curry are comparable

Then so are 1996-1998 Jordan and 15 Curry

:confusedshrug:
Yea and? The only thing is Mj and Kobe have more experience. They also was slightly better defenders. Its just one season. I think 2006 Wade is comparable too. 2011 Dirk. Also Mj in his 2nd 3 peat did more work defensively. He was asked to guard PG and other players to all throughout the playoffs those years.

[juju151111]

Lol no Curry isn't on that tier of player sorry he doesn't have close to same impact on the game.
Yes he does. Actually Kobe has never been has efficient has Curry. Whats this impact you talking aboutm What did 09 Kobe do that was so much more impactful that 15 Curry.

[TheBigVeto]

Curry easy. It's not even close.

[Heavincent]

Curry is becoming one of the most overrated players to ever play

No he's not.

[IllegalD]

Curry Stanleys... :facepalm

How about he win a Finals MVP first? :confusedshrug:

[Achilleas]

http://i57.tinypic.com/13yq847.png

curry

[juju151111]

Curry Stanleys... :facepalm

How about he win a Finals MVP first? :confusedshrug:
Why he already has a mvp

[IllegalD]

Why he already has a mvp

Because regular season MVP is a joke and everyone knows it.

(see: Nash having 2 while Kobe/Shaq have 1 each; Rose, etc.)

[inclinerator]

kobe

[HOoopCityJones]

Bean

[West-Side]

09' - 10' Kobe was still arguably a top 3 player in the world. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gokqk-tTQfM)

I really like Curry's game.
He might be my favorite player in the league today. Offensively, he is incredible. I don't necessarily think it's disrespectful to say he's better than 09' Kobe, but he just isn't.

There are things you guys need to remember.
Kobe might make poor decisions and slack off on defense.
However, his ability to draw double/triple teams and open up the floor for everyone else can not be underestimated. When determined, he's lights out better than Curry defensively. Even as a play-maker, Kobe was exceptional.

I mean all you have to do is go and watch the 09' playoffs, and you'll have your answer.

As good as Curry is, he just isn't as good or as a complete of a player as 09' Kobe was.

I'd say 13' Kobe is better than 15' Curry as well.
The only versions of Kobe that aren't as good as 15' Curry (IMO) is 97 - 00', 02', 04 - 05', 11 - 12', 14 - 15'.

The 02' & 04' seasons are tricky because Kobe was an incredible defender at the time. So I'd say those seasons are a wash.

[juju151111]

09' - 10' Kobe was still arguably a top 3 player in the world. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gokqk-tTQfM)

I really like Curry's game.
He might be my favorite player in the league today. Offensively, he is incredible. I don't necessarily think it's disrespectful to say he's better than 09' Kobe, but he just isn't.

There are things you guys need to remember.
Kobe might make poor decisions and slack off on defense.
However, his ability to draw double/triple teams and open up the floor for everyone else can not be underestimated. When determined, he's lights out better than Curry defensively. Even as a play-maker, Kobe was exceptional.

I mean all you have to do is go and watch the 09' playoffs, and you'll have your answer.

As good as Curry is, he just isn't as good or as a complete of a player as 09' Kobe was.

I'd say 13' Kobe is better than 15' Curry as well.
The only versions of Kobe that aren't as good as 15' Curry (IMO) is 97 - 00', 02', 04 - 05', 11 - 12', 14 - 15'.

The 02' & 04' seasons are tricky because Kobe was an incredible defender at the time. So I'd say those seasons are a wash.
Your delusional. 04 Kobe isn't better then 15 Curry and neither is 13 Kobe.

[West-Side]

Your delusional. 04 Kobe isn't better then 15 Curry and neither is 13 Kobe.

In 2013, Kobe had the 6th highest FG% of his career while averaging 27/6/6.
He also had the 3rd highest TS% of his career that season.
He put up 30/6/8 to finish the season (26 game sample) on 49 FG%, 54 2PT% & 63 TS%. LA went 18-8 in those games and clinched a playoff birth.

