First of all, the claim is that he's one-dimensional. That isn't to say he can't do other things, it is just an objective statement based on how he chooses to play the game. However, you're more than welcome to try to refute the point with any kind of evidence.
Here's mine:
Stephen Curry 2021-22 Shooting | Basketball-Reference.com
Just from this year alone, his shooting stats tell you out of 1200 FGs, 968 (NINE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT) of them have been threes.
Not long twos, not midrange. Nine hundred and sixty-eight shots out of 1200 have been threes.
I can't believe people are in here trying to pretend like he really does anything else with any kind of regularity.
The Coli is weird.
You have objective numbers showing that Steph Curry gets 80% of his offense from the three, and you STILL have people saying "he does more than that".
Yeah, there is another 20% to account for, but how are you arguing that 80% is not significantly larger than 20%???
He gets out-assisted by a small forward, the other guard (Klay) guards the other team's best guard, and he can't stop literally any NBA guard from getting what they want.
What the fukk else does he do????? What aspect of basketball am I missing here?
Gravity is the weakest argument you could ever come up with simply because it applies to every single superstar that has ever played. T-Mac got doubled nightly. LeBron routinely has to drive through 3-4 defenders. Kobe was doubled or tripled every single game.
Here is a picture of Prime Shaq:
Why the fukk are y'all acting like a star player being doubled and tripled is anything new?????
Just because his scoring is primarily taking three-point shots doesn't make him
one-dimensional. Kyle Korver is someone who was one-dimensional; he ran around screens to shoot, and didn't do anything else of note, because he couldn't. Steph can score efficiently from every space of the floor (OFD or C&S), and really nobody in NBA history can lay claim to that. Just because he isn't as active from the midrange as he once was doesn't mean he's one-dimensional - he can still score from that zone just as efficiently as anyone, but because a 3 is worth more than 2, it only makes sense for 3s to be his shot selection diet, and the midrange is only complementary to that.
That's how the NBA operates now.
Ask yourself, why the hell would Steph shoot more long 2s when he's the greatest 3-pt shooter ever? Why would he not take the shot that results in more points? Just to appease some bum ass nxgga on a msgboard that he isn't one-dimensional?
Never mind the fact that calling a player one-dimensional is disrespectful too. You don't call someone that as a term of endearment or praise.
It's insinuating that he doesn't do anything else, and it's insinuating that the one thing that Steph does isn't greater than someone who you perceive has a more varied game. Judging by how you argue I can see you've been surrounded by Casuals before joining this board. You're far too literal and black/white with how you view the game, especially using surface stats in the manner that you do. I can tell nobody has been able to point out the holes in your thinking.
Furthermore, if you were to layer your point about Steph shooting 3s, it's not like he's standing in a corner and waiting for the ball to shoot a set-shot. That would be one-dimensional - that would be what P.J. Tucker essentially is on offense. Nobody in the history of the game shoots the ball in as many different ways as he does: PnR, catch-and-shoot, ISO, pulling up from x-feet behind the arc, coming off screens, setting screens and splitting behind the arc, all at varying angles whether his feet are set or not. He takes impossible shots and makes them look like they're normal. There's nothing one-dimensional about his approach to shooting/scoring. Take Dame for instance, who regularly comes to dead-ends in the playoffs largely because once you cut off his water by forcing the ball out of his hands or trapping him, he's not going to run around endlessly to free himself to get open. He's someone that isn't active without the ball. That's the difference between him and someone like Steph, who is constantly moving to find openings and/or getting the ball back when it's been forced from his grasp. That's what separates Steph from other stars, and why he and his team have had the success they've had. He's changed the way the game has played and nobody has been able to replicate it. It's why I told you that you will not get a superstar who is willing to sacrifice his time of possession and surface stats for the betterment of the team. Steph is out there leading the monster away from the main group, so his teammates can
get away.
Steph is quite literally the
least one-dimensional player in the game. He can be a dominant ball-handler if his team needs him to; he can play off-the-ball to allow players like Draymond and Iggy to have a greater role on offense; he is equally adept at playing with and without the ball, and with every single style and temperament of player. He can score at all three levels, he can playmake without needing to monopolize the ball, he'll run around distracting defenders to open up the floor for his teammates., he'll set off-ball screens for his teammates to get open, he won't encroach on his teammates' skillsets.
He's a chameleon.
You keep trying to reiterate this point about his assists. Why do you have such a hard time comprehending that the Warriors offense generates more open/easy scoring opportunities than any system ever because of how unselfish he is? He could easily dominate the ball and put up however many assists it is you want him to reach, but the offense would be less effective. His teammates wouldn't get the open shots they typically get, his teammates wouldn't get to touch the ball as regularly as they do (the chemistry is created by everyone touching the ball; there's a special magic to everyone being involved that makes them a better team), and they wouldn't be as effective on offense.
Draymond getting more assists doesn't mean he's a better passer or playmaker. Draymond is used in that role because once Steph takes out his man and Dray's man, Draymond can then find the open man with the 4v3 (even 4v2) advantage that Steph creates. Steph could just as easily be in a D'Antoni-style offense where he's strangling the life out of the ball, putting up 30 ppg and 10+ assists, but again, that wouldn't make the team better. That literally goes against your argument of him being one-dimensional because he can be a playmaker with the ball when he needs to, and he can create secondary playmaking opportunities for his teammates, allowing them to actually have a purpose and impact in the offense. The Warriors would not have the success they've had if Steph wasn't willing to play off-the-ball like he does because players like Draymond wouldn't have a whole of impact on the offensive end.
Posting a still of Shaq dunking is not a reflection of gravity. Defenders are typically in/around the paint, as that's the norm of NBA defense (especially during that period in time), so it only stands to reason if someone is in the midst of dunking that there's going to be defenders around him. If you don't understand Steph's gravity after all these years, and how it differs from every other star to play the game, well, there's no hope for you.
I still love Kobe more though 
