Jerry West vs Stephen Curry

[70sFan]

Magic went 2-1 against Bird, it's far from "beating repeatedly". I agree it's not worth it discussing further.

[HeartBreakKid]

Yeah, clearly if your team loses in a team sport you can't be clutch.

If anything the fact that he is called Mr.Clutch despite not having many rings shows that they were not over obsessed with this ring narrative. That didn't become a thing until the 90s.

What's next, Reggie Miller wasn't clutch because he had 0 rings?

I mean, if Reggie Miller was making half a dozen Finals game 7s and failing to close the deal I do think that would damage his reputation. Might as well call Tracy McGrady Mr. 2nd Round or Shaq Mr Accurate FT Shooter

The nickname thing isn’t really that relevant to the point but yeah, this comparison is an insult to Curry and that will be obvious to anyone in 20 years when all y’all’s irrelevant biased qualms and nitpicks about the guy that you don’t have toward West cause he played over half a century ago are forgotten

Do you somehow think that the finals are the only thing that count?


I love how you're naively making an argument about people being irrelevant but somehow you think in 20 years there will not be people who think Curry is irrelevant.


Your argument for the future makes no sense and is based entirely on what is culturally relevant in the media. Why would we have to wait "20 years from now" as if Jerry West is not heavily disadvantaged in 2024 based on pop media? Do you think everyone here was watching Jerry West growing up?


Not entirely on topic, but I do love the irony of a guy who is very obviously already in his 30s named "KembaWalker" calling people irrelevant as if he has a firm grasp on who is going to be cool in 20 years. You're named after a player who became irrelevant years ago and younger people already do not know who he is - does that mean all your opinions about Kemba are invalidated because he's not cool?

[ShaqAttac]

Yes, 2015 Warriors are definitely a better team than 1969 Lakers. 2022 is arguable, but again they didn't face comparable competition.

The 69 Celtics were probably a more talented supporting cast than either. Them being a better "team" regardless doesn't reflect well on West here. If you attribute that to fit, despite the fact the 2nd best player on the team got a big chunk of their value in a way with basically zero diminishing returns with west's skillset, then that begs the question what similarly talented team you can build around steph which fails in a similar way because he didn't fit as well.

Steph just offers much more value as a playmaker than west does, his scoring comes from a spot which doesn't overlap as much with other premier scorers(especially bigs), and the defensive defecit may not even be a notable disadvantage on a team with that level of talent barring horrific roster construction(alot worse than the 69 lakers).

People are making this alot more complicated than necessary I think. If you are truly respecting era-relativity, then you have to consider that guards were just not nearly as valuable in the 60's as they are now and centers were the opposite. West has only won when paired with the other great center of the period, after the best player of his era(who in most scenarios he is going to have to beat to win a ring) retired, with the next best player's best teammate massively hampered(and they possibly lose anyway without a injury-induced home-court advantage considering they were significantly outscored in their win). 

I don't really see how you can get to prime west having as good per season championship likelihood as prime steph if we're being practical with out analysis. If steph curry got a two-way big who is a top 2 player of the era(giannis, embid, ect) no one would be saying "the team was not as good" justify not top-tier rs performance or not sealing the deal on one of the weakest scenarios the player you'd likely have to beat most if not nearly all years would be in.

 Maybe if you just go by m.o.v, these are two comparable players, but if you are thinking in terms of contribution towards championships, curry is clearly advantaged

Don't bother, we do have all four finals g7 losses and West played incredible in all but one. Kemba never any of these, he just goes with results.

West can play incredible and not be as valuable as Steph while playing incredible. That is why we have to also look at the results rather than handwave them because of point-totals(steph's primary advantage would be creative so...not sure what that's supposed to prove) or a statue(Steph is the more decorated player as well so again, what is the point?). Persistently shifting the debate from steph vs west to "did jerry west play well when he lost" speaks to a pretty weak case, even respecting era-relativity.

Now imagine how different your opinion of Steph might be had KD not joined his team or if Wilt hadn't gotten injured in 69 and the Lakers win it all in 69&70.

So steph till picks up 2 rings as the best player while west picks up 1 as the best player and 1 as a shell of himself?