[catch24]

Yea and? The only thing is Mj and Kobe have more experience. They also was slightly better defenders. Its just one season. I think 2006 Wade is comparable too. 2011 Dirk. Also Mj in his 2nd 3 peat did more work defensively. He was asked to guard PG and other players to all throughout the playoffs those years.

Just seeing if you were being consistent.

That's all.

I personally don't think Curry was better than any versions of second 3-peat Jordan or 2009 Kobe. He relies too heavily on his jumper (in-turn NOT as good of a scorer) and isn't the defender those 2 were.

And experience plays a HUGE deal if we're measuring intangibles.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

This is from SOMEONE ELSE in another forum


[QUOTE]ll elaborate on the Curry part and won't focus on Bird. Let me start off by stating that Curry's defense visibly improved last season. It wasn't even a steady progress, his defense was there from day one and I actually started a thread on the Warriors board only a few weeks into the season. It was pretty clear from the beginning that he tried hard to silence the critics who were focussing on his supposedly (and I tend to agree) below-average defense. There were several moments indicating that he took it personally. It was repeatedly mentioned that he talked to Ron Adams prior to the season and he told him that even though he has great defensive possessions every game, he doesn't have enough of them. So he focussed on constant defensive awareness and intensity. Green and some others told the media more than once that Steph was especially proud of his defensive improvements even at a time everyone considered him to be a serious MVP candidate mainly because of his offensive performances.

However, this doesn't mean Curry became a completely different player defensively ability-wise. He has his strengths (playing the passing lanes effectively without gambling too much, battling against stronger guys, staying relatively focussed) but also some (natural) shortcomings. He isn't slow but also not fast enough to constantly defend the fastest point guards without help at the rim. He bangs with bigger guys but his physical stature only gets you so far and sometimes he tends to play help-defense too often or too early. His effort isn't consistently great when comparing him to the defensive studs of the game but it's there most of the time and certainly nothing to worry about (in fact I see him playing with more effort than the average player with a lot of offensive responsibility).

What we do have to take into account is the identity of this Warriors' team. It's defensive intensity, led by one of the most intense players in the league in Draymond Green, and it helps not only to stay focussed on defense as a player but it's also an environment a player like Curry can succeed in. Not only the intensity but also the abilities of his teammates like Green, Bogut, Igoudala, Ezeli and even Klay, Livingston and Barnes makes the defensive success of the team possible. At a first glance, Curry's far away from being the main driver of this success. In all honesty, he might be the least important player of the main guys strictly looking at ability and relative importance of the position he fills. We also need to take his importance for the team's offense into account, which leads to less responsibility on defense. The way our team is constructed allows Curry to play the passing lanes more than usual, but it has to be considered a strength of him nevertheless, though.

The stats you mentioned can be a little bit misleading here. Box score based stats can't really capture the defensive performance of a player, which is even more true for perimeter players (and less for bigs, although we have the same issue there as well). His role on the team, which includes playing the passing lanes and grabbing defensive rebounds for fast-breaks, contributes to a decent DBPM for instance. Individual DRTG (which you didn't mention, but I like to address it as well) is influenced in Curry's favor not only through steals and defensive rebounds but also by every defensive possession not resulting some kind of box score event, since it's splitting the credit evenly for every player on the court then. Anyway, Curry was a positive in DRAPM (it's probably better to use it than DRPM, at least I prefer the approach of the former) and this passes the eye-test, albeit one can't rule out some collinearity-issues. His DFG% is also quite decent, although it can be influenced by the presence of his teammates at least for shots near the rim (and by the fact that a good defense collapses less often than weaker ones).

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

From someone ELSE

ITS JLAUBAR ESSAY TIME BIATCHES

All in all, I'm comfortable calling Curry a clearly positive defender in this environment at the very least. And looking at the rest of the league, I'm comfortable calling him an average to above-average defender on any team relative to his positional peers.

