Steph Curry and his place among the all-time greats

[Skydog]

🙄

...
Just ask Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Honestly, who would know better than them? Kareem says Larry Bird was the best player he ever played against and Magic says the same thing. If that’s not good enough to decide this then please tell me what is?

Are you going to take the word of some posters on DBR or some sportswriters over these immortal giants of basketball? Are you going to listen to some numbers-crunching nerd vainly trying to compare players across distant eras using stats?

Come on, let’s end this madness.

How does Kareem and Magic saying Bird is the best player they have played against make Bird better than Kareem or Magic??? Sorry, but that conclusion just doesn't follow.

[Steven43]

How does Kareem and Magic saying Bird is the best player they have played against make Bird better than Kareem or Magic??? Sorry, but that conclusion just doesn't follow.

Lol, no that’s not the point I’m trying to make in this instance. I’m saying Bird is included alongside them in the same tier. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Magic v Bird argument is less relevant and less provable than the fact of them being in the same elite all-time tier. I’m not trying to be greedy here. 😉

Let’s all just be happy for Steph and the Warriors. Can we agree on that?

[Skitzle]

Just a quick note I haven't seen anyone mention on Steph's greatness.

In 2015, the NBA was starting to move to a 'more threes' mentality. Steph and the Dubs hyper accelerated that transition by winning the finals and getting to the next 5.

In 2022, the NBA has fully transitioned/optimized to facing teams with incredible 3 point capabilities, and Steph still demolished the opposing defense.

The game has entirely changed to stop Steph but he's still unstoppable. I think this deserves mention.

The offensive efficiency splits with Steph on and off the court are unreal!

[Steven43]

Just a quick note I haven't seen anyone mention on Steph's greatness.

In 2015, the NBA was starting to move to a 'more threes' mentality. Steph and the Dubs hyper accelerated that transition by winning the finals and getting to the next 5.

In 2022, the NBA has fully transitioned/optimized to facing teams with incredible 3 point capabilities, and Steph still demolished the opposing defense.

The game has entirely changed to stop Steph but he's still unstoppable. I think this deserves mention.

The offensive efficiency splits with Steph on and off the court are unreal!

Yep, I think most of us agree he’s an exceptional player with a transcendent ability that has transformed the game.

Whether the change he helped usher in has produced a better, more enjoyable product for fans of basketball is questionable, but the transformation has occurred nonetheless.

[uh_no]

Just a quick note I haven't seen anyone mention on Steph's greatness.

In 2015, the NBA was starting to move to a 'more threes' mentality. Steph and the Dubs hyper accelerated that transition by winning the finals and getting to the next 5.

In 2022, the NBA has fully transitioned/optimized to facing teams with incredible 3 point capabilities, and Steph still demolished the opposing defense.

The game has entirely changed to stop Steph but he's still unstoppable. I think this deserves mention.

The offensive efficiency splits with Steph on and off the court are unreal!

but...but...nostalgia!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

🙄

If you had watched him play in his prime you’d understand, I think. Or maybe you did watch him at his best and you still developed some kind of bias against him which continues to this day.

Come on, let’s end this madness.

Saying that the only excuse for not diefying Bird is either acute bias or not being familiar isn't really making an earnest attempt to "end the madness."

I've said this many times on this board - any attempt to compare players across eras is an excuse in extreme folly. Curry, or Pistol Pete? Bird, or Wilt?

We all have different metrics - who won the most rings? Well, that would make these arguments incredibly simple and short.

Who had the best stats? Well, that's a bit more complicated - you could argue pts/assists/rbs as far as importance. You can go deeper into metrics for win shares or what not. But even that doesn't account for everything.

"Leadership." "Changing the game." "Intangibles." Meh - these are important but immeasurable.

If Jordan "refused to lose," and Bird "was the player other players hated to play the most," and Lebron "elevated his teammates more than anyone..." where do you go from there?

Clearly, we need a poll. A DBR user poll to settle this once and for all. Then we have a reference point to refer back to in the future, as well as a statistical basis for our conclusions.

*I need to go to the grocery for more popcorn*

[superdave]

Entering to point out that Bill Simmons is also a Boston homer and his 2010 Hall of Fame Pyramid has Magic #4 and Bird #5. His 2020 update inserts LeBron James at #2, sliding Magic to #5 and Bird to #6.

Exiting now. Carry on.

I give Bill Simmons’ take a bit more weight than a regular Boston homer. He doesn’t deal so extensively in irony, so I know what he is arguing when he argues it.

