Sorry to jump in but what's the rationale behind "were to exclude Russell and Wilt"? Why exclude two players, despite playing in the early days of the NBA, that are on every player, coach, journalist, etc list of all time greats? Russell was as much a leader for his Celtics team as Curry is to his Warriors team. Wilt was as much of an game changing player as Curry is now. I really want to know what makes it okay to exclude these two guys or why you're singling out these two to try and put Curry in the Top 10 somehow.
Obviously Curry isn't a top-ten player of all-time right now, since career value matters. What some people are saying is that, right now, he's playing at the level of a top-ten player when you consider his off-the-charts scoring efficiency, great vision and passing, solid defense and good rebounding for his position. And before someone tries to say, "Shut-down defense or GTFO," neither Magic Johnson nor Larry Bird were anything close to shut-down defenders. At best, they were like Curry: okay on-ball defenders and smart team defenders. If he keeps this level of play up for a long time, he'll definitely be a candidate for top-ten all-time.
That's perfectly fine and all except that's not what they mean. There are people out there who really think Curry is top 10. ESPN rated Curry #3 greatest PG ever and top 25 player ever already. Wekko not only thinks he's the GOAT shooter which most would agree on, Wekko believes Curry is also GOAT scorer. Just flat out scoring the ball. He's GOAT according to Wekko. He's also GOAT dribbler according to Wekko. (i never understood the fascination with fancy dribbles. Curry's in particular are really just 1 or 2 moves usually behind the back or side to side and usually always utilize a screen to help fake the defender.) You compare to Magic and Larry's D which i agree, not bad, great hand-eye coordination which Curry also possesses and is a very underrated attribute, but Larry and Magic were dominating since college. Larry as a rookie turned the Celtics from a 20 win team to a 60 win team and ECF. Led them to the championship as a 2nd year player. Could you imagine if someone had those 2 first seasons of his NBA career on his resume in this live in the moment current world? He'd be instant GOAT. Though Magic had Kareem(another top 4 player in his prime at the time) Magic Johnson won game 7 virtually by himself with Kareem out and Magic started at C and played every single position. FMVP. HE WAS A ROOKIE. If a rookie did that today, he'd be instant top 5. People make a big deal about LBJ can play and defend every single position!!1 Pfft..No he can't and no he never has. Magic did it in a GAME 7 as a rookie. Magic has started and played full games at every single position throughout his career. Both Magic and Larry are great examples of being top 10 players without having played well into their late 30s. They both were pretty much done at 31 years old for HIV or chronic back problems. In Magic's case, he had just lost in the Finals, in Larry's case b4 the back surgery he had just came off averaging career best 30, 9 and 6 on 50, 40, 90 shooting at 31 years old. He was only getting better. Point is even though they were done at 31, they had been dominating since college at 18-19 years old. So you say if Curry can keep up this historically great season for longer than just this year, then he's top 10. Sure. As long as he puts in about 6 to 8 more dominant seasons at minimum, yeah, he'll be top 10. Time is not on his side. He'll be 29 next season. Most guard careers start winding down at that age no matter if they relied on athleticism or skill. He might end up going for the long haul like Stockton and Nash. That'd be amazing if he could, but something tells me he won't. BTW..i realize i may be coming across as a hater by passionately defending the history of the NBA over Curry. I'm not hating. Curry is doing his thing. All he can do is dominate his peers and he's doing it now, i just need to see it for much longer. I think it's disrespectful for the legends of the game to have put in a decade or more of dominant play only to be pushed aside by a player who's got everyone living in the moment. I also just can't see him carrying a team though and that's one of my biggest issues with placing him so high so early. It's why Isiah isn't on my top 15. These kind of players just can't carry teams, they need fully loaded teams to "lead." Curry to me is really the same player he's always been since his rookie year. Some nice in the box handles, deceptive quickness, lightning fast shot release at great efficiency. He's just green lit now on a great team. Klay might be the 2nd best shooter ever. They are on a team together..in a 3pt happy league. Of course they are killing it. Ray Allen and Nash and Draymond on the same team in their mid 20s surrounded by even more 40% 3 point shooters in this era could also dominate IMO.
