On Monday night, Stephen Curry scored 53 points on nearly 60% shooting from the field (58.3% FG) to take his place as the greatest scorer in the history of the Golden State Warriors.

That, by itself, is not necessarily notable. He is one of the longest-tenured Warriors of all time, and his revolutionary weaponization (haters will say abuse) of the 3-point line immediately takes his scoring up a tick. What does make this milestone (and Curry's general success) notable is how he has managed to get here. Stephen Curry is one of the most game-changing talents of all time, and so is very unique.

But this 3-point revolution that started with Curry is not the trend that the NBA was predicting players going towards. LeBron James was supposed to be the next evolution of the game, a wing hybrid with the scoring prowess of Jordan and the vision and size of Magic Johnson. In a way, we sort of got that (re:: Giannis Antetokounmpo, Ben Simmons, etc.).

But those players aren't the norm. Since Curry exploded onto the scene with his 2014-15 campaign, Curry lookalikes have popped up all over the scene. The 3-pointer has now become the dominant weapon in professional basketball, thanks to his influence.

His place in the history of the NBA is significant and weird. So it stands to reason that he has had (and continues to have) his fair share of haters.

Those haters are all wrong. These are their worst affronts to the greatest shooter in NBA history:

 

1. Curry isn't explosive enough to be a star

Here is what an early scouting report said of Stephen Curry ahead of the 2009 draft, via Bleacher Report:

“He probably is never going to end up being a star in the league because of a lack of explosiveness”

Well, so much for that.

They're right, of course. It just doesn't matter.

Curry is nowhere near as dynamic or athletic as Russell Westbrook, John Wall, or even Kyrie Irving. Nothing about him really physically stands out. John Wall has his end-to-end speed, Westbrook is probably the most athletic and durable point guard in NBA history, and Kyrie Irving is the best ball-handler and accelerator in the league.

Shooting doesn't immediately stand out as an overwhelming physical skill. It's just that Steph is better than all three by miles at doing just that. He won't overwhelm you with a dunk on the break or a ridiculous ankle breaker (unless your name is Chris Paul), but none of these three guards consistently strikes fear into the hearts of fans like Stephen Curry does when he pulls up from 40 feet in.

 

2. Volume shooting isn't a sustainable form of offense

Welp.

Here's another scouting quote from Steph Curry's draft profile, this time from longtime NBA scout Stevan Petrovic:

“Will have to adjust to not being a volume shooter which could have an effect on his effectiveness”

If you were born past 1999, you might be too young to remember a time when the 3-pointer was a niche type of shot. Helpful to have, as proven by shooters like Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, and of course Larry Bird. But it was seen as icing on top of a cake. Nice to have, but unnecessary (and possibly unhealthy) in large amounts. We all know the saying after all: “Live by the three, die by the three”.

Basically, if the best thing Steph could do was shoot at his size, the conventional wisdom was that he wouldn't be able to sustain that type of volume against the athleticism of NBA-level defenders. Boy, how wrong they were.

Now, thanks to Stephen Curry, long-range assassins are the top tools to have on a team. Damian Lillard and James Harden now have the green light to just pull up from 30 feet. Trae Young wouldn't exist without Steph's influence. So this take is less about Steph than about threes in general, but Steph started that revolution.

 

3. Steph Curry can't finish at the hoop

This absurd mistake builds on the first one listed above. The same scouting reports that saw holes in Steph's game via his athleticism (or relative lack thereof) went on to predict doom for his finishing ability at the rim. He was seen as quick and shifty for sure, but how much could that translate into efficiency around the basket without outstanding quickness or bounce?

First of all, Steve Nash and Chris Paul are insulted by this take.

Secondly, kindly reference this breakdown of Stephen Curry's mind-boggling efficiency at the rim leading up to his MVP seasons. Not only did Curry leverage his touch to shots in the paint, but his shots from five feet in were dropping in at an absurd 70% in his 2015-16 campaign, first among all guards with at least 40 attempts. Currently, Steph is shooting almost 50% from inside the arc this season, and it stands to reason that these attempts are a big part of that.

Between his otherworldly shooting touch and possibly the most underrated handle in the league, Steph is simply one of the league's best finishers at the rim, size or no size.

There are plenty of other takes that are absurd about Stephen Curry. He continues to be one of the underrated greats in the league right now, and while everyone allows that he is a brilliant shooter, he still gets similar hate to the takes above. He's either too soft or too passive, or not willing to take over a game.

Well, tell the Nuggets that. Ditto for the 2015-16 Oklahoma City Thunder. Steph Curry is one of the greatest NBA players to ever lace them up, period. Enjoy him now, while his ankles last.