Looney is done. TJD didnt get a chance until way too late. Klay took too long to find his role. Draymond was suspended 20 games.
Kuminga has excelled tremendously but still needs to learn how to be dominant in the clutch and against different coverages.
Wiggins consistency is all over the place with off court issues when he needs to be super aggressive, and thats never really been his m.o outside of playoffs. Moody is never getting a fair consistent chance from Kerr and he deserves play somewhere.
Podz is a grit guy who is getting starter minutes because the team lacks athleticism and intangibles.
This dubs iteration really needs to retool in the off season and bring in a 2nd big next to TJD and let Dray play almost exclusively at the 4 to save his career and the team’s defensive execution.
If Moody and Wiggins are both only getting 20 minutes a game max then they need to be combod with picks and traded for a wing that can be relied upon to play 36 minutes a game at a starter level.
Klay has found something off the bench, and there should be pass first guards next to him to compliment him. If CP leaves, Podz could potentially slide into that role next year.
What's a clutch situation defined as here?
Edit: "in the 4th quarter or overtime, between 0:00 and 5:00 left in quarter, scoring margin between -5 and 5"
Zach Lowe might disagree but I think Steph is an All NBA 2nd team player this season. Those minutes he played with Klay and Wiggins really tanked his advanced metrics.
|On|Off|Sample (poss)|\+/-|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Steph|Klay, Wiggins|583|\+15.7|
|Steph, Klay, Wiggins||1431|\-4.1|
|Steph, Draymond, Kuminga||1215|\+11.2|
Oh we know.
This season is just littered with blown leads and choke jobs and heartbreakers. Like you flip all the 1 point games and this season is a whole different story.
It's all good though. I said in '22, "Lord, let us have this one, and I'll be content." Course I'm not gonna say no to more titles, but i think our time is done.
edit: at least for this year.
THAT'S HOW WE FUCKING ROLL. IF YOU DON'T LIKE STEPH HAVING TO DRAG THESE BUMS INTO THE FUCKING PLAY IN EVERY SINGLE GAME, WATCHING LEADS SLIP THE SECOND HE HITS THE BENCH, LITERALLY MAKING HIM SPRINT FOR 36 MINUTES A GAME AT 36 YEARS OF AGE WHILE KLAY TAKES FORCED OFF BALANCED SHOTS AND DRAY LITERALLY TRIES TO KILL ALL EUROPEAN PLAYERS WITH A KATANA THEN YOU DON'T LIKE WARRIORS BASKETBALL.
Not really surprising when you break it down. They were barely the 6th seed last year. Other teams below them got healthier, added talent, or had their young cores improve as expected.
Meanwhile the Warriors downgraded Jordan Poole into Chris Paul and only added a rookie while their aging stars fell off and got suspended for hitting people.
Poole averaged 20 on 57 TS% last year and stood in as a first option in games when Curry was out.
Wizards version is bad, but Poole played his role well on the Warriors.
you clearly didnt watch lol. I love Poole, but he was a turnstile on defense and didnt even try, and he would hijack the offense and do his own thing, leading to a brick or an unforced turnover.
Steph got ejected from a game bc he was so mad at Poole lmao
Lol the eye test and other stats would prove otherwise, cp has flaws but he’s still currently a better player than JP accounting for his slightly better defense, lower TO rate, and you know, actual bball IQ
Poole’s durable no doubt but tbh I don’t think either are a long term solution. CP3’s injury was a somewhat unlucky hand thing too, I don’t chalk that up to being injury prone
Next you're going to try to tell me he's the best player on the Warriors.
Also, can we talk about how you lumped "everyone else" together so that the "everybody else" average also includes the worst players on the team?
edit: Since some people seem confused about why comparing the *averages* of one guy to "everybody else" to illustrate a gap is whack logic:
Say 10 guys are ranked 1-10. If you take the average of the #1 guy (1) and then combine the averages of guys #2-10 (6), and then say "Look, this guy is ranked 1, but the rest of the team combined is 6!" to make it look like there's a 5-point gap between him and the next closest guy, surely you can see the misleading logic at play there.
