A couple of days ago, former Nets guard, Mike James, said that Kyrie Irving deserved to be added to the Mount Rushmore of the most skilled guards in NBA history.

While James is entitled to his own opinion like the rest of us, what happened next rubbed Warriors fans the wrong way. After a fan called out James for vouching for Kyrie Irving and not Steph Curry, James responded by saying that Kyrie is more skilled overall than Steph and that Steph is just a better shooter.

To make matters worse, Kevin Durant seems to be on Mike James’ side as well, as he liked multiple posts on Instagram claiming that Irving is more skilled than Steph.

So, are Durant and James right? Or do they even have a fair argument? In my opinion, they may have a fair argument, but they aren’t right.

It’s true that skill is a vague attribute to quantify, but when most think of a skilled basketball player, they take the main statistical categories into consideration: scoring, passing, rebounding, shooting efficiency, etc. After that, there’s less statistical factors to consider as well—ability to perform in the clutch, a player’s “bag”, athleticism, gravity, etc.

When it comes to comparing “skill” stats, Curry beats out Kyrie in almost every category. Kyrie has been renowned as an other-worldly finisher at the rim, but he has actually shot a lower percentage at the rim in his career than Steph. Over his career, Steph has shot 65% from 0-3 feet out, as opposed to Kyrie’s 61% from that same distance. Now, granted, Kyrie has attempted more field goals in the course of his career from that distance than Steph (25% to Curry’s 17%), but the majority of Kyrie’s shots from inside the paint occurred at the beginning of his career. In the past 5 seasons, Kyrie has only shot 3% more field goals from 0-3 feet than Steph—22% as opposed to Curry’s 19%.

Steph also shoots a higher percentage from midrange than Kyrie does. Over the course of his career, Steph has shot 45% from 3-16 feet as opposed to Kyrie’s 44%. However, Kyrie has shot a much larger volume from that distance (15% of shots taken as opposed to Curry’s 8%).

When it comes to three-point shooting, Steph obviously has Kyrie beat by a landslide. A whopping 49% of Steph’s shots taken over his career have been three-pointers, and he’s made 43% of them. For Kyrie, though, the tree-pointer has been a much smaller part of his game, and a less efficient one, too. Only 31% of the shots Kyrie has taken have been from three, and he’s made 39% of them over the course of his career.

When it comes to rebounding and assists, Curry has Kyrie statistically beaten in that category, too. Steph has averaged 4.6 rebounds and 6.5 assists per game over the course of his career, while Irving has averaged 3.8 rebounds and 5.7 assists per game.

What about defense, you ask? Curry has averaged 1.7 steals per game over his career compared to Kyrie’s 1.4.

What about (in Max Kellerman’s words) “when it matters most?” From 2015-2019, Curry did not let his FG% drop under 44% in the clutch, and was in the top 10 for points per clutch game. While Kyrie was also in the top 10 for points per clutch game during that time span, his field goal percentage was lower—29% in the clutch.

When it comes to ball-handling, this can’t really be measured; however, in my opinion, Kyrie is a better ball-handler than Steph. Kyrie’s bag is perhaps the best in the history of the NBA, and he has a lower turnover percentage than Curry over the course of his career (2.6% to Curry’s 3.1%).

So, when it comes to all the major statistical “skill” categories, Steph has Kyrie beat. It’s true that Kyrie’s highlights and his post-up ability are Kobe-esque. It’s also true that measuring skill is quite subjective. However, the fact remains that what Twitter and Mike James deem as skill, Steph has the hard evidence to prove that he’s the more elite of these two historically elite guards.