You are not helping your argument. If the negative variance scenario comes out with steph looking just as good, then this helps steph's argument, not west's

69 may have been the weakest team of the dynasty era, certainly in the weaker half. Cousy and KC were gone replaced by waiver wire acquisition Larry Siegfriend, Emmett Bryant was a truly mediocre 2 guard though they still had the aging Sam Jones behind him and Havlicek swung back to guard at times, and Russell was at his statistical weakest. Havlicek at his best, Bailey Howell was effective, and Don Nelson was a solid offensive player off the bench but overall, not a deep team and the guard play was clearly below league average.

Its crazy how no one talks bout it when discussin russ.

[penbeast0]

...
Its crazy how no one talks bout it when discussin russ.

About what? About how the Celtics guards were so weak? About how the Celtics regular season record was the weakest of Russell's career? About the strength (3 ATG players) or weakness (thin bench) of the Lakers? All are alluded to in the selection you quoted. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

[RealSHAQ]

Who do you have higher all-time

I currently rank Stephen Curry as the 2nd greatest point guard of all time, and the 4th best overall guard after Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Kobe Bryant (Oscar Robertson 5th, Jerry West 6th).

[DonaldSanders]

At best Jerry was the 3rd best player of his era, and you can make a decent argument for Oscar being 3rd and West 4th. Most people consider LeBron #1 and Steph #2 of the era that just concluded. It's really hard to compare players of different eras, especially with practically the largest time gap possible, so to me the era value matters a lot.

Jerry never won an MVP, while Steph won back to back MVPs including the only unanimous MVP. Their playoff careers are tough to compare, but to me the peak vs. peak favors Steph. You can say Jerry suffered from guards not being as valuable during his era, but Oscar Robertson managed to win MVP and so did Petit (Wilt wasn't in the league yet, but BR was in his 2nd year).

I do like that this question is being asked, because West gets overlooked.

[70sFan]

At best Jerry was the 3rd best player of his era, and you can make a decent argument for Oscar being 3rd and West 4th. Most people consider LeBron #1 and Steph #2 of the era that just concluded. It's really hard to compare players of different eras, especially with practically the largest time gap possible, so to me the era value matters a lot.

Jerry never won an MVP, while Steph won back to back MVPs including the only unanimous MVP. Their playoff careers are tough to compare, but to me the peak vs. peak favors Steph. You can say Jerry suffered from guards not being as valuable during his era, but Oscar Robertson managed to win MVP and so did Petit (Wilt wasn't in the league yet, but BR was in his 2nd year).

I do like that this question is being asked, because West gets overlooked.

Pettit was a bigman.

[TheGOATRises007]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

[dygaction]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

Of course it is an indictment. That would be similar to Curry kept losing to LeBron and never won a championship. No shame of losing to LeBron or Russell but you are not at their level. Curry is greater than West level because he actually built the Warrior dynasty by beating LeBron multiple times.

[HeartBreakKid]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

Yeah it makes very little sense.

"Oh, West was #3 MAYBE even #4, while Curry was definitely #2! And 2 is higher than 3!"


And it's not like Curry was even "definitely" number 2. I would be surprised if the majority of the seasons of Curry's career he was the 2nd best player in the NBA.

[70sFan]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

Of course it is an indictment. That would be similar to Curry kept losing to LeBron and never won a championship. No shame of losing to LeBron or Russell but you are not at their level. Curry is greater than West level because he actually built the Warrior dynasty by beating LeBron multiple times.

West won championship though.

Curry is not on James level simply because his teams won titles against LeBron teams.

[SpreeS]

This group of guards (Magic/West/Kobe/Curry/Osacr) is very close. It could go various directions to rank them. 3 of them played with Lakers jerseies whole careers. It's greenhouse conditions compared with other teams except maybe Boston.

[OhayoKD]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

Yeah it makes very little sense.

"Oh, West was #3 MAYBE even #4, while Curry was definitely #2! And 2 is higher than 3!"


And it's not like Curry was even "definitely" number 2. I would be surprised if the majority of the seasons of Curry's career he was the 2nd best player in the NBA.

Love ir when "relative to the competition" people don't understand how "relative to the competition" works

[70sFan]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

Yeah it makes very little sense.

"Oh, West was #3 MAYBE even #4, while Curry was definitely #2! And 2 is higher than 3!"


And it's not like Curry was even "definitely" number 2. I would be surprised if the majority of the seasons of Curry's career he was the 2nd best player in the NBA.