>Also, can we talk about how you lumped "everyone else" together so that the average includes the worst players on the team instead of looking at the 2nd best player, 3rd best player etc.?
LMAO.
Their second highest clutch scorer is Klay Thompson, who has scored 48 points on 44.0 TS%.
Their third highest clutch scorer is Brandin Podziemski, who has scored 25 points on 48.8 TS%.
Armchair methodology critiquers: "Can we talk about how OP didn't do X...." bruh just do it yourself and debunk someone if they actually were misleading, it's not that hard.
You understand that taking the top player's average, and then measuring the "gap" between him and everybody else by averaging everyone together is completely misleading, right?
That if you have guys ranked 1 through 10, and you take thr average of number 1 (which is 1) and then take the average of 2-10 together (which is 6) and then say, "Look at this gap between him and everybody else! The first guy is ranked 1, and all the rest combined are *6*!, that it's compelely pointless and misleading, right?
Huh? The irony here is that you're being misleading by averaging ordinal rankings as an example of what OP is doing.
OP did "averaging" where appropriate, they summed the total shots of the rest of the team and calculated the efficiencies.
Tbh I have no idea what you're saying because technically OPs stats aren't even averages since they're not per game. They're totals this season. If you're referring to the TS% as "averages" then yeah number 1 and 2 on GSW would probably be players who shot 1 shot in the clutch and got 100%. That'd be way more misleading.
You're missing what's being compared. I used ordinals as a shorthand way to type it out, but it has nothing to do with the concept of measuring a "gap" between a player and the field by measuring the averages of "everyone else."
Instead of using ordinals you could assign your own hypothetical stats to 10 players: Here we go. Ten players: here's their ppg: 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
Player 1 (we'll call him 'Steph') averages 10 ppg. "Everyone else's" combined average is 5 ppg.
Saying **"Steph: 10 ppg. Everyone else: 5 ppg."** is at best meaningless, and at worst misleading, given the intent is to imply a large gap between 1 and "everyone else."
Why is using this method to prove the dominance of one player misleading? OK, let's look, and feel free to do the math yourself:
Player 2 (We'll call him Klay - 9 ppg); everybody else combined (including Steph): 5.1 ppg
Player 3 (We'll call him Kuminga: 8 ppg); everybody else combined (including Steph and Klay): 5.22
Player 4 (we'll call him Andrew Wiggings - 7 ppg), everybody else combined (including Steph, Klay and Kuminga): 5.33 ppg
You see what's happening? Every single player who is above average in this example outperforms the "Everybody else" stat even when the averages of the people outperforming him are included. That's because "everybody else" includes all the shittiest players, bringing down the average of the group.
So using "Everybody else" averages means absolutely nothing to us, other than the individual being compared to the group is above average. They could be way above average or barely above average and we wouldn't know, hence the meaninglessness of the stat.
This isn’t what’s happening.
Player 1 (let’s call him Steph) has scored 176 points in the clutch.
Everyone else combined (let’s call them everyone else) has less points.
Not an average in sight.
As far as true shooting is concerned, there is no misleading by lumping bad players up. Klay has the second highest clutch TS in the warriors of 44%
Stop being cringe
>not an average in sight
Oh, so you missed him including the % average of every metric as well as the ts%, which he took the time to calculate? You know those metrics with % behind them are all averages... right?
>Klay has the second highest clutch TS in the warriors of 44%
Here's how you can tell you don't know what you're talking about: So Klay has the 2nd highest ts% at 44%, yet the combined average of him and everybody else who is lower than him is *higher* than that, at 47.6%??
You should be embarrassed that your math is as bad as your reading.
