Posted by OldFan:


I would include Curry in a Kobe trade in a heartbeat. Curry is a one dimensional player in a game that requires multiple skills. Curry shoots a high percentage because he can score in close. He can't pass, turns the ball over too frequently, can't play post defense, can't play help defense, can't rebound and commits stupid fouls. Could he improve in all these areas - yes - but he hasn't so far. from 2004-2007 His stats per 48 minutes have not improved in rebounding, turnovers, assists or blocks they've actually gotten worse.

In a Kobe deal, no one is safe. The biggest strength Curry has is his inside scoring. But it took a dip, when Crawford went down and we lost our only legit outside scorers.

The real question is, would Isiah include Curry to get Kobe? The scary thing is I think he might not.

Posted by OldFan:


I would include Curry in a Kobe trade in a heartbeat. Curry is a one dimensional player in a game that requires multiple skills. Curry shoots a high percentage because he can score in close. He can't pass, turns the ball over too frequently, can't play post defense, can't play help defense, can't rebound and commits stupid fouls. Could he improve in all these areas - yes - but he hasn't so far. from 2004-2007 His stats per 48 minutes have not improved in rebounding, turnovers, assists or blocks they've actually gotten worse.

When your "1 dimension" is a dominant dimension such as leading the whole NBA in points in the paint by a mile then you are an asset.
H20's 1 dimension was his shooting. Somehow that was enough for coachs to pick him twice as an all star and an olympian. Bruce Bowens one dimension is perimeter defense.
Curry also is not a bad offensive rebounder. I think he was like #19 in the whole nba in offensive boards. He just needs to work harder and improve on the defensive glass.
This 1 dimension argument is pretty hollow and has come along with a bunch of fantasy hoop people that want to rate guys that are jacks of all trades and masters of none high based on fantasy hoops scores. These fantasy hoops scores often do not show a guys true impact on the floor. Charlie Ward did little of many things. Was he a better player than the "one dimesional" H20? Jared Jeffries does a little of everything. Does he have a more dominant impact on the court than Curry?

Posted by COSSUCKS:

Posted by OldFan:


I would include Curry in a Kobe trade in a heartbeat. Curry is a one dimensional player in a game that requires multiple skills. Curry shoots a high percentage because he can score in close. He can't pass, turns the ball over too frequently, can't play post defense, can't play help defense, can't rebound and commits stupid fouls. Could he improve in all these areas - yes - but he hasn't so far. from 2004-2007 His stats per 48 minutes have not improved in rebounding, turnovers, assists or blocks they've actually gotten worse.

When your "1 dimension" is a dominant dimension such as leading the whole NBA in points in the paint by a mile then you are an asset.
H20's 1 dimension was his shooting. Somehow that was enough for coachs to pick him twice as an all star and an olympian. Bruce Bowens one dimension is perimeter defense.
Curry also is not a bad offensive rebounder. I think he was like #19 in the whole nba in offensive boards. He just needs to work harder and improve on the defensive glass.
This 1 dimension argument is pretty hollow and has come along with a bunch of fantasy hoop people that want to rate guys that are jacks of all trades and masters of none high based on fantasy hoops scores. These fantasy hoops scores often do not show a guys true impact on the floor. Charlie Ward did little of many things. Was he a better player than the "one dimesional" H20? Jared Jeffries does a little of everything. Does he have a more dominant impact on the court than Curry?

I agree with your point. The fact that he is automatic in the post is treated like every center in the NBA can do what he does. The point was also made that his points dropped when crawford went out, um yeah, he started seeing doubles and triples.
Very good points about other 1 dimensional players to kill that theory. However, I feel EC brings more to the game than just his low post scoring. I few more rebounds and a few more FG and he is a 20&10 guy. We all know what clyde says about 20&10

The question should be would you trade Curry for Bynum?

Curry low post offense would free Kobe up to pull D-Wade performances when he won the championship which Bynum isn't ready to do right now and which will keep Kobe Happy maybe.

Who is the franchise player Kobe or Bynum.

Bynum would be a better fit here because of his shotblocking rebounding. Lee's rebounding & intangibles, Frye's perimeter skills.

Posted by OldFan:
Curry is not a great offensive player - he is a turnover machine. He is good at one part of the offensive game and gives much of that back with his offensive flaws - that's before we even discuss his defense.

Nope. The few extra turnovers per game do not come close "giving back" what Curry gives you on the offensive end of the floor.

Take a look at the production per possession; comparable to Shaq and Yao.

Curry for Bynum... hmmm.....

Posted by martin:

where's the comparison?

Sorry Martin, I always assume that people have read what I have written in the past, as I do so for others. Here ya go...

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=21445&page=3

Bonn, Oldfan claims that Eddy's TOs "give much of his offense back". So while I like your formula in general, it’s a bit off the point.

I mean, you claim Yao is so much more efficient with his possessions, but he is just as turnover prone as Eddy and doesn't shoot as good a percentage. So how do you figure?

One, your formula includes assists. Not a bad idea generally, but not germane to the discussion. We all wish Eddy was a better passer, but this is dependent on all kinds of factors (how is he used in the offense, who is he playing with, etc.) and not specifically related to his post offense.

Second (and this is a big problem) you include Free Throw Attempts as separate from Field Goal Attempts. Issue here is that you are essentially counting attempts twice, as missed/made shots attempted while being fouled count in the fga/fgm numbers.

So while it may seem incredibly simplified, a formula that takes points (which includes made free-throws obviously)/field goal attempts + TOs gets closer to the point of discussion and avoids the distortion due to including assists.

So...

Shaq: 1.20
Yao: 1.21
Kurt Thomas: 1.04
Eddy: 1.21

Yao gets up to Eddy despite the TOs and the FG% because he is a better free-throw shooter. Shaq is actually 1.22 the year he won the championship with Miami. Kurt Thomas was actually 0.92 his last year with the Knicks.

Not a perfect formula either, as I am sure someone is about to point out. But gets you closer, I think, to the spirit of the conversation.

Posted by martin:
and Ben Wallace if more productive offensively than Shaq

Not more productive, more efficient. There is a difference.

And given that Wallace gets his points off of opportunistic "garbage points", not surprising.

Posted by OldFan:

No way is EC a better offensive player then Yao - so what's the point of your stats.

The point of the stats, old fan, is that, "yes way", EC is a comparable offensive player to Yao (no one said better).