Love ir when "relative to the competition" people don't understand how "relative to the competition" works

Relative to competition doesn't literally mean the comparison of the rank in POY every year. Unless you want to believe that being the best player in 1975 (Kareem injured, Julius in a different league) means the same as in 1977 (both Kareem and Julius at their peaks, Walton peaking).

[dygaction]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

Of course it is an indictment. That would be similar to Curry kept losing to LeBron and never won a championship. No shame of losing to LeBron or Russell but you are not at their level. Curry is greater than West level because he actually built the Warrior dynasty by beating LeBron multiple times.

West won championship though.

Curry is not on James level simply because his teams won titles against LeBron teams.

One and he was not the best player on the team. Over shadowed in regular seasons with mvp.
Curry won the same #s rings as LeBron, got two regular season MVPs during LeBrons peak, one being unanimous. They were this eras Bill and Wilt, not exact same level but the major story line.

[70sFan]

Of course it is an indictment. That would be similar to Curry kept losing to LeBron and never won a championship. No shame of losing to LeBron or Russell but you are not at their level. Curry is greater than West level because he actually built the Warrior dynasty by beating LeBron multiple times.

West won championship though.

Curry is not on James level simply because his teams won titles against LeBron teams.

One and he was not the best player on the team. Over shadowed in regular seasons with mvp.
Curry won the same #s rings as LeBron, got two regular season MVPs during LeBrons peak, one being unanimous. They were this eras Bill and Wilt, not exact same level but the major story line.

We all know you value individual offense over defense, so how can you justify putting Wilt ahead of West in 1972?

[dygaction]

West won championship though.

Curry is not on James level simply because his teams won titles against LeBron teams.

One and he was not the best player on the team. Over shadowed in regular seasons with mvp.
Curry won the same #s rings as LeBron, got two regular season MVPs during LeBrons peak, one being unanimous. They were this eras Bill and Wilt, not exact same level but the major story line.

We all know you value individual offense over defense, so how can you justify putting Wilt ahead of West in 1972?

I can value offense but in what world would 19.8p/4.8r/8.8a at .325fg% better offense than 19.4/23.2/2.6a at .60fg%? That's wild chucker at another level.

[70sFan]

One and he was not the best player on the team. Over shadowed in regular seasons with mvp.
Curry won the same #s rings as LeBron, got two regular season MVPs during LeBrons peak, one being unanimous. They were this eras Bill and Wilt, not exact same level but the major story line.

We all know you value individual offense over defense, so how can you justify putting Wilt ahead of West in 1972?

I can value offense but in what world would 19.8p/4.8r/8.8a at .325fg% better offense than 19.4/23.2/2.6a at .60fg%? That's wild chucker at another level.

It's another time I realized I shouldn't start such conversation, it's completely pointless...

[Cavsfansince84]

I find it hilarious that there was a criticism of West for being less valuable than Russell and Wilt, while Curry was only less valuable than LeBron, so it's points towards Curry somehow.

As if being less valuable than Russell and Wilt should be an indictment on a player.

Yeah it makes very little sense.

"Oh, West was #3 MAYBE even #4, while Curry was definitely #2! And 2 is higher than 3!"


And it's not like Curry was even "definitely" number 2. I would be surprised if the majority of the seasons of Curry's career he was the 2nd best player in the NBA.

Using mvp voting(as was used above) West had 4 top 2's to 2 for Steph and way more top 5's(even including 2 6th places for Steph). Of course mvp voting isn't a perfect stat and both suffered from missing games which carries over to mvp placement but its what was being used to prop Steph up relative to Jerry and only works if wins are the only thing that matter.

[dygaction]

We all know you value individual offense over defense, so how can you justify putting Wilt ahead of West in 1972?

I can value offense but in what world would 19.8p/4.8r/8.8a at .325fg% better offense than 19.4/23.2/2.6a at .60fg%? That's wild chucker at another level.

It's another time I realized I shouldn't start such conversation, it's completely pointless...

of course, I don't know why we are arguing here. West had one of the largest drop in scoring and efficiency for a superstar not going through an injury. He averaged 25.8 @.477FG% during the regular season but dropped to 22.9p @.376FG% in the playoffs. Goodrich appeared to be the better offensive player with higher ppg and much higher fg%.

Also even if you think he was the best player, it does not bring him to Wilt and Russell conversation as Russel was retired by then and West was on the same team with Wilt.