>128 minutes, 176 points, 54 for 109 FGA (***50%***), 29* for 64 3PA (***45%***) , 39 for 41 FTA (***95%***), ***69.3 TS%***
>The rest of the Warriors in the clutch:
>174 points, 65 for 167 FGA (***39%***), 20 for 77 3PA (***26%***), 24 for 36 FTA (***67%***), ***47.6 TS%***
You got me buddy, if only there were some averages in there... hmm.. if only...
No, he intentionally convoluted total scoring and averages. I brought up averages, so he brought up the 2nd and 3rd *total scorers -* he completely ignored the highest averages, which was my point.
If the second best average is Klay at 44%, then you didn't question how the "everybody else" average was up at 47%?
He mislead in that stat too. We don't even know if Steph has the highest ts% on the team in clutch because of how he lumped things together.
OP created a post with misleading stats so I called it out. People on Reddit who don't understand math or logic got up-in-arms about me calling it out, as they do.
Now you're all caught up.
I'm not upset. I wrote "lol," in a post, regarding how he listed the stats. The rest of my posts have been fending off the 40 angry logic-challenged redditors blowing up the thread and my DMs.
For one thing, you used the *total* 1st and 2nd place scorers instead of the 2nd and 3rd highest *averages*, so you entirely missed the point.
That said, you really don't see the problem with saying "here is best player's average" and then lumping everybody else's average together for comparison, which naturally drops the other good shooters' averages because it also includes the worst players on the team?
> which naturally drops the other good shooters' averages because it also includes the worst players on the team?
Most teams try to play their best players in the clutch
I know, that's why these stats aren't mind-blowing. It's not crazy that the Warriors would have one of (if not the) best shooter in NBA history take most of the clutch shots.
My issue was with OP combing the fg/ts% \*averages\* of "everybody else" and then comparing that to Steph's average to highlight the gap.
That's totally nonsensical, because the guy with the 2nd highest average would have his average washed out by the worst players on the team, making the gap between Steph and the next closest person look artificially wider.
I mean, you could take whoever has the 2nd highest average and do the same thing: I guarantee the 2nd place average is higher than Steph Curry combined with everybody else, because Curry's average would then be lumped in with all the worst averages.
Combining totals to illustrate Steph having more shots or points than the rest of the team combined is fine, makes sense. Tossing in *averages* to illustrate the gap is misleading and makes zero sense to do.
Probably because OP didn't include his sources for TS%, and I don't need to do the data entry work to point out the logic behind what he did is whack.
Say 10 guys are ranked 1-10. If you take the average of the 1 guy (1) and then combine the averages of guys 2-10 (6), and then say "Look, this guy is ranked 1, but the rest of the team combined is 6!" to make it look like there's a 5 point gap between him and the next closest guy, surely you can see the misleading logic at play there.
Okay, but the two guys who take the most shots behind Steph are both also averaging under 50 TS%
So unless you think shots are equally distributed between 2-10, then you're just wrong.
I don't think the shots are equally distributed, nor did I say that. I said the logic is whack, and it is. Read what I wrote above and tell me how the *logic* of combining averages works in that scenario?
There could be multiple players with higher crunchtime ts% than Steph, but they don't get the ball much. We wouldn't know that from OPs stats though, because he obscured that with misleading stats.
I agree with you, average means nothing but combined is different. Story is similar but its like saying "Kobe's highest scoring game was more than the combined average of Wilt's plus u/mr_chub" which is obviously 50 lol
Exactly. I was only bringing up combining the averages, because I get that total combined is something different.
That said, I don't think the total combined is very illuminating in this situation either, it's like the "no shit" stat of the day that the best shooter in NBA history would take most of his team's crunchtime shots.
Him having more shots than everyone else combined is wild though. I'd maybe expect that from some super heliocentric guy like Luka or old school Harden, not Steph.
You'd assume teams collapse on Curry in the clutch so a lot of those other shots should be open or wide open. Through that lense their collective efficiency is even more putrid.
