Connect with us


NBA Sunday: Anointing Stephen Curry

At what point could we argue that Stephen Curry is one of the greatest scorers ever?

Moke Hamilton



As he sat in his locker before tip-off in a grey, sleeveless t-shirt, the 24-year-old discussed game strategy with a pair of rookies while the media only seemed half-heartedly interested in how his team would adjust. As a result of David Lee’s role in an altercation with Roy Hibbert a few nights earlier, he was suspended for the team’s only appearance at Madison Square Garden that season, so the Warriors were shorthanded.

The 24-year-old Stephen Curry, then, flanked by those rookies—Draymond Green and Harrison Barnes—took matters into his own hands and responded with what is still the greatest scoring performance in his career and one of the greatest that the building has ever seen.

Three years after witnessing this scoring outburst, we now know that the historic night for Curry was no aberration. And today, I wonder at what point he will be universally accepted amongst the class of greatest scorers that the game has ever seen.

CurryKlayInside1Objectively, merely mentioning Curry in the same category as the likes of Carmelo Anthony, Kobe Bryant, Bernard King, Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain (all of whom own the greatest single-game scoring performances in Madison Square Garden) seems blasphemous.

Objectively speaking, Curry has never even as much as won a scoring title. He has averaged greater than 20 points per game only three times in his six-year career. Because he began his NBA career at 21-years-old, you will not usually see him listed on any of the “youngest player to reach…” milestone lists. He has only made an All-NBA First Team once and the NBA All-Star Team twice. 

But what do these things really mean? Do they mean that Curry is less of a player or less deserving of reverence than the likes of Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul? Or does it merely mean that he is the least decorated impactful player of this generation? For years now, he has been the alpha and omega of everything the Warriors have hoped to become—and they have become just that.

At what point do we say “forget the numbers” and look past the accumulated numbers and statistics and see true greatness even when it doesn’t coincide with eye-popping tabulations?

Curry has caused these questions, all of which are valid. And these thoughts first entered my mind on the night where, in person, I saw him single-handedly dominate that February 2013 game in Madison Square Garden.

* * * * *

I am fortunate in that I have witnessed, first-hand, the two greatest scoring performances ever at Madison Square Garden. Those belong to Carmelo Anthony and Kobe Bryant, who scored 62 points and 61 points, respectively.

For Anthony, the historic night was January 24, 2014, when he tallied 62 points against the Bobcats. I happened to write the game story that night for

In what was an otherwise disastrous 2013-14 season for his New York Knicks, Anthony at least turned in a performance for the ages. Still, most around the team were more surprised at the fact that those Knicks only managed to win 37 games than they were at Anthony’s taking the scoring title away from his friend, Bryant, whose record-setting night was also witnessed by yours truly.

On February 2, 2009, the poor Knicks had no answer for Bryant and the 61 points he dropped on them (on only 31 field goal attempts, mind you). But like Anthony, Bryant’s feat was amazing to witness, but not surprising. The fans in attendance mostly marveled at Bryant’s aesthetically-pleasing brand of basketball, but he was long known to be the best scorer the game has seen since Michael Jordan and on this night, he was obviously forcing the action.

Bernard King, Wilt Chamberlain, Ricky Barry and Michael Jordan were the others who put on extraordinary scoring performances at Madison Square Garden, with King being the only player aside from Anthony and Bryant to ever crack 60 points.

Officially, Curry’s 54-point night is the seventh-best scoring performance in the building’s history, putting him on a short list with some of the game’s greatest scorers.

What was most remarkable about it, though, was at the time, although there was some evidence that suggested that Curry was a capable scorer, there wasn’t much to suggest that he was historically good.

On that night in Madison Square Garden, Curry scored a career-high 54 points and converted a career-high 11 three-pointers. Prior to that performance, he had never scored more than 42 points in a game and he had only hit the 40-point mark twice.

Prior to that season, in fact, he had never even averaged as many as 20 points per game. In retrospect, looking back on it, that night in New York City was the night that Curry ceased to just be another “good scorer” and showed, on the biggest stage, that Allen Iverson isn’t the only miniature guard capable of single-handedly dominating a game.

