Stephen Curry book-ended All Star Weekend with his best performance followed his worst.  What was notable about the awful performance was how it didn’t look much different from the great one: The difference was merely a matter of shots falling.

That might sound cliche (Duh, players look better when their shots go in), but think about some other guys in the L.  When Dwight Howard shanks his spastic embryonic hook off the backboard, he looks like a football star ruining a celebrity game.  When Biedrins has the same problem he looks…like this year’s Biedrins.  On a bad night, a casual observer could mistake Andre Miller for a D-Leaguer. On a good night Tim Duncan’s heroic efforts go unnoticed.

Aesthetic qualities matter in how we judge players.  And the main aesthetic focus for a fan is the shot.  Face it: The common NBA viewer ignores defense, rebounding, and passing (unless a famous point guard is passing), and sports media cater to that sensibility.  It’s all about the points, the prettier, the more difficult-looking, the better.  Per all that, John Krolik of Cavstheblog.com once broke down the Lebron vs. Kobe “debate” with stunning eloquence:

“One of my chief arguments for LeBron as basketball’s best player over the years is that the most valuable skill in basketball is not the ability to convert difficult shots, but create easy ones.”

When Kobe was in his prime, the 30-foot fadeaways, up-and-under scoops, and vast array of off-balance jumpers were enough to convince fans of his preeminence.  It didn’t matter if other guys were more efficient because Kobe’s game was more entrancing.  The casual fan didn’t have to focus on anything but Bryant attempting (and often making) ridiculous-looking shots.

People went deep with attributions for their artistic preference. LBJ’s brutal moves to the cup, smart passing, and better rebounding were discounted as products of physical prowess, while KB24’s skills were held up as some sort of protestant work ethic ideal. I’m using the past tense with this graph because anyone who clings to the “Kobe is better now” argument has fallen off the precipice of bias and into the sea of delusion. Seriously, the puppet show’s over.

This brings us back to Curry, who has an incredibly visually pleasing game.  The behind-the-back dribbles, perfectly controlled up fakes, and passing vision all matter. But it’s about the shot.  I’ve written about how quick it is—how it flies straight up in the air.  That impresses, but there’s something else behind the split-second motion that hypnotizes me: He looks completely at ease.  This isn’t what you’d expect from a player’s son. Mike Dunleavy Jr. has decent form, but his motion looks mechanical and joyless—what you would expect from someone essentially raised to play ball. I’m hurtling into the subjective here, but Curry’s shot is so fluid that he appears born—not taught—to play basketball.

I claimed recently that Curry was Hater Target No.1, but success is changing that sentiment.  Most would say Steph’s currently ROY runner-up to a human layup.  The advanced stats aren’t lavishing that sort of praise, though. His metrics are decent…for a rookie.  An average-ish PER of 14.14 is but one example of numbers that would be “meh” stats for a veteran NBA guard playing at the Dubs’ pace.

This worries me because Curry’s greatest strength is outside shooting. While a great outside shot assures you a spot on any club (then your career goes forever, ending with three years on the Spurs), it’s also a skill that improves for many young guys.  Tyreke Evans will eventually develop a passable jumper to pair with his physical gifts. Curry can only sharpen his already sharp skills.

So perhaps Curry is overrated. Or you could say that Steph’s playing better than he is. When we love his style, we might be recognizing an intrinsic star quality that transcends any numerical process.  He’s got “it” and that’s that.  We might also be deluding ourselves due to Curry’s form, poise, and class.  Steph’s future productivity hinges on whether his spectacular basketball aesthetics are predictive.
Discuss this piece and more in our forum.

Follow Sherwood Strauss on Twitter.

Email Sherwood Strauss @ [email protected]

Be Sociable, Share!

•