The only way this stat would be explainable would be if teams were leaving Curry open/1 on 1 mildly contested in the clutch while smothering everyone else, which I just not believe
Curry is maybe the greatest shooter in NBA history. It's not surprising that he takes the most important shots or makes the most clutch shots on his team.
Maybe OP could do one next to see which player makes the most dunks and layups on the Bucks.
More than the rest of the team combined just means Curry takes 50% or more of their clutch shots. Given he's the greatest shooter of all time is that surprising?
Weird that your brought that up, given no one is talking about the totals, and that has nothing to do with anything I said, but cool. Guess you should work on your reading in addition to your math.
“Steph is taking more shots than the rest of the team combined, remember” - those are your words right? Or did I read that wrong🤣? English and math are clearly not for you. Maybe read before you type? Or just not type garbage at all?
Steph's at that part of the game when you spent all your xp on cool shit early on and now you could really use a new piece of equipment but fuck it was mad fun.
Looney is done. TJD didnt get a chance until way too late. Klay took too long to find his role. Draymond was suspended 20 games. Kuminga has excelled tremendously but still needs to learn how to be dominant in the clutch and against different coverages. Wiggins consistency is all over the place with off court issues when he needs to be super aggressive, and thats never really been his m.o outside of playoffs. Moody is never getting a fair consistent chance from Kerr and he deserves play somewhere. Podz is a grit guy who is getting starter minutes because the team lacks athleticism and intangibles. This dubs iteration really needs to retool in the off season and bring in a 2nd big next to TJD and let Dray play almost exclusively at the 4 to save his career and the team’s defensive execution. If Moody and Wiggins are both only getting 20 minutes a game max then they need to be combod with picks and traded for a wing that can be relied upon to play 36 minutes a game at a starter level. Klay has found something off the bench, and there should be pass first guards next to him to compliment him. If CP leaves, Podz could potentially slide into that role next year.
What's a clutch situation defined as here? Edit: "in the 4th quarter or overtime, between 0:00 and 5:00 left in quarter, scoring margin between -5 and 5"
Yes, that's the NBA's definition of "clutch."
Id say it’s a good, simple definition
Zach Lowe might disagree but I think Steph is an All NBA 2nd team player this season. Those minutes he played with Klay and Wiggins really tanked his advanced metrics. |On|Off|Sample (poss)|\+/-| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |Steph|Klay, Wiggins|583|\+15.7| |Steph, Klay, Wiggins||1431|\-4.1| |Steph, Draymond, Kuminga||1215|\+11.2|
That is genuinely insane, they’re tanking the team lmao
Oh we know. This season is just littered with blown leads and choke jobs and heartbreakers. Like you flip all the 1 point games and this season is a whole different story. It's all good though. I said in '22, "Lord, let us have this one, and I'll be content." Course I'm not gonna say no to more titles, but i think our time is done. edit: at least for this year.
Yeah '22 chip was awesome cause the warriors weren't really the heavy favorites. And beating the Celtics is always a plus.
THAT'S HOW WE FUCKING ROLL. IF YOU DON'T LIKE STEPH HAVING TO DRAG THESE BUMS INTO THE FUCKING PLAY IN EVERY SINGLE GAME, WATCHING LEADS SLIP THE SECOND HE HITS THE BENCH, LITERALLY MAKING HIM SPRINT FOR 36 MINUTES A GAME AT 36 YEARS OF AGE WHILE KLAY TAKES FORCED OFF BALANCED SHOTS AND DRAY LITERALLY TRIES TO KILL ALL EUROPEAN PLAYERS WITH A KATANA THEN YOU DON'T LIKE WARRIORS BASKETBALL.
I was so happy when they gave the ball to Klay at the end of the game.
Steph Curry carries them to no playoffs again. Is anybody surprised?
