Bird and Magic were absolutely not "elite" at defense. Bird is probably most comparable to Curry in that both were smart team defenders who could be exploited one on one (Bird due to lack of quickness, Curry due to lack of size). I realize Bird had a couple All-Defense second teams, which doesn't make him elite, but you could argue separates him from Curry--however that IMO is a relic from a different era, where one-on-one defense was far less emphasized/focused on than today. I don't think Bird would have any All-Defense berths if he played today.
Teams switch to avoid giving up open 3 point shots to ball handlers coming off the high screen. I don't see how this is even debatable. Why would Boston switch Horford onto Curry or the Warriors switch Looney onto Harden in all those playoff series otherwise. If they don't switch, this leaves Curry, Harden open to shoot the pull up three and their defender behind the screen. Surely you don't believe OKC wanted to switch Kanter onto Harden in all those games. This play (shooting threes out of the high screen) was quickly adopted by the rest of the league and caused switching to become ever more prevalent. The only other option to defend this is either trapping, hedging or showing. (and preswitches) But each of these forces the defense into rotation and 4v3 situations.
You are saying switching was to contain Curry, I am saying that the Warriors were the team to champion switch everything, then it was the Rockets. This was years ago. The switching is done not to contain three pointers with the actual switch - that actually makes it easier for a 3 point shot, but to prevent the penetration. The reason it works against 3 point shooting teams is that it allows a defender to play up closer to an offensive player without worrying about getting screened. Also should be noted that a lot of the switches are off ball.
On paper and eye test you see the top 10 rank, but it's just so hard to pick who falls out and then you've got KD, Giannis, and even Kawhi could make a huge leap from top 20-30 if he goes on to have another ring or more. Do Joker and or Embiid make a huge jump with their own rings in the coming years? Does Luka keep putting up monster stats and then 1 ring puts him = to or greater than Dirk = luka top 20? Who the hell keeps dropping back? At what point is this list starting to resemble a greatest offensive players of all time list? What do you do with all the legacy OG's that paved the way? Stephen A already trying to remove Wilt(even mention maybe removing Bird from top 10). That's insane to me. How far will they keep moving Hakeem back? I swear some people today don't even have him top 20 anymore behind guys like Giannis and KD, and Steph.
Bird was very near elite of a defender. Not sure how you can say he was average. And you can't take a player from a different era and plug him in today any more than you can take Curry and plug him into the 90's. Magic wasn't known to be a great defender but he was far better than curry. He rebounded the ball better, he challenged shots better due to his size, and he was a leader in steals. Curry is the weakest defender on his team.
You literally said all of the other top-ten guys were elite or near-elite on defense. So at least you're retracting that. Gonna have to agree to disagree. Curry, Magic and Bird were pretty comparable defenders, they just had different weaknesses. Curry is actually a pretty damn good defender, pound for pound. He works hard, he has excellent footwork, he's even added strength to his frame. He's also smart and has great awareness for what's happening around him. If he were 6'6'' and 200 lbs, he'd be a great defender. Of course, he's not that large, so he can be overpowered in the post and he can be shot over--that's his weakness. Bird and Magic struggled with defending quicker wings and guards because their lateral quickness/agility wasn't great and neither of them were explosive athletes so while both put effort into contesting shots, they were largely ground bound and their contests weren't very threatening. I've watched all these guys live. They all belong in a similar class, IMO: brilliant, gifted offensive players who made their team's offenses much, much better, but who had physical limitations that put upper bounds on what they could do defensively even though they mitigated that with smarts, effort, awareness and technique. I'd put all three in the same tier, as overall players, historically. In my opinion, you can quibble over which of these three was the best or worst defensively, but the difference there between them isn't sufficient to separate them overall.
