Half of Curry's shots are 3-pointers

[knicksman]

Why wouldn't his long two's be contested?... That's a dumb assumption based on nothing.. In the 70's, Curry would get the same looks he gets today, except all the three pointers (half his shots) would be long two's instead.

Without the 3-point line, Curry goes from taking 10+ high efficiency three-pointers per game to taking 10+ low efficiency, long two's every game - Curry is just lucky the 3-point line turns him from low-efficiency gunner into a top player... But long two's at 44% don't hurt a defense, so he'd be a much worse player without the line.

Also, his shots inside 15 feet would be far better contested, since defenders didn't have to guard the 3-point line - that's why DRtg was literally 10 points lower in the 70's.

In the 70's, short gunners that can't dominate inside end up being World B Free and Maravich-level players, and those guys were actually better 2-point shotmakers than Curry.. But they were never considered the best player in the game or anywhere near, whereas Curry is considered that now.. Again, today's spaced-out, 3-point friendly league is the only era where Curry would be a top player.
.

If players would rather be nearer in the paint then the 3pt line would be open. Just like currys 3pters beyond the 3pt line are mostly unguarded coz players are less likely to defend when youre farther away from the paint. And since they would care less about long 2s then it would be less guarded than it is now. Besides, curry is a jumpshooter and not just a jumpshooter but GOAT level, so theres no reason he cant be good in any era. Just look at jerry west. The guy is the least dependent on athleticism yet he would be worse in the 70s:confusedshrug:

[3ball]

If players would rather be nearer in the paint then the 3pt line would be open. Just like currys 3pters beyond the 3pt line are mostly unguarded coz players are less likely to defend when youre farther away from the paint. And since they would care less about long 2s then it would be less guarded than it is now.


Oh I get it... You're saying that Curry's long two wouldn't be guarded because defenders were guarding the paint... But if that's the case, then Curry's midrange and at-rim percentages would be lower than they are now (only 41% and 60% respectively).. You can't have it both ways - if his outside shot is less guarded, then his midrange and inside shots would be guarded better.

That's why we should assume he'd get the exact same looks he gets today - except the 10+ threes he takes at 44%, would now be long two's at 44%.. Indeed - Curry is lucky the 3-point line turns him from low-efficiency gunner into a top player.. The 3-point line SAVES Curry's game.

[tontoz]

In the 90's, Curry would be < MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Malone, Robinson and others... The only era where he'd be top 5 is today's era.

And without the 3-point line in the 70's, he wouldn't be a top 20 player - the 3-point line literally transforms him from attempting 10+ long two's each game, to 10+ high efficiency threes per game.. Curry is lucky the 3-point line turns him from low-efficiency gunner into a top player.

The 3-point line SAVES Curry's game.
.

Dumb post. The three point line has been in effect since before he was born. Talking about playing without the 3 point line is irrelevant nonsense.

Curry shot 53% on 2 pointers last year. Pretty sure that works in any era.

[3ball]

Dumb post. The three point line has been in effect since before he was born. Talking about playing without the 3 point line is irrelevant nonsense.

Curry shot 53% on 2 pointers last year. Pretty sure that works in any era.


You know what's dumb?... You thinking that Curry's two-point percentage is correct - without the 3-point line, his 2-point percentage is his OVERALL FG%.... DUCY?

So before you start calling people dumb, you should look in the mirror.. Here's the reality, so you aren't so dumb:

The 3-point line transforms Curry from attempting 10+ long two's each game, to 10+ high efficiency threes per game.. Curry is flat-out lucky the 3-point line turns him from low-efficiency gunner into a top player.. The 3-point line saves Curry from being an ordinary long-two-point gunner - there were a lot of those in the 2-point eras.

[ShawkFactory]

You know what's dumb?... You thinking that Curry's two-point percentage is correct - without the 3-point line, his 2-point percentage is his OVERALL FG%.... DUCY?

So before you start calling people dumb, you should look in the mirror.. Here's the reality, so you aren't so dumb:

The 3-point line transforms Curry from attempting 10+ long two's each game, to 10+ high efficiency threes per game.. Curry is flat-out lucky the 3-point line turns him from low-efficiency gunner into a top player.. The 3-point line saves Curry from being an ordinary long-two-point gunner - there were a lot of those in the 2-point eras.
So we're assuming he takes the exact same shots and the defense plays him the exact same way? With all those packed paints wouldn't he have more space to operate and get good shots outside?

