while both players are defined by the "p" word, jackson calling kwame a pussie and curry's so called potential with marginal stats does not make curry the overwhelming favorite. eventhough the differences between the 2 are night and day, kwame may have the upper hand in the long run. dont be fooled by curry's stats. curry being out of shape is no excuse and his stats are not indicative of the "p" word. this article should remind us the direction curry is heading and hopefully brown can reverse the short comings.

By Bob Chaikin, 82games.com, Special to SI.com

In the past 28 years -- since the league started tracking turnovers in the 1977-78 season -- fewer than four percent of the players who have clocked at least 1,000 minutes did so with a turnover rate of 12 percent or higher. Of those performances, only once did a player average 20 points a game; only five times did a player average more 17 points a game. And only five times did such a player average 35 minutes a game in a season. In other words the statistical history of the league shows that that high of rate of turnovers limits the ability of players to be productive through scoring.

Also, history shows there hasn't been a single player whose turnover rate was as high as Curry's who was able to reduce that rate in later seasons (down to, say, 8 percent). For example, Shaquille O'Neal chalked up a turnover rate of 10 percent as a rookie, but by the end of his second season, he had brought his turnover rate down to six percent, or one for every 16-17 touches, a figure he has maintained ever since. (For comparison, a typical point guard commits turnovers at the rate of 5 percent, or 1 for every 20 touches.) Alonzo Mourning, on the other hand, turned the ball over at a rate of between nine and 11 percent his first four seasons in the league and was never able to significantly reduce that figure. Unlike many others, though, Mourning was a consistent 20-points-per-game scorer despite the high rate of turnovers, a function of his being a better rebounder, defender and shot blocker than Curry has been to date. So it stands to reason that if Curry cannot reduce his turnovers in the future, his effectiveness as a player, particularly as a scorer, will be limited, especially if the other facets of his game remain the same.

Another trend Curry's stats reveal is that both his rebounding rate and his shot-blocking rate have decreased each season he has been in the league, a disturbing trend. Last year, Curry averaged only nine rebounds per 48 minutes and only 1.5 blocked shots per 48 minutes of play. These are poor numbers for a starting center in the league, let alone a 6-foot-11, 285-pound center. Although his field-goal defense (http://www.82games.com/04CHI14C.HTM) made opposing centers shoot five percent worse against the Bulls than against other teams, on average, Curry's poor defensive rebounding, subpar shot blocking makes for an overall poor defensive presence in the middle.

Additionally, in spite of Curry's supposed offensive gifts, the number of touches he gets has not increased, but leveled off at between 0.75 - 0.80 per minute. Historically speaking, players who see significant playing time early in their careers tend to get more touches per minute over their first three or four seasons in the league, only to level off after their fourth season, prior to a decline due to age. Amaré Stoudemire's touches/min. his first three seasons were 0.73, 0.93 and 1.03; for Kevin Garnett they were 0.77, 0.95 and 1.25; and for Shaq, 0.95, 1.08, and 1.25. In each of these cases the increase in touches/min was accompanied by a decrease in turnovers per touch.

This has not happened with Curry. He has yet to receive more than .80 touches/min., and over the past 28 seasons in the NBA you can count on both hands the number of players with touches/min. no higher than .80 who have scored more than 20 ppg in a season. Curry is still young enough to buck the trend, but the historical record doesn't bode well. Will it be worth $60 million to find out?

Right..just like in Washington. I love how you just ignore where he's played 90% of his career. If walking out on your team in the playoffs doesn't scream cancer, I don't know what does. In LA: I'm sorry but 25 games of very mediocre performance doesn't impress me.

Posted by Bobby:

See my previous posts. The guy is a cancer w/o any heart. Anyway, I don't think the Wiz were great at D when he was there.

kwame cancer?.....at least kwame performs in a system committed to winning. some coaches do make an attempt regardless who the player is.

first bogut is great. Now kwame good? LOL.. my lord... too much egg nog man...