IMO, Wilt is out of the top ten before Hakeem. His individual stats were crazy, but so were Oscar Robertson's and no one seems too cut up about Robertson being left out of the top ten. I used to have both in the top ten, but A. one big reason their stats were so massive was due to the ungodly pace of their eras, which resulted in far more shots, rebounds, assists and everything else per game and B. in Chamberlain's case, his gigantic individual numbers often didn't correlate with his teams having great offenses (or defenses). Ultimately, who cares about a stat line if it doesn't lead to your team's offense improving?
Oscar didn't win anything until he joined Lew Alcindor. He was all stats and no winning. Wilt won with relatively weak roster compared to the rest of the best. Off the top of my head I want to say Billy Cunningham and hal greer being his best teammates. Lakers team up was post knee surgeries. He had his negative moments, but in no way is he behind Oscar. Kareem gets his love but dude played with Oscar and Magic and countless other all stars. Without them he was an early round exit and I believe he missed the playoffs once as well(not 100%). So Kareem is awarded for having better teammates than Wilt. If thats true then we can't say anything about Shaq being awarded for having far better teammates his whole career vs Hakeem and Duncan awarded for his coach and system over Hakeem as well. Let's then award Bill Russell and his stacked team and his defense and being greatest winner while only contributing 15ish ppg on low efficiency(of course I know he was a big part of getting the offense on the break but it is what it is. 15ppg on 44% is 15ppg on 44%). The best thing left to do is do a top 10 of the OGs own era and then a new one of the modern day era but even that is nearing a new split for a 3rd eras list if were not already in it(3ball position less era).
To be clear, I wasn't putting Wilt behind Oscar. I was just pointing out that Robertson also used to be a popular pick for top-ten all time due to his amazing numbers, but he's gradually lost that status. So I don't think it's insane that the same thing could happen to Wilt. And this is coming from someone who used to say that Wilt was one of the guys on the shortlist for GOAT. My own belief about him has obviously changed over time, but I wasn't a hater of his. In the old days (like, pre-LeBron James), my top ten used to look something like this: Jordan Abdul-Jabbar Chamberlain Olajuwon Magic Bird Robertson Russell Shaq West/Duncan (the tenth spot wasn't clear cut to me) LeBron James obviously replaced West or Duncan initially. I think Kobe Bryant makes a lot of people's top ten lists these days and Robertson doesn't. If I were to do a top ten list now, it'd probably go (in no particular order except the top 2-3): Jordan LeBron Abdul-Jabbar Olajuwon Curry Chamberlain Shaq Russell Magic Bird with Duncan, West, Kobe, Durant and maybe Robertson as the next group.
If you take away your feelings towards Curry/Warriors and try to be as objective as possible and read this it might give you a better understanding. 2017 article https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/pa...3-most-important-shot-modern-nba-kevin-pelton 2019 article https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/25771897/steph-curry-unleashing-impossible-range You can’t NOT come to the conclusion that Curry changed and revolutionized the game. I thought this was obvious even before last night but especially after last night. How can you say Steve Nash was the king of pull up 3s and use a change in hand check rules as one of your main reasonings as to why Curry flourished….. when guys like Tim Hardaway and Mookie Blaylock were doing that about a decade before Nash during said hand check era? That’s not the point though. The point is when you have the GOAT shooter of all time. Legit range out to 35 ft and shoot it with his volume and accuracy and combine that with his handles/ability to get anywhere/shoot from anywhere on the court you have not just a game changer but a league changer. All those guys you mentioned as examples for pull up players (Nash, Kobe, Dirk, Durant etc and the 2 that I mentioned and anyone else in the history of the game for that matter…. None of them are like Curry. Pick any 3 guys you want in the history of the NBA and combine them to create your own GOAT shooter (volume to accuracy, range and handles to create own shot) you can’t or you’d be hard pressed to do so. That’s a top 10 player of all time. There’s nobody like him. You don’t even gotta like him for that matter. It sounds like I do but I really don’t. I’m just keeping it real.