Caesar, you are squarely putting longevity over peak. That would be fine if you even mentioned peak, but you don't. You are not reasoning, you are onesidedly shrilling why Curry isn't a top 30 candidate The reason I asume you are hating Curry is your consistent lack of admitting the guy is absolutely having a rather long stretch rivalling anyone in the top ten except Jordan and even that's closer than comfortable (his team now has the most wins, which left or right does matter). I understand this is absolutely disgusting for you to contemplate, but the guy has now two NBA records behind his name (shooting/wins). Saying that he isn't a top 30 candidate considering those facts... that's just absurd. Caesar, after this last post I still taste the dislike for Curry, quite simply because you flat out refuse to take some important facts into consideration, together with some covert goal-post moving (the top 30 ranting) in the guise of singling out a Curry fan. If you ask me, is Curry top ten now? Nope. Will he be after his career if he puts in one more season like this? Stretching arguably the biggest peak ever for a third year? I'd say it's hard not too....
Because it was an entirely different game back then, and as such, there's no fair way of evaluating them for comparative purposes. Even in his post, Calurker included an "obligatory Bill Russell". At what point does Bill Russell no longer become an "obligatory" inclusion? When Jordan first retired in 1994, he was already considered the GOAT. At that point, what had he done to surpass Wilt?
Curry's only playing in his 7th season, so its premature to dub him a greatest of anything YET. He had to play with Monta Ellis his first 2 seasons with the Warriors, then after they shipped Ellis off he was able to start sharing the backcourt with Klay. Still wasn't really considered anything better than a good shooting PG (maybe top 10 or 12 point guard in the league) before Green was swapped out with Lee last year and then Iggy starts to come off the bench as well. Once Mark Jackson gets the boot and Steve Kerr gains command of the ship the Warriors are then significantly better than they were in previous years, they're bench is as deep as ever with Iggy and Livingston able to man the offense as Klay and Curry take breaks on the bench. So in short, no Curry's transcendence into offensive efficiency hasn't just been his own doing but it had something to do with the turn of favorable events for Golden State's roster moves. I'll reserve my judgement of Curry's place in the all time list after he's nearly on his way out of the league. He hasn't even won his second championship or has helped lead his team to more than 2 NBA finals so how is it even reasonable to call him the best of "whatever" of all time??? I guess there's hype and then there's whatever they are doing to help boost Curry's popularity.
I never said Curry was GOAT. But yes, I do think he's the GOAT scorer. I'd like to hear your arguments why he isn't. After all, with his range and efficiency, he's a scoring threat unlike any we've ever seen (in the modern era). He's actually a legitimate scoring threat 30 feet from the basket. Not only that, he's one of the best off-the-ball players I've ever seen. Why not? Like Stockton/Nash, Curry's game isn't predicated on elite athleticism or speed. There's no reason it wouldn't age well. Curry just led his team to a title, the best regular season record of all-time, and finished the season as the NBA's leading scorer with percentages of 50/45/90. Not only that, did you see game 7 against OKC? Everytime they tried to make a run, Curry would step on their throat with a 3 pointer. If that's not "carrying a team", then I don't know what is. You remind me of people who attribute Tim Duncan's success to Popovich's system without realizing that Duncan was the foundation for Popovich's system.
Just to name a few things: three-time MVP (same as Wilt), three-time champion (more than Wilt), three-time FMVP (more than Wilt), six-time All Defense, former DPOY, seven-time scoring champ (same as Wilt), highest career scoring average in the history of the league. And the fact that he stepped away having won the last three championships, leaving everyone with the impression that he was definitely a winner, something one would not say about Wilt. You could also add in the endorsement he got from Magic, who in 1993 called MJ the greatest player ever, despite the fact that Magic himself would have easily been in the discussion. I could also mention the fact, as highlighted in Bill Simmons' book on the NBA, that many guys who played in the league with Wilt and Russell thought Russell was the better player.
