What would it take for you to put Curry on Duncan's all-time level?

[DoctorX]

So yeah he wasn’t good enough to be an impact player with Monta have it all Ellis on his team. Says a lot about my point. He very well might have a handful of non playoff appearances like I said.

Speaking of that 7th seeded spurs team… they upset the 2nd seeded mavs and that was their worst regular season team.

18 years of playoffs, a streak of 50 games won including one in a 66 game season on top of all the hardware and awards.

Agreed. That team also still ended up wining 50 games as bad as they were. The West was strong that year. I believe OKC ended up winning 48 or 49 wins and got the 8th seed that year.

[WarriorGM]

Actually he did have to take part in rebuild which occurred from fall of '01 to fall of '04. After the Spurs got swept by the Lakers in '01 David Robinson was way past his prime. He fell off greatly after '01. The Spurs had 0 all-star players during that 3 years playing with Duncan. They weren't even projected to be a top 4 team in the west heading into the '01-'02 season and most experts had them being around 5-7. That team's second leading scorer was 36 year old David Robinson averaging 12.2 points a game and it's third leading scorer was a 32 year old Steve Smith who averaged 11.6 points a game. Duncan lead that team to the second best record in the West and ended up winning his first MVP. Spurs added Parker and Manu during that stretch but it took them a full 3 years to develop. So yes Duncan did take part in a rebuild he was just that good that the Spurs could still win a ton of games off of his talent. It's why he won back to back MVPs during that stretch.

Fair enough point but that does not capture the gap in the rebuilding task between the two. Top 4 in the west? In comparison the 2021 Warriors were projected by ESPN to be 14th—and not in the league but just in the West. Of course that probably exaggerated a little just because it is BSPN and they consistently find ways to gaslight people about Curry. Still the exaggeration would be in the underestimation of Steph not in the assessment of the putridness of that roster he was working with.

That '01-'02 Spurs team was pretty bad. There are very few guys who would have been able to get them to the playoffs in their primes. Put Curry on that team and they are still a lottery team. You can't penalize Duncan for being that great that he could still win a ton of games regardless of who he played with and say his rebuild doesn't count. Duncan, LeBron, Shaq are the only 3 guys I have seen in my lifetime where you could put them on the worst team in the league in their primes and that team would end up winning a minimum of 50 games due to their talent level.

Your comment that you still think swapping Duncan for Curry would make a team that was projected to be 7th in the west a lottery team makes me think you still don't realize just how mammoth a carry job Curry had in 2021. Although I guess a lot of people don't with the way they are holding that season against him instead of staying well clear of it.

People often throw out the term "worst team in the league" figuratively. You are doing so as well because Duncan, LeBron, and Shaq were never literally on a team that was the worst team in the league the prior year in their primes. Still let's look at the results of close approximations in their careers.

The Spurs went from 20 to 56 wins an improvement of 36 wins with rookie Duncan; however, it needs to be noted that David Robinson was basically added back as well.

The Cavaliers went from 17 to 35 wins an improvement of 18 games with rookie LeBron.

The Magic went from 21 wins to 41 wins an improvement of 20 games with rookie Shaq.

Steph literally was working with the worst team in the league the prior year in 2021. Because of the shortened season some conversions need to be applied to get better comparable numbers. The 2020 Warriors finished with 15 wins but in a 65-game season. When adjusted for an 82-game season that comes out to something like 19 wins. The 2021 Warriors finished the regular season with a record of 39 wins in a 72-game season or 44 wins in an 82-game season an improvement of 25 games.

Looks comparable to me especially when one considers Steph missed 9 games due to injury in a softer part of the schedule where his team went 2-7 without him.

[lessthanjake]

Tim Duncan never choked a 3-1 finals lead, Tim Duncan never needed another top 15 all time player in his prime to come and help him win 2 rings. Tim Duncan never missed the playoffs.

Duncan got swept twice. Tim Duncan never actually had to experience a full rebuild. He started his career with a player who as it so happens some consider a top 15 player of all-time. After that he played with a player primarily responsible for beating Team USA with Duncan on it in the Olympics and with hindsight using the more advanced analytics of today may even have had an argument of being the best player in the league. Then later in his career was joined by a future perennial top 4 player in the league.

Actually he did have to take part in rebuild which occurred from fall of '01 to fall of '04. After the Spurs got swept by the Lakers in '01 David Robinson was way past his prime. He fell off greatly after '01. The Spurs had 0 all-star players during that 3 years playing with Duncan. They weren't even projected to be a top 4 team in the west heading into the '01-'02 season and most experts had them being around 5-7. That team's second leading scorer was 36 year old David Robinson averaging 12.2 points a game and it's third leading scorer was a 32 year old Steve Smith who averaged 11.6 points a game. Duncan lead that team to the second best record in the West and ended up winning his first MVP. Spurs added Parker and Manu during that stretch but it took them a full 3 years to develop. So yes Duncan did take part in a rebuild he was just that good that the Spurs could still win a ton of games off of his talent. It's why he won back to back MVPs during that stretch.