However, what I'd like to address as well is Curry's importance for the Warriors defense in general. And by doing so, it's necessary to - probably counterintuitively - looking at his offensive production. We all know DRAPM, for instance, can be positively influenced by being efficient on offense as a player - working by the same principle what likely makes good offenses resulting in better defenses all things being equal, in terms of team-performance. Curry's focus on 3pt-shooting, especially from the top, might have an influence as well. Not only does efficient offense lead to less fast-break opportunities, Curry's shot-selection allows him to be back on defense faster than players with different shot-charts, possibly enhancing his defensive performance and value to the team. Tiring out opposing defenders by doing a lot of work off the ball so that they can't pressure him on defense as much or can't hit their shots with their usual accuracy might contribute to it as well, but I'm not going to speculate any further since there is no way to prove it yet.

More important is the fact that Curry proved to be a very capable offensive anchor without having elite offensive players (with the exception of Klay at times, though we still don't know how much he relies on Curry to be as good as he was and we also know he still has problems with consistency, creating for himself and others and shot-selection) around him. Green, Iggy, Bogut and Livingston are smart, they are good passers, they are decent playmakers - but one would hardly call them great players because of their offense. They have some really useful skills on offense, but just like Barnes they play within their role and do what they can do. Credit to Kerr for utilizing the players to their strengths, but I also give Curry a ton of credit for making the whole system work, being the engine of the team's offense. Whether it's on-ball or off-ball, he impacts every possession to a visible extent and that's the reason why the others can play the way they play the best, he's the main reason why a defensive-oriented team was that successful on offense last year.

The conclusion one can draw is the following: ultimately, Curry is the reason why we can run this awesome defensive unit in the first place. In a certain way, we have to give him credit for the defensive performance of the Warriors completely independent of his own defensive performance. The fact that he defends at an above-average level on top of that is just the icing on the cake. Do we want to consider it defensive capability? Well, probably not. But I would argue that it's definitely impact and in the end that's what I'm ultimately looking for. I do think Curry's defense in a vacuum undersells him in terms of importance to the Warriors defense, even if this importance happens to arise from indirect/mediated impact. And by the way, a similar logic can be applied when talking about first-tier defensive anchors with the difference that it's usually easier to find fundamentally sound and willing defenders than capable offensive players.

Just some food for thought and I'll leave it at that. It's too late for me to elaborate on Bird but I'm sure others will do if necessary and I'm not as familiar with Bird's defense than I'm with Curry's anyway, for obvious reasons. But some of what I wrote can be written about Bird as well, for what it's worth.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

CONTINUED LIKE THE LEGACY OF THE LAZER !!!!!!!!


[QUOTE]Offense

This is where more elaboration is needed. But first of all I want to make entirely clear that I consider it odd if people refuse to believe that current players might have peaked as high or higher than some all-time greats. It's not that big of a problem here, at least it is not openly admitted, but unfortunately this stance is prevalent in many discussions about peaks of current players versus former, highly-touted

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

JLAZERUSS

[QUOTE]This is the first year Curry was used to his strengths, it was the first year in which he really got the keys to the offense and in which the offense was constructed to suit Curry's

[juju151111]

Just seeing if you were being consistent.

That's all.

I personally don't think Curry was better than any versions of second 3-peat Jordan or 2009 Kobe. He relies too heavily on his jumper (in-turn NOT as good of a scorer) and isn't the defender those 2 were.

And experience plays a HUGE deal if we're measuring intangibles.
Of course, but 09 Kobe wasn't that much better. I say they were equal. Curry was more efficient and who cares if he relies on his jumper. The jumpers go in don't they? Kobe was ok on defense in 09.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]How does Curry's impact manifests in a team-context? Well, he has an impact on his team's shooting (and scoring in general) in three different ways like no other player ever had in combination. 1) He impacts the game with his own shooting. As I stated earlier he shoots a high-volume of 3's, unprecedented for a volume-scorers, at an elite efficiency. He can create his shot whenever he wants, unless defenses overplay, because he has the handles, because defenses need to be cautious regarding his drives as well and because he can make tough (for any other player) shots at a rate that we can hardly call them tough for him. 2) His off-ball game distracts defenses to an extent which is fascinating. He creates space for other players by simply running around or setting a simple screen in the middle. When he can't get open himself to get a shot off it is very likely that there is significantly more space to operate for his teammates. Also, Curry's willingness to move a lot off-ball, which is extremely exhausting because you have to be fast and avoid being screened (and also because defenders grab his jersey ridiculously often and the refs don't call it at all), is sometimes underestimated but actually very crucial to the success of the system