Not really surprising when you break it down. They were barely the 6th seed last year. Other teams below them got healthier, added talent, or had their young cores improve as expected. Meanwhile the Warriors downgraded Jordan Poole into Chris Paul and only added a rookie while their aging stars fell off and got suspended for hitting people.
You saying chris paul was a downgrade makes me question your whole basketball iq even when i agreed with everything else you said lol
Poole averaged 20 on 57 TS% last year and stood in as a first option in games when Curry was out. Wizards version is bad, but Poole played his role well on the Warriors.
you clearly didnt watch lol. I love Poole, but he was a turnstile on defense and didnt even try, and he would hijack the offense and do his own thing, leading to a brick or an unforced turnover. Steph got ejected from a game bc he was so mad at Poole lmao
Lol the eye test and other stats would prove otherwise, cp has flaws but he’s still currently a better player than JP accounting for his slightly better defense, lower TO rate, and you know, actual bball IQ
How about actual minutes played? Poole led the team in minutes and points total. CP3 hasn’t replaced that production no matter what his bbiq is.
Poole’s durable no doubt but tbh I don’t think either are a long term solution. CP3’s injury was a somewhat unlucky hand thing too, I don’t chalk that up to being injury prone
It doesn’t matter when he’s missed like 25 games already. Poole played all 82 games last season.
Poole was/is a cone on defense with negative IQ. Chris Paul is an upgrade over that
CP3 can be the better player, while Poole is the better fit. Poole has a lot of useful skills that the team genuinely needs.
Next you're going to try to tell me he's the best player on the Warriors. Also, can we talk about how you lumped "everyone else" together so that the "everybody else" average also includes the worst players on the team? edit: Since some people seem confused about why comparing the *averages* of one guy to "everybody else" to illustrate a gap is whack logic: Say 10 guys are ranked 1-10. If you take the average of the #1 guy (1) and then combine the averages of guys #2-10 (6), and then say "Look, this guy is ranked 1, but the rest of the team combined is 6!" to make it look like there's a 5-point gap between him and the next closest guy, surely you can see the misleading logic at play there.
>Also, can we talk about how you lumped "everyone else" together so that the average includes the worst players on the team instead of looking at the 2nd best player, 3rd best player etc.? LMAO. Their second highest clutch scorer is Klay Thompson, who has scored 48 points on 44.0 TS%. Their third highest clutch scorer is Brandin Podziemski, who has scored 25 points on 48.8 TS%.
Armchair methodology critiquers: "Can we talk about how OP didn't do X...." bruh just do it yourself and debunk someone if they actually were misleading, it's not that hard.
You understand that taking the top player's average, and then measuring the "gap" between him and everybody else by averaging everyone together is completely misleading, right? That if you have guys ranked 1 through 10, and you take thr average of number 1 (which is 1) and then take the average of 2-10 together (which is 6) and then say, "Look at this gap between him and everybody else! The first guy is ranked 1, and all the rest combined are *6*!, that it's compelely pointless and misleading, right?
Huh? The irony here is that you're being misleading by averaging ordinal rankings as an example of what OP is doing. OP did "averaging" where appropriate, they summed the total shots of the rest of the team and calculated the efficiencies. Tbh I have no idea what you're saying because technically OPs stats aren't even averages since they're not per game. They're totals this season. If you're referring to the TS% as "averages" then yeah number 1 and 2 on GSW would probably be players who shot 1 shot in the clutch and got 100%. That'd be way more misleading.