I don't think he needs to keep playing at this exact level for 6-8 years, but something close to this level for 4-5 more years plus a few more great-but-not-historically-great years would likely land him in discussion for top-ten, IMO. 5 more seasons would be his age 29-33 seasons. 33 is on the outskirts of late-prime (roughly, I'd say prime is generally ages 27-32/33). Staying at or near this level, considering he doesn't rely on explosive leaping ability, for five more seasons doesn't seem far-fetched. Four more seasons is even more likely. He also has some "intangibles" going for him--he has Reggie Miller style "big moments" and Magic Johnson style spectacular play and clear love of the play. Neither of those specifically make a player greater, necessarily, but they matter to watchers and basketball is still, ultimately, an entertainment. And then, depending on how you view winning, he was the best player on the all-time "winningest" (favorite non-word ever) team and probably multiple-time champion. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops--right now, he's playing offensive basketball at a level that hasn't been seen before. Jordan's best seasons pale in comparison to Curry's in terms of scoring efficiency and Curry scored 30 PPG. It's not like he scored 19 highly-efficient points per game and thus can't be compared. Curry was a volume scorer who scored at the type of efficiency that big men who only shoot put-backs generally rack up. Unheard of. And then he adds great passing and even grabs quite a few rebounds. I'm fine with pumping the brakes on where his career ranks (there can be wide disagreement on where a player who's not even 30 will end up) but when people suggest that what Curry is currently doing is not historically remarkable, it looks strange.
Didn't Wilt have 4 MVP's? And the all-defense and DPOY awards are irrelevant since the DPOY was implemented after Wilt retired and all-defense teams started when Wilt was already in his decline. Not to mention the FMVP started after Wilt's first title. Plus, the highest career scoring average is mitigated by the fact that Jordan retired in the his prime while Wilt played through his twilight years. And regarding scoring, wasn't Wilt considered the greater scorer? After all, he holds the single game scoring record as well as the single season scoring record (50.4 ppg). That's because he only won 2 rings while Bill Russell won 11. Every player thinks his era is the greatest. So in summation, Jordan has 1 more championship and 1 more FMVP (I'm giving Wilt credit for his first championship) while Wilt has 1 more MVP and gaudier stats (9 seasons of 30+ ppg and 20+ rpg). Objectively speaking, Wilt has the better resume.....unless you penalize him for playing in a weaker era. And if you penalize him, to what extent should be penalized? Everyone has a different opinion. It's easier to craft a GOAT list using only players from the modern era.
Yes. I am. 1 season of 30ppg, 5 rpg and 6.4apg on a beautiful 50,45, 90 shooting season in 34 min. doesn't make you top 30. Tiny Archibald led the league in scoring(34ppg) and assists(14apg) in the same season which no one has ever done. No one gives a damn. T-Mac had a 30 PER at 23 years old scoring 32, 6.5,5.5 and no one gives a damn because it was one season. It was 1 great individual season. Only difference is Curry has a team full of players who can outplay him at any given night. Curry wasn't doing anything other than 3 point records when his team was mediocre. No one talked about Ray Allen even top 50 when he set the record previously. Biggest peak ever? That is absurd. You think averaging 25.9 on 48, 45, 90, with 4.7rpg, and 7.6 apg is the greatest 3 year peak of all time? You are the one that is absurd. You're right. I can't even deal with what you say. 2 greatest records? 3 pointers made have been largely irrelevant for nearly every decade of NBA existence til late 2000's. 73 wins? He had 17.9 WS. 15.7 WS last year. 13 WS the year before. Greatest peak ever? His team just won 73 games and he's not even top 40 in WS for a season. By comparison, MJ on 72 win team had 20.43 WS, and that's not even his best WS season. I'm not saying Curry needs 6 to 8 more 30 PER seasons of scoring 30ppg. He probably won't ever score 30 ppg ever again. He just barely hit 30 on the last game of the season after what's due to be his best peak season that can't be duplicated. GOAT scorer based on 1 30.1 ppg regular season. Right. Let's also just forget about Playoff scoring which he's been underwhelming in several series now stretching this whole Warriors run including the Finals last year and now game 1 of the Finals this year.. We've already discussed the ankle. You say there's no sign of it ever being hurt again, but he's already had several scares this year where he missed a few games for it. Stockton played 17 full 82 game seasons. The other 2 seasons? 78 games at 27 years old and 64 games at 35 years old. There is zero chance for Curry to last as long as John Stockton who was a freak in terms of stamina and health along with Karl Malone. Nash? Possible. Nash was an outlier hitting his peak so late or dare i say joining a system. Read up on WS. I don't know about that, but if both players were young and in the draft, i'd select David Robinson 10 times out of 10 to play his whole career under POP. Careers are largely defined by the path that some luckily walk with greatest organizations. Take Kobe for example. He'd probably be remembered no better than Nique (as he really should be) if he let himself be drafted by the Hornets and played there his whole career(i hate how he tries to re-write history and say the Hornets regret trading him when everyone knows he and his agent demanded only to play in LA). Instead he gets to play with Shaq for 3 titles and then the most dominant front line in the NBA at the time for another 2 and now he's top 10 to most, top 3 to some, GOAT to a few. Unbelievable to me. I give him top 15.
