You're an NBA Coach. How do you stop Steph Curry?

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The fact that you couldn't provide any analytical reasoning whatsoever as to why the strategy in the article wouldn't work distinctly shows me who's really the dummy!

The problem with that theory is, it's still better to play the percentages if you're ahead of the Warriors in the clutch - the "intangible effect" reasoning of taking the Warriors' offense or Curry out of rhythm doesn't make much sense when the math and difficulty of hitting a 3 (at his percentage, which is considerably lower than sending him to the line for two points - even taking into account possessions) is the smartest option for the defense to force the offense into taking. If he's sinking 28-ft three-pointers while being guarded - you live with it. Curry's not the type of player did get out of rhythm if you send him to the line. It's not worth the risk trying to disrupt his rhythm by giving him two free points when he's just as likely to hit a three in the next possession, regardless if he missed or made his last shot, or if he hasn't taken a shot in the last five minutes.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The fact that you couldn't provide any analytical reasoning whatsoever as to why the strategy in the article wouldn't work distinctly shows me who's really the dummy!

Did you even read the article you posted? The writer already acknowledged the theory is NOT about mathematical reasoning (because he acknowledges it's not the smart option, mathematically), bu rather the intangible effect of getting Curry and the Warriors' offense out of sync. That game is far too dangerous to play, since if GS is playing their small-ball death lineup and they get stops on the other end - it'll be a losing game for the team in front.

 

[O.G.B]

The problem with that theory is, it's still better to play the percentages if you're ahead of the Warriors in the clutch - the "intangible effect" reasoning of taking the Warriors' offense or Curry out of rhythm doesn't make much sense when the math and difficulty of hitting a 3 (at his percentage, which is considerably lower than sending him to the line for two points - even taking into account possessions) is the smartest option for the defense to force the offense into taking. If he's sinking 28-ft three-pointers while being guarded - you live with it. Curry's not the type of player did get out of rhythm if you send him to the line. It's not worth the risk trying to get out of rhythm by giving him two free points when he's just as likely to hit a three in the next possession, regardless if he missed or made his last shot, or if he hasn't taken a shot in the last five minutes.

Did you even read the article you posted? The writer already acknowledged the theory is NOT about mathematical reasoning (because he acknowledges it's not the smart option, mathematically), bu rather the intangible effect of getting Curry and the Warriors' offense out of sync. That game is far too dangerous to play, since if GS is playing their small-ball death lineup and they get stops on the other end - it'll be a losing game for the team in front.

Right on breh, appreciate the constructive dialogue. I don't agree with the overall sentiment of the entire article I posted & while you're right with what your saying overall, I do think that maybe the hack a curry could work in some scenarios, but of course not in the entire course of the game itself.

 

[O.G.B]

Lol. Certain situations huh? If the other team is up why foul the best ft shooter in the nba? That's a guaranteed 2 more than not which puts pressure on ur offense to keep scoring. There's a reason why they do hack a Jordan/shaq. They're awful and banking on missing at least 1 guaranteed.

Even if you do what I've said earlier and make curry drive he's what 55-60% from 2 pt land? That's far less than 90+%. Give up a contested 2 vs a 3 or an easy 2 ft.

Simple. Because at the rate that Steph is shooting the 3 ball, 2 points are of course better than 3 for the other team And the 2 pts at the line aren't 100% guaranteed no matter how great a free throw shooter Curry is. Also if the other team has a decent points cushion somewhat (7 or 8 points), by using this strategy, lets say within the last 3 minutes of the game, it allows the other team to immediately get the ball back and run down the clock on offensive. Also keep in mind that in this scenario GS may be already be in the penalty which also puts pressure on them as well not to foul and give the other team easy points at the foul line during crunch time.