I have always been a Simmons fan. He goes out of his way in his book to give Magic the edge because Magic won a little more, his body held up longer, and a few other things.

I do like his idea that this is not just a list, but a pyramid, with the top guys being at the zenith. He has 16 guys there, and guys like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley on a level below. I suspect this list will be at 17 within a couple of years with the addition of Giannis.

[superdave]

If you're going to make the "higher level" argument, then I would argue that neither of those two guys (Bird or Magic) is a lock for top-10. Curry (in 2015 and 2016), for example, reached a higher level than Magic or Bird.

Simmons covers this in his book too. He says he thinks of a players peak season like a fine wine. He pairs up the best vintage of each guys to create the all-time superteam. I think he eventually goes with Jordan, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Kareem and has DWade off the bench. There's an interesting discussion of why you'd take Wade over Kobe even though Kobe had the better year - basically because Kobe would be a bad teammate and not recognize the pecking order. He emphaiszes how the pieces can fit together to make an actual functioning team, like Duncan's ability to slide and play the 5 for certain matchups.

Curry's best seasons were 2015 and 2016 and those were the peak seasons for a shooter ever. Better than Reggie Miller or Ray Allen or Larry Bird. I'd have to imagine he'd be first or second guy off the bench on the all-time team. It would also be interesting if he would bump Bird for LeBron in an update.

[Steven43]

I've said this many times on this board - any attempt to compare players across eras is an excuse in extreme folly. Curry, or Pistol Pete? Bird, or Wilt?

Well, I have put forth that message on occasion, including just yesterday. I don’t know if I’ve been as consistent with it as perhaps I should have been, but it is the way I feel. I prefer to compare players within the same era.

But yeah, these debates can be fun. It’s kind of like trying to time travel “Hey, I’ve got a great question. Who was better, Larry Bird or Steph Curry?” or “Who was better, Magic Johnson or LeBron James?” It’s entertaining, sure, but I just don’t think these things can be answered with any definitiveness.

I remember watching a show decades ago about who would’ve won if Muhammad Ali had fought Rocky Marciano. I took it very seriously, like the final truth was about to be divulged once and for all. I look back on it now and laugh at the concept, but it certainly was fun in the moment. 😊

[Truth&Justise]

I'd also wager that no-one else in my PERSONAL top 5, or even top 10, all-time has been to 6 finals and secured finals MVP only once.

Wonder if this debate would be different for you if Curry had won Finals MVP in 2015 (as he deserved).

I understand why media voters got swept up in the momentum and voted for Iguodala: his insertion to the starting lineup was a tactical change that swung the series in Golden State's favor, as Cleveland could not keep up with Warrior's smaller lineups. Hence, it was easy to just assume he was the difference maker in the series. And Iguodala is a wonderful, multi-faceted player, who made important contributions of 16.3 points, 5.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists, and 1.3 steals per game.

But anyone watching it knew the Warriors revolved around Steph, and it wasn't close. The numbers back it up, where Steph averaged 26.0 points, 5.2 rebounds, 6.3 assists, and 1.8 steals per game. Iguodala may have been a difference maker in tilting the balance, but Steph was the pillar on which Golden State was built.*

And even noting that Iguodala was tasked with defending Cleveland's best player, it's unclear how successful he really was when LeBron was averaging an otherworldly 35.8 point, 13.3 rebounds and 8.8 assists per game. Would he have averaged 50 if Harrison Barnes, rather than Iguodala, was defending him?

If anything, I'd consider LeBron the MVP of the 2015 Finals, as he put on an absurd display to win 2 games with his best healthy teammates being Timofey Mozgov, J.R. Smith, Tristan Thompson and Matthew Dellavedova.

But if it had to go to a Warrior, Curry was and is the obvious choice--except for NBA media voters, apparently.


*Note, this is the same dumb reason Tony Parker has a Finals MVP around that by all accounts should belong to Tim Duncan.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well, I have put forth that message on occasion, including just yesterday. I don’t know if I’ve been as consistent with it as perhaps I should have been, but it is the way I feel. I prefer to compare players within the same era.

But yeah, these debates can be fun. It’s kind of like trying to time travel “Hey, I’ve got a great question. Who was better, Larry Bird or Steph Curry?” or “Who was better, Magic Johnson or LeBron James?” It’s entertaining, sure, but I just don’t think these things can be answered with any definitiveness.

I remember watching a show decades ago about who would’ve won if Muhammad Ali had fought Rocky Marciano. I took it very seriously, like the final truth was about to be divulged once and for all. I look back on it now and laugh at the concept, but it certainly was fun in the moment. 😊

Sure. Debates can be fun and thought provoking. But insisting the one answer is correct, and insinuating that anyone who disagrees must have not paid any attention to basketball in the 80s is... not productive conversation.