You really need to acquaint yourself with the concept of minutes played and shots taken before you sneer at how he "barely" reached 30 PPG. Other 30+ PPG scorers took significantly more shots and played more minutes. Curry's excellent team actually hurts him with superficial-stat fans like you, because he shares the ball and takes fewer shots. If he took the number of shots Jordan took, he'd have been around 40 PPG. Scoring 30 PPG, or even close to 30 PPG, with the amount of shots he took is absurd and led to a historic scoring efficiency. It's beyond valuable to put up that kind of production while not sapping a gigantic number of your team's possessions. It's a big reason why the Warriors were one of the greatest offenses of all-time, even accounting for pace.
No, of course not at this level. I agree. Considering i think this is only season 1 of all time great level. Last season, i 100% believe James Harden was MVP and Curry was default best player on best team. This year, Curry had 1 all time great peak season up there with the best of them, so of course all credit. But to me, this is just season 1 regardless of his better team winning it all last year against weak, injury riddled competition every round. Agreed. He's a fun player to watch. Has been since Davidson. I'll never understand why regular season wins is the only thing that matters to the record. Bulls are still the better team when you combine regular season + playoffs and were never threatened to be eliminated or down 1-3 like GS. Warriors have lost 1 more than the Bulls, and are bound to lose at least 2 more in the Finals IMO. Amazing team for this type of era though. I still see them as a 58-60 win team without Curry. See, that to me is absurd and a testament to how much advanced stats have taken over. Which is fine, i like advanced stats. But, blows Jordan's peak seasons out? eFG% or TS% hurts those who don't shoot 3's or don't just dunk on alley oops, etc. Jordan having to shoot 1 or 2 3's per game at late shot clock or half court heaves attempts doesn't help his efficiency. You're also looking at it from a point of view of todays game. Like i've said before, the 3 pointer was irrelevant for so long that, it's hard to really look at it historically when you can't compare with anyone but late 90s players and up and even those guys only shot like 4 at most. I mean just look at the all time eFG% leaders. It's a pretty irrelevant list. If you put a requirement on over 20ppg, it's probably just Wilt, Curry, LeBron, Dwight and Barkley. That brings me toward my confusion with advanced stats some times. Ok. Curry 30.01 ppg on 50, 45, 90 percentages. Tremendous. All time efficient. Greatest scoring season ever, yada, yada. Well why the **** is Larry Bird's 29.9 ppg on 50,40, 90 not up there? Why is it penalized? Because he only shot 3, 3pointers per game? I mean you can argue that's a better season than Currys because he also added 9.3 rebounds and 6.1 assists, and just as many steals and more blocks and less turnovers. How does that work? Can anyone explain that to me? He shot nearly 19 attempts from 2 at almost 55% and his eFG% reflects that and like doesn't even take into account his 40% from 3 and 90% ft. Yet Curry gets rewarded for shooting 11 3's per game and less 2's per game? Curry shoots more 3's than he does 2s. He has great 2pt % all directly attributed to his superior team setting screens or spotting up. The defense is too scared of the screen initially or too scared of the pass out to a 3 point shooter after Curry is headed to the basket. I'm truly dumbfounded when i watch Curry drive it in. He's so slow. He just jogs it up and does a little scoop lay up and no one blocks the **** out of it because they already got beat when they decided to watch the pass out because defending the 3 is more important today....or if they decide to stay in and defend the paint, they get beat on the pass out to a 40+% 3 point shooter spotting up which is killer so that's why most teams try and defend that instead of packing the paint to destroy Currys weak little drive. It's no wonder why Curry was usually mid 40% 2 point FG pre Klay and company shooting 40% or more from 3. So no, on my life i would never place him as an all time great finisher due to the last 2 seasons of finishing. His efficiency and scoring volume was tremendous this year. I just can't see him being replaced by the other greatest efficient scorers and them not duplicating the same numbers on the Warriors today. Of