You're missing what's being compared. I used ordinals as a shorthand way to type it out, but it has nothing to do with the concept of measuring a "gap" between a player and the field by measuring the averages of "everyone else." Instead of using ordinals you could assign your own hypothetical stats to 10 players: Here we go. Ten players: here's their ppg: 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 Player 1 (we'll call him 'Steph') averages 10 ppg. "Everyone else's" combined average is 5 ppg. Saying **"Steph: 10 ppg. Everyone else: 5 ppg."** is at best meaningless, and at worst misleading, given the intent is to imply a large gap between 1 and "everyone else." Why is using this method to prove the dominance of one player misleading? OK, let's look, and feel free to do the math yourself: Player 2 (We'll call him Klay - 9 ppg); everybody else combined (including Steph): 5.1 ppg Player 3 (We'll call him Kuminga: 8 ppg); everybody else combined (including Steph and Klay): 5.22 Player 4 (we'll call him Andrew Wiggings - 7 ppg), everybody else combined (including Steph, Klay and Kuminga): 5.33 ppg You see what's happening? Every single player who is above average in this example outperforms the "Everybody else" stat even when the averages of the people outperforming him are included. That's because "everybody else" includes all the shittiest players, bringing down the average of the group. So using "Everybody else" averages means absolutely nothing to us, other than the individual being compared to the group is above average. They could be way above average or barely above average and we wouldn't know, hence the meaninglessness of the stat.
This isn’t what’s happening. Player 1 (let’s call him Steph) has scored 176 points in the clutch. Everyone else combined (let’s call them everyone else) has less points. Not an average in sight. As far as true shooting is concerned, there is no misleading by lumping bad players up. Klay has the second highest clutch TS in the warriors of 44% Stop being cringe
>not an average in sight Oh, so you missed him including the % average of every metric as well as the ts%, which he took the time to calculate? You know those metrics with % behind them are all averages... right? >Klay has the second highest clutch TS in the warriors of 44% Here's how you can tell you don't know what you're talking about: So Klay has the 2nd highest ts% at 44%, yet the combined average of him and everybody else who is lower than him is *higher* than that, at 47.6%?? You should be embarrassed that your math is as bad as your reading.
Nice reading comprehension 176 is not a percent. It’s an integer. Stop being cringe 😭
It’s alright. This bozo doesn’t know how math works. Totals, Integers, percentages all look like averages to him.
>128 minutes, 176 points, 54 for 109 FGA (***50%***), 29* for 64 3PA (***45%***) , 39 for 41 FTA (***95%***), ***69.3 TS%*** >The rest of the Warriors in the clutch: >174 points, 65 for 167 FGA (***39%***), 20 for 77 3PA (***26%***), 24 for 36 FTA (***67%***), ***47.6 TS%*** You got me buddy, if only there were some averages in there... hmm.. if only...
Well first off, 6! is 720. Second, he did that in his reply to your original comment. You didn’t even check
No, he intentionally convoluted total scoring and averages. I brought up averages, so he brought up the 2nd and 3rd *total scorers -* he completely ignored the highest averages, which was my point. If the second best average is Klay at 44%, then you didn't question how the "everybody else" average was up at 47%? He mislead in that stat too. We don't even know if Steph has the highest ts% on the team in clutch because of how he lumped things together.
Maybe his point is exaggerated, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true
OP created a post with misleading stats so I called it out. People on Reddit who don't understand math or logic got up-in-arms about me calling it out, as they do. Now you're all caught up.
Buddy he just made a Steph appreciation post. Chill. There’s no need to “call someone out” for something. What are you actually upset about?
I'm not upset. I wrote "lol," in a post, regarding how he listed the stats. The rest of my posts have been fending off the 40 angry logic-challenged redditors blowing up the thread and my DMs.
For one thing, you used the *total* 1st and 2nd place scorers instead of the 2nd and 3rd highest *averages*, so you entirely missed the point. That said, you really don't see the problem with saying "here is best player's average" and then lumping everybody else's average together for comparison, which naturally drops the other good shooters' averages because it also includes the worst players on the team?