[Steven43]

Sure. Debates can be fun and thought provoking. But insisting the one answer is correct, and insinuating that anyone who disagrees must have not paid any attention to basketball in the 80s is... not productive conversation.

That’s a fair comment. Point taken. ✅

[SouthernDukie]

That’s a fair comment. Point taken. ✅

You need to be more like me, Steven. Not so definitive in all of your comments. Milquetoast is the way to go. ��

And before anyone goes crazy, I’m only kidding. I do understand the point about having meaningful dialogue that isn’t cut off by definitive statements all the time.

[CDu]

Wonder if this debate would be different for you if Curry had won Finals MVP in 2015 (as he deserved).

I understand why media voters got swept up in the momentum and voted for Iguodala: his insertion to the starting lineup was a tactical change that swung the series in Golden State's favor, as Cleveland could not keep up with Warrior's smaller lineups. Hence, it was easy to just assume he was the difference maker in the series. And Iguodala is a wonderful, multi-faceted player, who made important contributions of 16.3 points, 5.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists, and 1.3 steals per game.

But anyone watching it knew the Warriors revolved around Steph, and it wasn't close. The numbers back it up, where Steph averaged 26.0 points, 5.2 rebounds, 6.3 assists, and 1.8 steals per game. Iguodala may have been a difference maker in tilting the balance, but Steph was the pillar on which Golden State was built.*

And even noting that Iguodala was tasked with defending Cleveland's best player, it's unclear how successful he really was when LeBron was averaging an otherworldly 35.8 point, 13.3 rebounds and 8.8 assists per game. Would he have averaged 50 if Harrison Barnes, rather than Iguodala, was defending him?

If anything, I'd consider LeBron the MVP of the 2015 Finals, as he put on an absurd display to win 2 games with his best healthy teammates being Timofey Mozgov, J.R. Smith, Tristan Thompson and Matthew Dellavedova.

But if it had to go to a Warrior, Curry was and is the obvious choice--except for NBA media voters, apparently.


*Note, this is the same dumb reason Tony Parker has a Finals MVP around that by all accounts should belong to Tim Duncan.

Yeah, MVP voting often comes out with strange "narrative" winners. I'm thinking back to Terry Pendleton winning the NL MVP, despite having 2 fewer WAR than Barry Bonds and fewer WAR than Sandberg or Larkin. But Pendleton was on the upstart Braves and had a career year, and got the award.

Similar story in the NBA, where LeBron and Jordan each should have won like 6 or 7 straight MVP awards, yet neither has won more than 5 total for their careers.

Curry was definitely the MVP for the Warriors in the 2015 Finals. LeBron was the real MVP of that Finals, but since the convention has long since become that the MVP has to come from the winning team, it should have been Curry.

[Wahoo2000]

Wonder if this debate would be different for you if Curry had won Finals MVP in 2015 (as he deserved).

I understand why media voters got swept up in the momentum and voted for Iguodala: his insertion to the starting lineup was a tactical change that swung the series in Golden State's favor, as Cleveland could not keep up with Warrior's smaller lineups. Hence, it was easy to just assume he was the difference maker in the series. And Iguodala is a wonderful, multi-faceted player, who made important contributions of 16.3 points, 5.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists, and 1.3 steals per game.

But anyone watching it knew the Warriors revolved around Steph, and it wasn't close. The numbers back it up, where Steph averaged 26.0 points, 5.2 rebounds, 6.3 assists, and 1.8 steals per game. Iguodala may have been a difference maker in tilting the balance, but Steph was the pillar on which Golden State was built.*

And even noting that Iguodala was tasked with defending Cleveland's best player, it's unclear how successful he really was when LeBron was averaging an otherworldly 35.8 point, 13.3 rebounds and 8.8 assists per game. Would he have averaged 50 if Harrison Barnes, rather than Iguodala, was defending him?

If anything, I'd consider LeBron the MVP of the 2015 Finals, as he put on an absurd display to win 2 games with his best healthy teammates being Timofey Mozgov, J.R. Smith, Tristan Thompson and Matthew Dellavedova.

But if it had to go to a Warrior, Curry was and is the obvious choice--except for NBA media voters, apparently.


*Note, this is the same dumb reason Tony Parker has a Finals MVP around that by all accounts should belong to Tim Duncan.