Since then, he has proven that Iverson isn’t the only miniature guard capable of single-handedly dominating an entire season. Since Curry’s historic night, we have seen scores of coaches and defenders fail at finding a way to diminish his effectiveness. We can now look back at his career night at Madison Square Garden and know that it was no aberration; it was the his coming out party.

* * * * *

The Golden State Warriors enter play on November 8 at 7-0 and is the only remaining unbeaten team in the league. Although he is the team’s point guard, Curry is at the center of it all.

He is not insanely athletic like Russell Westbrook, but is probably the best ball handler in the league. Playing somewhat slowly and meticulously, Curry’s best attribute is the fact that he is just as effective at creating his own shot as he is at catching-and-shooting. When one considers that he is both a willing passer and has superb court vision, it is easy to understand how charging even a plus-defender with stopping Curry is the basketball version of sending a knife thrower into a gun fight.

No matter what scenario or position you put Curry in with the basketball, he is likely to succeed, because he doesn’t force anything and always plays within himself and the system. Most recently, he has shown a propensity to drive the ball to the basket, adding the final piece to an offensive repertoire that is literally unstoppable.

Many moons ago, I remember having a conversation with a fellow NBA scribe and mentioned that in Curry, I see the off-the-dribble shooting ability of Gilbert Arenas, the overall marksmanship of Ray Allen, the court vision of Jason Kidd and the sheer passing ability of Steve Nash. At the time, perhaps rightfully so, I was told to “take it easy,” so I did.

I wonder if I would receive the same directive today. And if I did, I wonder what it would take for the detractors to see Curry’s light.

Just how long does a player have to sustain their greatness before we can consider them to be a part of the “all-time greats” conversation? Certainly, if a random player manages to score 101 points in an NBA game we couldn’t really consider him to be a better scorer than Wilt Chamberlain, because Chamberlain himself not only scored 100 points in a single game, he managed to average over 50 points per game for the entire 1961-62 NBA season.

Most people wouldn’t consider Kobe Bryant to be the greatest NBA guard ever, but not even Michael Jordan managed to sustain his greatness for a period of 20 years. The same sorts of things should be said of Kevin Garnett. Certainly, as he and Bryant made the leap from high school to the pros, they had an opportunity to enjoy longer careers than many of their predecessors. Still, even some more contemporary players—Anfernee Hardaway, Grant Hill, Brandon Roy, and perhaps even Rajon Rondo and Derrick Rose—their lack of sustained greatness diminishes any place they would have had in history.

There is something to be said for longevity and sustained greatness. There is some line between being a flash in the pan and being “for real,” and I am not sure that we ever had to try to find an answer to that question, and I am especially not sure how that conversation would go with Curry. It is, however, time to have it.

Objectively speaking, Curry lacks the credentials that many of his peers do and he eight years into a career that really seems like it has just gotten started. But in such short order, he has become one of the game’s brightest stars. How long does he have to sit atop the mountain before he can rightfully have dinner with LeBron James? Or is he already at that point?

Does the 98 three-pointers he converted during the course of last season’s playoffs put him there? What about the fact that he has broken Ray Allen’s single-season record for three-pointers made twice over? If we are speaking objectively, it is only Curry’s shooting prowess that allows him to enter the conversation, otherwise, it seems blasphemous to declare Curry to be “the best ever” at anything.

That is, unless you have actually been watching, because Curry, although not having sustained his greatness for a decade, has already shown us things we have never seen and taken us to places we have never been.

As his Warriors continue their quest for their repeat, he will often recede in the shadows to allow the scores of other talented players on his team to bask in the spotlight. That, unlike many of his peers, is what makes Curry truly special.

Unfortunately, for those who simply look at cumulative statistics when attempting to truly recognize greatness, Curry may fall short. That’s unfortunate, but it’s also why we need to discuss this.

Stephen Curry may not be the greatest scorer ever, but, he is the greatest something ever. And like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, he is must see TV.