 

[<<TheStandard>>]

If only he didn't get hurt

He wanted to show the world why he's FIRST TEAM ALL DE-FENSE and did just that

You need someone like Tony Allen. Someone who puts his entire priority into defense. If he's going to get his shots, then make him work hard for it

This doesn't work either in the era where you can play zone, shade, & there's no illegal defense. In the playoffs, Kerr basically made the adjustment of not guarding Tony Allen and flat out leaving him open and he basically became a liability. The grizzlies basically were playing 4 on 5 on offense and were essentially drawing dead.

You basically need KCP or Avery Bradley someone who can dedicate their time to defense but not be a liability on offense.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You basically need KCP or Avery Bradley someone who can dedicate their time to defense but not be a liability on offense.

Yeah, you see it. They're basically the only two players in the league who make a difference on Curry - while still being valuable on the other end of the floor.

 

[Family Lives Matter]

Small pox

 

[Squirrel from Meteor Man]

Trap on all ball screens, switch all off-ball screens, and attack him on offense. When he has the ball it's gotta be force sideline and make him drive. Still dangerous because he can step back and shoot, but that would be your best chance.

 

[Truefan31]

Simple. Because at the rate that Steph is shooting the 3 ball, 2 points are of course better than 3 for the other team And the 2 pts at the line aren't 100% guaranteed no matter how great a free throw shooter Curry is. Also if the other team has a decent points cushion somewhat (7 or 8 points), by using this strategy, lets say within the last 3 minutes of the game, it allows the other team to immediately get the ball back and run down the clock on offensive. Also keep in mind that in this scenario GS may be already be in the penalty which also puts pressure on them as well not to foul and give the other team easy points at the foul line during crunch time.

The whole premise of the hack a shaq is playing the percentages. You give up a contested 2 or 3 which is not a 90% success rate for even curry. You foul intentionally you have a 90+% of giving up 2. And u stop the clock with a lead. It's a negative situation all around.

Last 3 minutes of the game? You do know that under 2 minutes if u do that curry gets the ball AND the Warriors get the ball too right? Look I'm not tryin to insult you but there's a reason why no nba coach has implemented this so called strategy.

 

[Supercoolmayo]

After every 3 you get a teammate to try to fade him

 

[O.G.B]

The whole premise of the hack a shaq is playing the percentages. You give up a contested 2 or 3 which is not a 90% success rate for even curry. You foul intentionally you have a 90+% of giving up 2. And u stop the clock with a lead. It's a negative situation all around.

Of course your playing percentages, which is exactly my point.

And your "premise" is WAY off because you're using random conjecture without any statistics to back your hypothesis.

Curry in the 4th quarter with less than 3 minutes left in the quarter:

While Steph doesn't shoot 90%, in FACT in the 4th quarter:

If it's between 6-10 points, Steph shoots a crazy 88.9% (15 FGA)

If it's a 5 point (or less) game, Steph shoots 57.6%(32 FGA)

Stephen Curry 2015-16 Shooting | Basketball-Reference.com

5 point game, 2 minutes or less. Stephen Curry is shooting 55.6%, 53.8% on 3s. 96.3ft%. 82.9ts%. GSW is 14-1 in those games

Last 3 minutes of the game? You do know that under 2 minutes if u do that curry gets the ball AND the Warriors get the ball too right?

This shouldn't be rocket science breh. But you do also realize that the other team also gets the ball back as well right?

Again the key is trying to prevent Curry from consistently scoring 3 pts within the last 2 or 3 minutes of the game where he's most deadly & when the other team has a points cushion (6-10pt) while allowing the other team to run down the time clock as much as possible.

Look I'm not tryin to insult you

Nor am I I trying to insult you either. This is just a general debate based on the topic, it ain't that serious.

but there's a reason why no nba coach has implemented this so called strategy.

Just because the "Hack a Curry" hasn't been implemented in certain scenarios by "NBA coaches" doesn't mean it won't or wouldn't work.

 

[Truefan31]

Of course your playing percentages, which is exactly my point.

And your "premise" is WAY off because you're using random conjecture without any statistics to back your hypothesis.