course there's no way of knowing. But, if you tell me Larry Bird gets to replace Curry and shoot 11 3's per game while still being dominant in the post and high elbow and off screens, he'd destroy Curry's numbers. That's just my humble opinion of course. Ray Allen had a 3 year stretch of 24.6ppg on 39% on 7 3's. 89.7ft% If Allen took 3 or 4 more 3's in 5 less minutes, he'd easily get 30 all 3 of those seasons. But that kind of **** just wasn't green lit back then and he didn't have other deadly shooters to help open his game up. Of course Curry is just flat out better than Ray Allen though. Just saying it's nothing incredible to me other than his 3 point shooting and i've already said how little that matters to me on the all time scope of things. Klay can outscore Curry on any given night with as many attempts and the efficiency probably wouldn't even drop much. No what if's though. It will be fun to see who builds a Warriors stopper in the coming seasons. As of now, i predict a 3 peat before losing in the 4th try much like the Lakers of the early 2000's. I think Klay is the first to demand a trade because he will be tired of being looked over and will want to carry his own team. When the rings are already there, all that matters at that point is pride, especially when you're seen as a #2. That's what T-Mac should have done with the Raptors but T-Mac never had the foresight or patience, but that's another story of career paths and bad luck. Durant is the same, juts bad luck playing a career with the Celtics big 3 and Lakers Gasol and Kobe, then the Heat big 3 and now the Warriors big 3. Durant needs his own big 3.
Yep. Heard this before. He played over 34 minutes. Took over 20 attempts in just over 34 minutes. People act like he played 25 minutes and averaged 30. Other players took "significantly" more shots. Like yeah, 2-4 more shots...2 point shots. Curry shoots 11 3's a game. Ray Allen averaged 25 an 26 on 19 attempts. Elite 3 point shooters rack up the points in bunches. Only difference is Curry is green lit more than other elite shooters and has a deadly team that allows him to finish easily. 22.4 career scoring average at 28 years old is what i sneer at pal.
The only difference is that he has an ability unlike any other to shoot three-pointers off the dribble and shoot from 28+ feet with consistency (he shot a number of 30+ foot three-pointers and hit at 35% on them--the league average on normal three-pointers...that's game-breaking). In other words, he's not just shooting Kyle Korver or even just Reggie Miller shots but more of them. He's a fundamentally different and far better scorer. And yeah, shooting threes allows him to score in bunches. That's not a bug, it's a feature--it's why he's more offensively potent than anyone who came before him. He's weaponized the three-pointer like no one who's come before. Then you're completely confused about what we're arguing about. I've never contended that he was scoring at the greatest level ever for his entire career. You might want to actually figure out what's being discussed before you start responding.
Didn't he average 26 ppg in last year's finals? Since when is that "underwhelming"? It's basketball. Ankle sprains are common. During these "scares", how many games did he miss? Also, it's imperative that you consider the nature of these "scares". I know that you like to keep your analysis as superficial as possible, but try to dig a little deeper. Do you remember Curry's ankle sprain against OKC in February? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L84ESPr192E Do you really think that sprain is a sign of "durability issues"? Every player in the NBA would've sprained their ankle in that situation. You're missing the point. There are styles of play that lead to longer careers. Nash and Stockton had that style. So does Curry. What's the point? The eye test is a significantly better tool. Let me know when you find a stat that quantifies momentum-killing baskets.
If I had to guess, it's because of 2 reasons. First, as players shoot more 3's, their accuracy tends to drop, but that's not true for Curry. Second, for a playmaker, its harder to create and make a 3pt attempt than it is a 2 pt attempt. That's why you can't simply say "if Bird shot more 3's in 1988, he would've been just as efficient as Curry". Plus, 50/45/90 has a better ring to it than 50/40/90. Also, regarding the comparison between 1988 Bird and 2016 Curry, keep in mind that Bird averaged an additional 5 mpg.