When it’s all said and done, he will have probably separated himself from the field, even if his statistics won’t necessarily reflect that.


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Reviewing the Nurkic Trade: Denver’s Perspective

The Denver Nuggets have been on a miraculous run this postseason, but that doesn’t mean that they’re infallible. Drew Maresca reviews the 2017 trade that sent Jusuf Nurkic from Denver to Portland.

Drew Maresca



The Denver Nuggets are fresh off of a 114-106 win over the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Conference Finals, pulling within three wins of the franchise’s first trip to the NBA Finals. But what if I told you that the Nuggets’ roster could be even more talented by acting more deliberately in a trade from three years ago?

While Denver won on Tuesday night, they lost a nail bitter on Sunday – for which most of the blame has been pointed at a defensive breakdown by Nuggets’ center Mason Plumlee, who was procured in the aforementioned 2017 trade. What did it cost Denver, you ask? Just Jusuf Nurkic and a first-round pick.

Nurkic was a 2014-15 All-Rookie second team member. He played 139 games over 2.5 seasons in Denver, averaging 7.5 points and 5.9 rebounds in approximately 18 minutes per game. He showed serious promise, but Denver had numerous reasons to pursue a trade: he’d suffered a few relatively serious injuries early in his career (and he’s continued to be injury-prone in Portland), butted heads with head coach Michael Malone and – most importantly – the Nuggets stumbled on to Nikola Jokic.

The Nuggets eventually attempted a twin-tower strategy with both in the starting line-up, but that experiment was short-lived — with Jokic ultimately asking to move to the team’s second unit.

The Nuggets traded Nurkic to the Portland Trail Blazers in February 2017 (along with a first-round pick) in exchange for Plumlee, a second-round pick and cash considerations. Ironically, the first-round pick included in the deal became Justin Jackson, who was used to procure another center, Zach Collins – but more on that in a bit.

As of February 2017, Plumlee was considered the better player of the two. He was averaging a career-high 11 points, 8.1 rebounds and 4.0 assists through 54 games – but it was clear that at 27, he’d already maximized his talent.

Conversely, Nurkic was only 23 at the time of the trade with significant, untapped upside. In his first few seasons with Portland, Nurkic averaged 15 points and 9.8 rebounds per game, while establishing himself as a rising star. As noted above, injuries have continued to be a problem. Nurkic suffered a compound fracture in his tibia and fibula in March 2019, forcing him to miss a majority of this current campaign. The COVID-19-related play stoppage in March gave Nurkic extra time to get his body right, and he returned to action in July inside the bubble.

And he did so with a vengeance. Nurkic demonstrated superior strength and footwork, and he flashed the dominance that Portland hoped he would develop, posting eight double-doubles in 18 contests. He averaged 17.6 points and 10.3 rebounds per game and while his play dipped a bit in the playoffs – partially due to a matchup with first-team All-NBA star Anthony Davis – he still managed 14.2 points and 10.4 rebounds in the five-game series. So it’s fair to say that Nurkic is still on his way toward stardom.

But the Nuggets are in the conference finals – so all’s well that ends well, right? Not so fast. To his credit, Plumlee is exactly who Denver expected him to be. He’s averaged 7.5 points and 5.5 rebounds per game in three seasons with Denver since 2017 – but to be fair, Plumlee is asked to do less in Denver than he had in Portland. Still, it’s fairly obvious that they’re just not that comparable.

Plumlee is a good passer and an above-average defender that’ll compete hard and isn’t afraid to get dirty – but he has limitations. He doesn’t stretch the floor and he is a sub-par free throw shooter (53.5 percent in 2019-20). More importantly, he’s simply not a major offensive threat and his repertoire of moves is limited.

High-level takeaway: Defenses tend to game plan for opponents they view as major threats – Nurkic falls into this category. Other guys pack the stat sheet through putback attempts, open looks and single coverage alongside the guys for whom opposing defenses game plan – that’s a more appropriate description of Plumlee.