IIRC Bird was a good man defender, especially in the post. He's also a good team defender because of his IQ. But he would have struggled in today's NBA on the defensive end because fast guards would hunt him in switch defense. Bird would probably play the 4 instead of the 3 today.
I hear ya. This list gets too hard to really stick to a set list of players. I'm always moving players up and down and the only one that stays is Michael at #1. Curry definitely seems to match up well with Bird on paper and eye test though and i have Bird in that top 5 group. I guess part of me still knocks Curry a bit or maybe a lot for letting KD come in and take over for 2 of his 4 and KD was clearly the best player on the team. I think it still hurts his and KD's legacy overall and i can't put him ahead of Bird and likewise Bron's team up antics his whole career is a reason why i can never have him = to or greater than MJ(well..and eye test lol). Kobe is so hard to place. My heart is with Hakeem and in an all time fantasy draft, he's in my top 5 big board, but he's likely out of the top 10. 2 rings like Wilt, but not the overall statistical dominance. Lacks the hardware like Kareem, Shaq and Timmy and Russell. Lacks the longevity like Kareem. Even with b2b rings, lacks the overall footprint left on winning due to poor teams of the late 80s much like Minny KG. There's too many players gathering hardware and rings that you have to realistically put ahead of Hakeem despite the 2 way versatile brilliance of Hakeem. I fear he's one of the victims of modern goat lists growing and Hakeem will be pushed further and further behind. We already got Giannis and Joker and Embiid fans thinking they're better than Hakeem. In 20 years, Hakeem might not be top 20 on a lot of lists unfortunately.
I am not sure what specifically you are disagreeing with me on. I never said Nash was the greatest pull up 3 point shooter, only that he was first. Before Curry there was Nash, and obviously Curry far eclipsed Nash. Nash was the innovator, Curry was the master. Much the way Harden didn't invent the step back, but he became its master. I never said Curry wasn't the GOAT shooter. I don't know why having a critique of curry means I am biased against him. That's what sucks about debating sports - people assume your opinion is biased because its not mainstream or because it is mainstream. This all comes down to you saying he is top 10 out of 75 year history of the NBA and me saying he is 15th. 5 spots because I knock him on defense and other things outside of shooting.
Giannis has an argument, but Embiid and Jokic have a LOT to prove before they can be mentioned in the same breath as Hakeem. That said, Curry HAS to move up on the list now, and unfortunately I agree that there are just too many great players with too many accomplishments to definitively keep Hakeem in the top 10.
This thread seems silly in hindsight, but I think it was a fair question at the time. He historically hasn't been a one man floor raiser but he obviously is a top 20-25 player ever (and still could keep climbing). However, the top 10 discussion is a little premature IMO. His resume just doesn't stack up. Let's compare him and Hakeem who I think is top 10-12 all time: Hakeem: 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 12x All-NBA, 2 DPOY, 9x All-Defense, 12 All-Star appearances Steph: 1 FMVP, 2 MVPs, 9x All-NBA, 8 All-Star Appearances Impact-wise, I can understand the argument of top 10 because he was the first player of his kind and how he changed the game, etc. But based on actual career accomplishments I can't see how you can put him ahead of Hakeem. I understand he has two more rings total but in 3 of his 4 rings, he was not viewed as the most impactful/important player in the series.
+40% 3pt shooting... That's more than an impact to a championship team. If you've got a player like that who can shoot volumes, there will be a lot more scoring options for a team. If that's not enough to be the most impactful player on court then I don't know what can be. Whatever, I still believe GSW can win without KD. This year proves he's replaceable.
I even think at least one of the Durant's FMVP should belong to Curry - Cavs was solely focused on doubling Curry so Durant gets his one-on-one all series; Draymond even tried to claim "curry was doubled 7 times more than Durant" (which is an exaggeration). Curry was on his way to FMVP but each time he ****ed up with a bad game in order to lose it to cupcake. He ****ed up in game 5 this time too, but the gap between the next guy gave him such a huge margin of error this time around.