Curry in the 4th quarter with less than 3 minutes left in the quarter:

While Steph doesn't shoot 90%, in FACT in the 4th quarter:

If it's between 6-10 points, Steph shoots a crazy 88.9% (15 FGA)

If it's a 5 point (or less) game, Steph shoots 57.6%(32 FGA)

Stephen Curry 2015-16 Shooting | Basketball-Reference.com

5 point game, 2 minutes or less. Stephen Curry is shooting 55.6%, 53.8% on 3s. 96.3ft%. 82.9ts%. GSW is 14-1 in those games









This shouldn't be rocket science breh. But you do also realize that the other team also gets the ball back as well right?

Again the key is trying to prevent Curry from consistently scoring 3 pts within the last 2 or 3 minutes of the game where he's most deadly & when the other team has a points cushion (6-10pt) while allowing the other team to run down the time clock as much as possible.



Nor am I I trying to insult you either. This is just a general debate based on the topic, it ain't that serious.



Just because the "Hack a Curry" hasn't been implemented in certain scenarios by "NBA coaches" doesn't mean it won't or wouldn't work.

you're only proving my point bruh. Even with your stats that you posted to prove your point, all it did was show me curry shoots 96%ft in crunchtime, higher than his 3pt%, higher than his 2 pt%.

Again, if you're leading the game, why are you going to intentionally foul the best ft shooter in the nba, who by your stat shoots over 95% AND STOP THE CLOCK. That's all negative things if you're the team winning. Warriors get an easy 2 points and the game extends longer than it has to.

"This shouldn't be rocket science breh. But you do also realize that the other team also gets the ball back as well right?"

Under 2 minutes left if you intentionally foul curry he gets 2 ft and possession. are you going to keep hacking curry? because the other team will never see the ball. Understand? And again you're giving up easy points AND STOPPING THE CLOCK.

 

[SeveroDrgnfli]

I've never played or coached BB competitively, but I've played and coached soccer competitively. There's no such thing as an unstoppable player. Maybe this is only true in soccer. I think about how I'd stop Curry a lot. In soccer we'd call Curry a finesse player. They play pretty and methodical not fast and powerful.

I'd terrorize Curry mentally, physically, and emotional. If everyone on my starting line up didn't foul him hard I'd bench them. I'd delay his plane if possible. Food poisoning. Surprise wake up calls. I'd deflate their balls and talk so much shyt about him the league would have to fine me to get me to stop. I'd troll his life hard too.

I'd have the crowd holding up some slick ass signs about him cheating on his wife. I'd even question the legitimacy of his child if it'd get me a championship. I don't that nikka, so fukk his entire life.

There's a point in your competitive career where you have to decide if you're going to allow yourself to be a loser.

 

[jaguar paw]

I've never played or coached BB competitively, but I've played and coached soccer competitively. There's no such thing as an unstoppable player. Maybe this is only true in soccer. I think about how I'd stop Curry a lot. In soccer we'd call Curry a finesse player. They play pretty and methodical not fast and powerful.

I'd terrorize Curry mentally, physically, and emotional. If everyone on my starting line up didn't foul him hard I'd bench them. I'd delay his plane if possible. Food poisoning. Surprise wake up calls. I'd deflate their balls and talk so much shyt about him the league would have to fine me to get me to stop. I'd troll his life hard too.

I'd have the crowd holding up some slick ass signs about him cheating on his wife. I'd even question the legitimacy of his child if it'd get me a championship. I don't that nikka, so fukk his entire life.

There's a point in your competitive career where you have to decide if you're going to allow yourself to be a loser.

 

[#1 pick]

Play him single coverage, if he gets hot you double him and force other players to beat you. I wouldn't have even let him get the ball in the build-up to that half court shot.

The Hawks did this strategy, we had success with it but we got two very good PG's. Even then, Golden is so good outside of Curry, it don't work so easily.