On to the wrench thrown in by Zach Collins’ involvement. Statistically, Collins is about as effective as Plumlee – he averaged 7 points and 6.3 rebounds through only 11 games in 2019-20 due to various injuries – and he possesses more upside. The 22-year-old is not as reliable as Plumlee but given his age and skill set, he’s a far better option as a support player playing off the bench. He stretches the floor (36.8 percent on three-point attempts in 2019-20), is an above-average free throw shooter (75 percent this season) and is a good defender. Looking past Nurkic for a moment, would the Nuggets prefer a 22-year-old center that stretches the floor and defends or a 30-year-old energy guy?

Regardless of your answer to that question, it’s hard to argue that Nurkic should have returned more than Plumlee, definitely so when you factor in the first-round pick Denver included. There is obviously more at play: Denver was probably considering trading Nurkic for some time before they acted – did they feel that they could increase his trade value prior to the trade deadline in 2016-17? Maybe. Further, Nurkic and his agent could have influenced the Nuggets’ decision at the 2017 deadline, threatening to stonewall Denver in negotiations.

Had Nurkic been more patient or the Nuggets acted sooner before it became abundantly clear that he was on the move, Denver’s roster could be even more stacked than it is now. Ultimately, the Nuggets have a plethora of talent and will be fine – while it appears that Nurkic found a long-term home in Portland, where he owns the paint offensively. Denver can’t be thrilled about assisting a division rival, but they’re still in an enviable position today and should be for years to come.

But despite that, this deal should go down as a cautionary tale – it’s not only the bottom feeders of the league who make missteps. Even the savviest of front offices overthink deals. Sometimes that works in their favor, and other times it does not.

Continue Reading


NBA Daily: They Guessed Wrong

Matt John reflects on some of the key decisions that were made last summer, and how their disappointing results hurt both team outlooks and players’ legacies.

Matt John



It doesn’t sound possible, but did you know that the crazy NBA summer of 2019 was, in fact, over a year ago? Wildly, in any normal, non-pandemic season, it all would have been over three months ago and, usually, media days would be right around the corner, but not this time. The 2019-20 NBA season is slated to end sometime in early to mid-October, so the fact that the last NBA off-season was over a year ago hasn’t really dawned on anyone yet. Craziest of all, even though there will still be an offseason, there technically won’t be any summer.

Coronavirus has really messed up the NBA’s order. Of course, there are much worse horrors that COVID-19 has inflicted upon the world – but because of what it’s done to the NBA, let’s focus on that and go back to the summer of 2019. It felt like an eternity, but the Golden State Warriors’ three-year reign had finally reached its end. The Toronto Raptors’ victory over the tyranny that was the Hamptons Five – as battered as they were – made it feel like order had been restored to the NBA. There was more to it than that though.

Klay Thompson’s and Kevin Durant’s season-ending injuries, along with the latter skipping town to join Kyrie Irving in Brooklyn meant two things.

1. Golden State was down for the count
2. Brooklyn’s time wasn’t coming until next year.

A one-year window was open. Even if neither Golden State nor Brooklyn posed the same threat that the former did when it had Kevin Durant, those were two contenders out of commission. If there was a time to go all in, it was in 2019.

Milwaukee certainly seemed to go all in. For the most part.  Malcolm Brogdon’s departure seemed a little odd since he was arguably their best non-Giannis playmaker when they were in crunch time. Not to mention there was nothing really stopping the Bucks from keeping him except for money. Detractors will call out Milwaukee for electing to cheap out by not keeping Brogdon and hence, avoiding the luxury tax. However, there’s more to it than that.

Milwaukee thought it had enough with the core it had on its roster. Coming off the best season they had put up since the eighties, they believed the franchise built the right team to contend. There was an argument that keeping Brogdon may have been overkill with their guard depth – let’s not forget that Donte DiVincenzo did a solid job in Brogdon’s role as the backup facilitator. This would have been more defensible had it not been for Milwaukee picking the wrong guy to let go. That was the indefensible part- electing to keep Eric Bledsoe over Brogdon.