The bolded stuff above is incorrect. Heading into the 2001-2002 season, the Spurs were the 2nd favorite to win the title: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2002_preseason_odds.html. The Lakers were obviously the favorites, but the Spurs were easily the team with the 2nd best odds to win.

The worst odds they had in that era you identify was having the 4th best preseason odds to win the title in 2002-2003, and even then their preseason over/under on wins was 55.5. For reference, the Warriors this season had the exact same preseason odds to win the title as the 2002-2003 Spurs did (both in terms of actual odds and in terms of having the 4th best odds), but had only a 48.5 over/under on wins.

And the 2020-2021 Warriors are just an entirely different animal in this regard. Their preseason over/under barely had them as a .500 team, and their title odds were miles worse than any Spurs team in the era you are talking about. Fourteen teams (including seven Western Conference teams) had higher preseason over/under projections than the Warriors that year. They actually did better than the preseason expectations.

[LukaTheGOAT]

He needs better longevity than Duncan. I think Duncan's peak was better.

Tim Duncan's Playoff Peaks

3 Year PS On/Off-26.8

3 Year PS AuPM/G-8.5

3 Year PS Backpicks BPM-7.7


Stephen Curry Playoff Peaks

3 Year PS On/Off-18.3

3 Year PS AuPM/G-5.7

3 Year PS BPM-6.9

[chyau.00]

Not in an argument against Tim Duncan. Stephs a great player but he is not on Tim's level

I'm unconvinced of that and I don't think there is data out there that predominantly says that.

Tim Duncan never choked a 3-1 finals lead, Tim Duncan never needed another top 15 all time player in his prime to come and help him win 2 rings. Tim Duncan never missed the playoffs.

no he just joined a team with a top 15 player in his prime

[LAL1947]

Actually he did have to take part in rebuild which occurred from fall of '01 to fall of '04. After the Spurs got swept by the Lakers in '01 David Robinson was way past his prime. He fell off greatly after '01. The Spurs had 0 all-star players during that 3 years playing with Duncan. They weren't even projected to be a top 4 team in the west heading into the '01-'02 season and most experts had them being around 5-7. That team's second leading scorer was 36 year old David Robinson averaging 12.2 points a game and it's third leading scorer was a 32 year old Steve Smith who averaged 11.6 points a game. Duncan lead that team to the second best record in the West and ended up winning his first MVP. Spurs added Parker and Manu during that stretch but it took them a full 3 years to develop. So yes Duncan did take part in a rebuild he was just that good that the Spurs could still win a ton of games off of his talent. It's why he won back to back MVPs during that stretch.

That's not true. The Spurs went into the 2001-02 season as the 2nd favorites for the title. This is how Timmy-myths are created on RealGM.

Here are the 2001-02 preseason odds:

- Los Angeles Lakers +200
- San Antonio Spurs +500
- Sacramento Kings +1000
- Philadelphia 76ers +1000
- Orlando Magic +1000
- Milwaukee Bucks +1000
- New York Knicks +1200
- Miami Heat +1200
- Toronto Raptors +1500
- Dallas Mavericks +1500

They also had the 2nd best Over-Under.

Team............................. Over-Under.......... Actual Win-Loss
Los Angeles Lakers ............ 58.5.................. 58-24 (under)
San Antonio Spurs.............. 53.5.................. 58-24 (over)
Seattle SuperSonics............. 53.5.................. 45-37 (under)
Sacramento Kings............... 52.5.................. 61-21 (over)
Dallas Mavericks................. 52.5.................. 57-25 (over)

[Slim Charlez]

I'm unconvinced of that and I don't think there is data out there that predominantly says that.

Tim Duncan never choked a 3-1 finals lead, Tim Duncan never needed another top 15 all time player in his prime to come and help him win 2 rings. Tim Duncan never missed the playoffs.

no he just joined a team with a top 15 player in his prime

comparing 97 Robinson to 17 KD is as laughable as it gets

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Curry’s defense is about as good as a guy with 3rd rate foot speed and acceleration can get.

[ibraheim718]

These Curry threads are hilarious. Besides scoring Duncan dominated the glass and was an elite defender for his position. Curry can shoot it in an era when shooting is encouraged, scoring is jacked up, and the physicality has been removed from the game. Is he elite at any other skill set? No.

[shoresy69]

These Curry threads are hilarious. Besides scoring Duncan dominated the glass and was an elite defender for his position. Curry can shoot it in an era when shooting is encouraged, scoring is jacked up, and the physicality has been removed from the game. Is he elite at any other skill set? No.

Curry is an outlier at shooting in the best shooting era in history so far. The reality of his relative skill is much more impressive than the way you framed it.

I also didn't realize that dribbling and cutting are no longer considered skills

[ibraheim718]

These Curry threads are hilarious. Besides scoring Duncan dominated the glass and was an elite defender for his position. Curry can shoot it in an era when shooting is encouraged, scoring is jacked up, and the physicality has been removed from the game. Is he elite at any other skill set? No.

Curry is an outlier at shooting in the best shooting era in history so far. The reality of his relative skill is much more impressive than the way you framed it.

I also didn't realize that dribbling and cutting are no longer considered skills

Cutting? You know how many players were/are good at "cutting"?