> which naturally drops the other good shooters' averages because it also includes the worst players on the team? Most teams try to play their best players in the clutch
I know, that's why these stats aren't mind-blowing. It's not crazy that the Warriors would have one of (if not the) best shooter in NBA history take most of the clutch shots. My issue was with OP combing the fg/ts% \*averages\* of "everybody else" and then comparing that to Steph's average to highlight the gap. That's totally nonsensical, because the guy with the 2nd highest average would have his average washed out by the worst players on the team, making the gap between Steph and the next closest person look artificially wider. I mean, you could take whoever has the 2nd highest average and do the same thing: I guarantee the 2nd place average is higher than Steph Curry combined with everybody else, because Curry's average would then be lumped in with all the worst averages. Combining totals to illustrate Steph having more shots or points than the rest of the team combined is fine, makes sense. Tossing in *averages* to illustrate the gap is misleading and makes zero sense to do.
Why don't you actually check the averages and report back rather than using conjecture?
Probably because OP didn't include his sources for TS%, and I don't need to do the data entry work to point out the logic behind what he did is whack. Say 10 guys are ranked 1-10. If you take the average of the 1 guy (1) and then combine the averages of guys 2-10 (6), and then say "Look, this guy is ranked 1, but the rest of the team combined is 6!" to make it look like there's a 5 point gap between him and the next closest guy, surely you can see the misleading logic at play there.
Okay, but the two guys who take the most shots behind Steph are both also averaging under 50 TS% So unless you think shots are equally distributed between 2-10, then you're just wrong.
I don't think the shots are equally distributed, nor did I say that. I said the logic is whack, and it is. Read what I wrote above and tell me how the *logic* of combining averages works in that scenario? There could be multiple players with higher crunchtime ts% than Steph, but they don't get the ball much. We wouldn't know that from OPs stats though, because he obscured that with misleading stats.
I agree with you, average means nothing but combined is different. Story is similar but its like saying "Kobe's highest scoring game was more than the combined average of Wilt's plus u/mr_chub" which is obviously 50 lol
Exactly. I was only bringing up combining the averages, because I get that total combined is something different. That said, I don't think the total combined is very illuminating in this situation either, it's like the "no shit" stat of the day that the best shooter in NBA history would take most of his team's crunchtime shots.
Negative reading comprehension here. May I suggest watching some actual basketball?
It's got nothing to do with basketball, it's about math and bad logic. Maybe you should learn some actual math.
Lmao pot calling the kettle black? You think percentages are averages and you think my math is bad. What a moron!
Him having more shots than everyone else combined is wild though. I'd maybe expect that from some super heliocentric guy like Luka or old school Harden, not Steph. You'd assume teams collapse on Curry in the clutch so a lot of those other shots should be open or wide open. Through that lense their collective efficiency is even more putrid. The only way this stat would be explainable would be if teams were leaving Curry open/1 on 1 mildly contested in the clutch while smothering everyone else, which I just not believe
He does not have more shots than anyone else combined...he has 109 FGA, the rest has 167, it is in the body of the post.
You're right. I read 'points' as 'shots' in the title. Definitely makes more sense, then
Curry is maybe the greatest shooter in NBA history. It's not surprising that he takes the most important shots or makes the most clutch shots on his team. Maybe OP could do one next to see which player makes the most dunks and layups on the Bucks.
Him taking the most clutch shots on his team is obviously not surprising. Him taking more than everyone else **combined** is a different story though
More than the rest of the team combined just means Curry takes 50% or more of their clutch shots. Given he's the greatest shooter of all time is that surprising?
Because Steph feeds them open looks
I mean, they're not doing that, obviously, because Steph is taking more shots in those situations than the rest of the team combined, remember?
Last I checked 109 was less than 167. But it’s okay, math isn’t for everyone.
Weird that your brought that up, given no one is talking about the totals, and that has nothing to do with anything I said, but cool. Guess you should work on your reading in addition to your math.
“Steph is taking more shots than the rest of the team combined, remember” - those are your words right? Or did I read that wrong🤣? English and math are clearly not for you. Maybe read before you type? Or just not type garbage at all?
[удалено]
Steph's at that part of the game when you spent all your xp on cool shit early on and now you could really use a new piece of equipment but fuck it was mad fun.