[tontoz]

You know what's dumb?... You thinking that Curry's two-point percentage is correct - without the 3-point line, his 2-point percentage is his OVERALL FG%.... DUCY?

So before you start calling people dumb, you should look in the mirror.. Here's the reality, so you aren't so dumb:

The 3-point line transforms Curry from attempting 10+ long two's each game, to 10+ high efficiency threes per game.. Curry is flat-out lucky the 3-point line turns him from low-efficiency gunner into a top player.. The 3-point line saves Curry from being an ordinary long-two-point gunner - there were a lot of those in the 2-point eras.


You don't seem to understand what the word lucky means. It isn't like the 3 point line is some new invention that changed Curry's game.

And of course you are assuming that Curry would still be shooting from the same distance if there was no 3 point line. That is an idiotic assumption. The defense wouldn't be guarding him tightly from 23-30 feet and he would have far less incentive to shoot from there.

But you obviously don't let grade school logic affect your opinions.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

If Curry was lucky enough to play in Michael Jordan's era he would been even better. 400 pound dead lifting Curry would be undeterred by hand checking. He has enough lower body strength that you can put your hand on his hip if you want, Curry will take you along for a ride. That plus the shortened 3 point line and it would be an absolute Bloodbath.

[3ball]

You don't seem to understand what the word lucky means.


He's lucky to come along in the current era, when the prevalence of 3-pointers allows him to be a top player..

Obviously, without the 3-point line, he's just a massive gunner, that takes 10+ long two's from beyond 24 feet at 44%.. :confusedshrug:






The defense wouldn't be guarding him tightly from 23-30 feet



You can't have it both ways - if his outside shot is less guarded, then his midrange and inside shots would be guarded better - so it's offsetting... And for all the talk of Curry being a great shooter - he shot 41% from midrange in 2015.... 41%... That's WITH the spacing and defenders leaving the paint/midrange open to guard 3-pointers.

So rather than make shaky assumptions, it's better to assume he'd get the exact same looks he gets today - except the 10+ threes he takes at 44%, would now be long two's at 44%.. Indeed - Curry is lucky the 3-point line turns him from low-efficiency gunner into a top player.. The 3-point line SAVES Curry's game.

[Duffy Pratt]

STATISTICAL FACT: Michael Jordan has the 109th best 2 pt shooting percentage in history. Hardly the best shooter from 2 point land. Best scorer, maybe. Above him are Shaq, Barkley, Kareem, Stockton, Nash, Magic, Malone, Wilt, Dantley, Hakeem. Those are some guys who matter if you take volume into account.

Hell, if you talk straight percentage, even Rodman is three percentage points better than Jordan. You can't just take percentages to argue who is the better shooter. Nor can you just take points, or points per game.

[tontoz]

He's lucky to come along in the current era, when the prevalence of 3-pointers allows him to be a top player..



Nonsense. Curry can shoot his 3s off the dribble better than anyone, ever. He doesn't rely on a system to get his looks.

He could have played 10/20/30 years ago and been a prolific 3 point shooter.


ou can't have it both ways - if his outside shot is less guarded, then his midrange and inside shots would be guarded better - so it's offsetting...


More nonsense. First of all Curry doesn't shoot often inside so it couldn't possibly be offsetting

Secondly he can get his shot off routinely even if tightly guarded. Every team tries to stop him from shooting 3s but he still shoots a prolific number of 3s. If there was no 3 point line he would be doing the same thing, just much closer in.

[Duffy Pratt]

As for the main argument, a few things would happen if you get rid of the three point line. First, Curry would get more open looks from the same range because the shot is less efficient. Thus, his percentage would go up. Net difference: hard to say.

Second, defenders would be collapsing towards the middle, and most rebounds would not be as long. Thus, there would be a return of the outlet pass, and fast breaks run off of rebounds. Right now, with three guys camped at the three point line all the time, the fast break defenders are already a decent distance back and its much harder to start a break off of a miss and an outlet. Under those circumstances, I see Curry leading a lot more fast breaks, and this would probably increase the number of layups he gets.

But... with the reemergence of the fast break, pace would also skyrocket, and with it, overall field goal percentages would go down. The muscle bound players of today would have to get out of the weight room and get some serious stamina conditioning. Player weights would drop. Etc.. Etc.. Etc...

[sd3035]

imagine Curry with the shortened line and the no defense era of Jordan's time where the league average was 110 ppg


it would be an absolute massacre, at least 40 ppg