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

my vote is currry by a bit.
[QUOTE]Still, opponents didn't want Bird to shoot mid range shots. They were more contested than the average shot from those spots, there was help more often. But I've never seen the defense doing everything they could to avoid him getting the ball far away from the basket. I've also seen multiple instances where players visibly sagged off of Bird when there was some distance to the ball and I've rarely seen the defense panic when he got the ball in a spot to shoot without a defender nearby, therefore rarely saw them overplaying but let him shoot instead. It wasn't the plan but still not the end of the world. It were still only two points on a jump shot. And this sentence is of particular importance to me. Extreme spacing can only work when opponents fear your 3pt-shot, the extra point is what it's all about. And this wasn't the case with Bird and if only because of the era he played in. In 1986 he took three 3pt-shots per 100 possessions. Many for his era, nothing compared to modern players who can shoot from long distance (and mostly worse than Bird, at that). The league-average 3PAr was 0.038 in 1986 and 0.268 in 2015. The increasing use of the 3pt-shot has been unbelievable on a historical scale. On a side-note, the lack of spacing also led to visbily less drives right to the rim in half-court sets.

This is why I don't see him as a GOAT outside-shooter, nor as someone who was able to distract defenses due to his shooting like some other players in history did and do, all of them playing in the post-Bird era for that matter. And this leads me to question the greatness of his overall off-ball impact. Off-ball impact is not only about shooting but it is by far the most important part unless we're talking about the exception Shaquille O'Neal is. Among his peers I believe in his comparatively incredible off-ball impact but I doubt it at a historical scale. In an era with more emphasis on the 3pt-shot and also, because of that, more spacing his off-ball impact would be higher. But the era also had advantages for his game: he was able to be a positive defender because he was a good post-defender and rebounder, both of it would be of less use in the modern era. He also was good at post-ups on offense and a good offensive rebounder, both of it would be of less use in the modern era. And his shots from longer distance were less contested overall and he didn't have to work very hard to get them and get them off (note: I'm not talking about mid range shots here, that would need further assessment). So when we decide to prop him up for being the shooter, rebounder, post-defender and post-player he was

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Just seeing if you were being consistent.

That's all.

I personally don't think Curry was better than any versions of second 3-peat Jordan or 2009 Kobe. He relies too heavily on his jumper (in-turn NOT as good of a scorer) and isn't the defender those 2 were.

And experience plays a HUGE deal if we're measuring intangibles.


on 09, Kobe took 20% of his shots from 0-3 feet, and 12% of his shots from 3-10 feet


last year, curry took 18.5% of his shots from 0-3 feet, and 10% of his shots from 3-10 feet.

kobe shot 66.5% and 46% in each spot.

Curry shot 69% and 46% from each spot.



in the playoffs, curry shot 15.6% of his shots from 0-3 feet, and 12.1% of his shots from 3-10 feet.


kobe shot 19% of his shots from 0-3 feet, and 10% from 3-10 feet in the playoffs of 09.

curry shot 70% and 40%.


Kobe shot 59% and 41%.

volume was nearly identical, they took 21 shots per game.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Of course, but 09 Kobe wasn't that much better. I say they were equal. Curry was more efficient and who cares if he relies on his jumper. The jumpers go in don't they? Kobe was ok on defense in 09.


how does he rely on his jumper too much? it works. also, he attacked teh rim as much as kobe did in 14-15 vs 09.

[juju151111]

how does he rely on his jumper too much? it works. also, he attacked teh rim as much as kobe did in 14-15 vs 09.
Wait are you arguing with me? I agree with you an good research showing Curry attacked the rim too.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Wait are you arguing with me? I agree with you an good research showing Curry attacked the rim too.


no, just sayin lol.

i dont really argue much unless someone insults the player.