Bledsoe wasn’t necessarily a bad investment. No one’s complaining about an almost 15 point average on 47/34/79 splits or playing individual defense tight enough to get named on the All-Defensive second team. By all accounts, Bledsoe earns his keep. That is until the playoffs. Bledsoe’s postseason woes have been a weight ever since he first entered Milwaukee, and this postseason was more of the same.

Bledsoe’s numbers dwindled to just 11.7 points on 39/25/81 splits, and Milwaukee getting ousted in five games at the hands of Miami made his struggles stand out even more than it had ever been. Bledsoe may be the better athlete and the better defender, but Brogdon’s all-around offensive savvy and his only slight dropoff defensively from Brogdon would have made him a bit more reliable.

Milwaukee guessed wrong when they opted to extend Bledsoe before the postseason last year when they could have waited until that very time to evaluate who to keep around. Now they face a hell of a lot more questions than they did at the end of last season – questions that may have been avoided had they made the right choice.

Now they could have kept both of them, yes, but it’s not totally unreasonable to think that maybe their approach with the luxury tax would have worked and maybe they would still be in the postseason right now had they gone with the homegrown talent. And just maybe, there wouldn’t be nearly as much of this Greek Freak uncertainty.

The Houston Rockets can relate. They got bruised up by a team that everyone thought Houston had the edge on going into the series and then crushed by the Lakers. Now, Mike D’Antoni is gone. The full-time small ball experiment likely did not work out. Since the Rockets emptied most of their assets to bring in Russell Westbrook and Robert Covington, there may not be a route in which they can become better than they presently are.

The mistake wasn’t trading for Russell Westbrook. The mistake was trading Chris Paul.

To be fair, most everybody severely overestimated Chris Paul’s decline. He’s not among the best of the best anymore, but he’s still pretty darn close. He deserved his All-NBA second team selection as well as finishing No. 7 overall in MVP voting. OKC had no business being as good as they were this season, and Paul was the driving force as to why.

For all we know, the previously-assumed tension between Chris Paul and James Harden would have made its way onto the court no matter what. Even so, Houston’s biggest obstacle in the Bay Area had crumbled. If they had just stayed the course, maybe they’re still in the postseason too.

To their credit, none of this may have happened had it not been for the Kawhi Leonard decision. Had he chosen differently, the Thunder never blow it up, and Houston might have very well been the favorite in the Western Conference. Instead, the Rockets took a step back from being in the title discussion to dark horse. But at least they can take pride knowing that they weren’t expected to win it all – the Clippers can’t.

Seeing the Clippers fall well short expectations begs the question if they too got it wrong. The answer is, naturally: of course not. They may have paid a hefty price for Paul George, but the only way they were getting Kawhi Leonard – one of the best players of his generation – was if PG-13 came in the package. As lofty as it was, anyone would have done the same thing if they were in their shoes. They didn’t get it wrong. Kawhi did.

On paper, the Clippers had the most talented roster in the entire league. It seemed like they had every hole filled imaginable. Surrounding Leonard and George was three-point shooting, versatility, a productive second unit, an experienced coach – you name it. There was nothing stopping them from breaking the franchise’s long-lasting curse. Except themselves.

Something felt off about them. They alienated opponents. They alienated each other. At times, they played rather lackadaisically, like the title had already been signed, sealed, and delivered to them. The media all assumed they’d cut the malarkey and get their act together – but that moment never really came. They had their chances to put Denver away, but even if they had, after seeing their struggles to beat them – and to be fair Dallas too – would their day of destiny with the Lakers have really lived up to the hype?

Even if it was never in the cards, one can’t help but wonder what could have happened had Kawhi chosen to stay with the team he won his second title with.

Toronto was the most impressive team in this league this season. They still managed to stay at the top of the east in spite of losing an all-timer like Leonard. That team had every component of a winner except a superstar. They had the right culture for a championship team. Just not the right talent. The Clippers were the exact opposite. They had the right talent for a championship team but not the right culture. That’s why the Raptors walked away from the postseason feeling proud of themselves for playing to their full potential while the Clippers writhed in disappointment and angst over their future.