My beef with this argument is that Curry didn't do enough that there could even be a discussion. If he wanted that MVP, he needed to do what it took so that everyone would say it would be insane to give it to anyone else. Average 35 like LeBron did.

Secondly, what Igoudala did defensively (and offensively) after he was inserted into the starting lineup with the Warriors trailing the series 1-2 was remarkable. He held James, a 57% shooter that season, to 38% over the next 3 games (while scoring over 20 per game himself on good shooting), ALL Warriors wins. Steph was good in that series, no doubt. But there was an obvious and visible catalyst of change starting with game 4 that turned the tide of that series. And while as a culture, we're obsessed with scoring and the best offense, in this case the difference made by Iggy was SO obvious I think it would have required Steph to be "great" (i.e. 50 point games, scoring 20 straight in 4th q of a tight game, etc, etc) and not just "very good" to say he DESERVED the MVP. Certainly an argument can be made he would have been a valid choice, and I wouldn't have had an issue if they DID award him with it. But I don't think he "got robbed" by any stretch of the imagination.

[cato]

My beef with this argument is that Curry didn't do enough that there could even be a discussion. If he wanted that MVP, he needed to do what it took so that everyone would say it would be insane to give it to anyone else. Average 35 like LeBron did.

This is exactly what I am talking about with people underestimating Curry and his importance to the Warriors. Never mind that he was clearly the best player on the team — he didn’t chase the type of individual stats that the best player on the losing team chased, so somehow he is less of a player? I don’t buy the argument. Steph played within the team concept that brought home the trophy, and was the best player doing so. LeBron put up better numbers and lost.

Winning championships matters.

[SouthernDukie]

This is exactly what I am talking about with people underestimating Curry and his importance to the Warriors. Never mind that he was clearly the best player on the team — he didn’t chase the type of individual stats that the best player on the losing team chased, so somehow he is less of a player? I don’t buy the argument. Steph played within the team concept that brought home the trophy, and was the best player doing so. LeBron put up better numbers and lost.

Winning championships matters.

Then let’s put an end to all the discussion about the GOAT in basketball: It isn’t Lebron. It isn’t Wilt or Kareem. And it isn’t Michael Jordan. It’s Bill Russell.

[cato]

Then let’s put an end to all the discussion about the GOAT in basketball: It isn’t Lebron. It isn’t Wilt or Kareem. And it isn’t Michael Jordan. It’s Bill Russell.

Sure, you can make that argument. It doesn’t end the discussion, but it’s an argument many people have made. But that has nothing to do with someone underrating Steph because he didn’t put up a particularly stat-line while being the best player on a championship team.

[rsvman]

So your argument that Curry isn’t top ten is that people would have held his jersey and grabbed his arm? Like that has anything to do with his skill level? He would have ran circles around all of those guys. They wouldn’t come close to matching his conditioning.

All these arguments about how much better the athletes who play the game are today versus back then are irrelevant. Players would have conditioned to whatever extent they needed in order to keep up. Curry wouldn't have been able to be in the conditions emus now because we lacked the knowledge and equipment we have now.

It's like arguing how you would have impressed people in the 1970s using your current smart phone. Sure, except that in the 1970s you wouldn't have had your smart phone.

Jack Lambert, in the pro football hall of fame and considered by many to be one of the best middle linebackers of all time weighed 215 and ran a 4.8 forty. He might be a back-up in today's NFL. Does that mean he wasn't a great player, or that he shouldn't be in the Hall? Of course not. It's poppycock. Great athletes are great athletes. Had Jack been born 25 years ago, he would weigh more, be stronger, and be faster, and he would still be kicking butt.

[bundabergdevil]

All these arguments about how much better the athletes who play the game are today versus back then are irrelevant. Players would have conditioned to whatever extent they needed in order to keep up. Curry wouldn't have been able to be in the conditions emus now because we lacked the knowledge and equipment we have now.

It's like arguing how you would have impressed people in the 1970s using your current smart phone. Sure, except that in the 1970s you wouldn't have had your smart phone.

Jack Lambert, in the pro football hall of fame and considered by many to be one of the best middle linebackers of all time weighed 215 and ran a 4.8 forty. He might be a back-up in today's NFL. Does that mean he wasn't a great player, or that he shouldn't be in the Hall? Of course not. It's poppycock. Great athletes are great athletes. Had Jack been born 25 years ago, he would weigh more, be stronger, and be faster, and he would still be kicking butt.

To a certain extent, sure. I do think the evolution of the game and what is valued now would make certain players in the past less likely to be as dominant, regardless of their level of athleticism.