In the end, everyone mentioned here may ultimately blame what happened to their season on the extenuating circumstances from the pandemic. The Bucks’ chemistry never fully returned when the Bubble started. Contracting COVID and dealing with quad problems prevented Westbrook from reviving the MVP-type player he was before the hiatus. As troubling as the Clippers had played, the extra time they would have had to work things out in a normal season was taken away from them.

For all we know, next year will be a completely different story. The Rockets, Bucks, and Kawhi may ultimately have their faith rewarded for what they did in the summer of 2019 – but that will only be mere speculation until the trio can change the story.

Continue Reading


Looking Toward The Draft: Power Forwards

Basketball Insiders continues their NBA Draft watch, this time with the power forwards.

David Yapkowitz



We got some updated NBA draft news this week when the league announced that several key dates have been pushed back including the draft, the start of free agency and the beginning of the 2020-21 season.

The 2020 draft was originally scheduled for Oct. 16, but it will now likely occur sometime in November. Obviously, with the COVID-19 pandemic still wildly out of control in the United States, all of these potential deadlines are fluid and subject to change.

With that said, we’re continuing our position by position breakdown here at Basketball Insiders of some of the top 2020 draft prospects. We looked at the point guards and shooting guards last week, and this week we’re covering the small forwards and power forwards.

The power forward crop, like the draft overall, doesn’t appear to be as strong as recent years, that doesn’t mean there aren’t potential contributors and high-level NBA players available, as well as one who might just turn out to be a star-caliber player.

Onyeka Okongwu, USC – 19 years old

Okongwu is the player who just might develop into a star on some level. He was actually underrated in high school and was snubbed for a McDonald’s All-American selection his senior year. He established himself early on at USC as the team’s best player as a freshman and now appears to have turned some heads.

He’s been mentioned as a lottery pick and in some mock drafts, he’s top 4-5. He possesses a great all-around skill-set; he can score in the post, he can put the ball on the floor and attack and he can shoot. But perhaps his biggest attribute is his versatility on the defensive end. He’s got quick feet and mobility and can guard multiple positions.

Okongwu might actually play center in the NBA, especially in small-ball lineups, but he’s mostly played power forward and so he’ll probably see time there in the league. His skill-set fits perfectly with today’s game.

Obi Toppin, Dayton – 22 years old

Toppin is one of the older players in the draft, and in recent history, players that age tend to slip on draft boards. In Toppin’s case, it looks like the reverse might actually be true. He’s been projected as a lottery pick, and even going in the top 3.

He’s an incredibly athletic player who thrives in the open court. He looks like he’ll do well in an up-tempo offensive system that has capable playmakers who can find him in transition. He’s extremely active around the rim and he can finish strong. A decent shooter too, something he’ll need at the next level.

Toppin has the physical tools to be an effective defensive player, but that’s where the questions marks on him have been. In the NBA, he’s likely going to have to play and guard multiple positions. Whether or not he can adapt to that likely will answer the question as to what his ceiling can be.

Precious Achiuwa, Memphis – 20 years old

Achiuwa is another intriguing prospect. this writer actually got to watch him play in person while he was in high school and he was very impressive. He looked like a man among boys. He’s projected to be a late lottery pick.

He has an NBA-ready body and he’s got some toughness around the rim and in the paint. He was a double-double threat during his one season at Memphis and his knack for rebounding is something that should translate to the NBA. He’s a very good defender too, in particular, as a rim protector. He’s very quick and has the ability to guard multiple positions.

One of the main knocks on Achiuwa is his shooting ability. He didn’t shoot that well in college and power forwards being able to space the floor is almost a requirement in today’s NBA game. It’s something he can certainly work on and improve on though.

Honorable Mentions:
Paul Reed, DePaul – 21 years old
Xavier Tillman, Michigan State – 21 years old
Killian Tillie, Gonzaga – 22 years old

Continue Reading
Online Betting Site Betway
American Casino Guide
NJ Casino
NJ Casino

NBA Team Salaries



Insiders On Twitter

NBA On Twitter

Trending Now