He will never in my eyes be a more impactful player than Tim Duncan.. never.

[shoresy69]

These Curry threads are hilarious. Besides scoring Duncan dominated the glass and was an elite defender for his position. Curry can shoot it in an era when shooting is encouraged, scoring is jacked up, and the physicality has been removed from the game. Is he elite at any other skill set? No.

Curry is an outlier at shooting in the best shooting era in history so far. The reality of his relative skill is much more impressive than the way you framed it.

I also didn't realize that dribbling and cutting are no longer considered skills

Cutting? You know how many players were/are good at "cutting"?

He will never in my eyes be a more impactful player than Tim Duncan.. never.

You can think what you want regarding Curry vs Duncan but pretending that Curry is only elite at shooting is pointless. And laugh at cutting all you want but he's clearly the best all-time at it

[Bush4Ever]

The obsession over two-way impact is sometimes a bit clumsy to me.

To me, the amount of lift/impact is what's important, not the composition of it.

Giving both Duncan and Curry the same nominal value (i.e.--"impactful on offense") is really off. Curry is miles and miles above Duncan offensively. There is no meaningful equivalence between them on offense in terms of impact (nor defense obviously).

Saying Duncan should be ranked higher than Curry because of accumulated career value via longevity advantages is fine (and correct IMO), but in talking about peak'/prime play...Curry can absolutely match or even exceed Duncan.

In my view he matches Duncan's peak and possibly has a superior 7 year prime.

To that end, another ring like in 2022 combined with maybe another superstar year stacked on top of that would possibly be enough for me. Or at least get them into a "it's basically a coin flip" situation.

[lessthanjake]

These Curry threads are hilarious. Besides scoring Duncan dominated the glass and was an elite defender for his position. Curry can shoot it in an era when shooting is encouraged, scoring is jacked up, and the physicality has been removed from the game. Is he elite at any other skill set? No.

Curry is an outlier at shooting in the best shooting era in history so far. The reality of his relative skill is much more impressive than the way you framed it.

I also didn't realize that dribbling and cutting are no longer considered skills

Cutting? You know how many players were/are good at "cutting"?

He will never in my eyes be a more impactful player than Tim Duncan.. never.

Scoffing at cutting as a skill is like scoffing at route running as a skill for wide receivers in football. The ability to get open is a very important skill and is not one that everyone is even remotely equal at. And plays resulting from cuts are super efficient. So cutting is basically a skill that results in manufacturing a greater amount of extremely high efficiency plays.

[ibraheim718]

Curry is an outlier at shooting in the best shooting era in history so far. The reality of his relative skill is much more impressive than the way you framed it.

I also didn't realize that dribbling and cutting are no longer considered skills

Cutting? You know how many players were/are good at "cutting"?

He will never in my eyes be a more impactful player than Tim Duncan.. never.

You can think what you want regarding Curry vs Duncan but pretending that Curry is only elite at shooting is pointless. And laugh at cutting all you want but he's clearly the best all-time at it

What's your criteria for measuring how much better he is at cutting than let's say a Michael Jordan? I don't understand how you even begin to measure something so subjective.

[ibraheim718]

Curry is an outlier at shooting in the best shooting era in history so far. The reality of his relative skill is much more impressive than the way you framed it.

I also didn't realize that dribbling and cutting are no longer considered skills

Cutting? You know how many players were/are good at "cutting"?

He will never in my eyes be a more impactful player than Tim Duncan.. never.

Scoffing at cutting as a skill is like scoffing at route running as a skill for wide receivers in football. The ability to get open is a very important skill and is not one that everyone is even remotely equal at. And plays resulting from cuts are super efficient. So cutting is basically a skill that results in manufacturing a greater amount of extremely high efficiency plays.

I didn't scoff I laughed.. if there is a scoffing emoji by all means please let me know.

[Optms]

He's already better than Duncan. The only case Duncan has is longevity. Not a good enough case. Curry is aging just fine.

[lessthanjake]

Cutting? You know how many players were/are good at "cutting"?

He will never in my eyes be a more impactful player than Tim Duncan.. never.

You can think what you want regarding Curry vs Duncan but pretending that Curry is only elite at shooting is pointless. And laugh at cutting all you want but he's clearly the best all-time at it

What's your criteria for measuring how much better he is at cutting than let's say a Michael Jordan? I don't understand how you even begin to measure something so subjective.

How do you measure how good someone is at passing? Or at perimeter defense? Or ball-handling? You watch the game and evaluate what you see.

It’s very obvious that Steph Curry is perhaps the best player ever at off ball movement. It’s a function of his incredible number of moves, countermoves, and fakes, and the fact that he has incredibly high endurance that others can’t match.

It’s also obvious by the way that Steph is one of the greatest ball handlers in history.

So he’s really just way more than the greatest shooter ever. He’s the greatest shooter ever, combined with being probably the best off-ball mover ever, and one of the greatest ball handlers ever. It’s a combination of skills that makes him up there amongst the top few offensive players in the history of the game.

[DoctorX]

Duncan got swept twice. Tim Duncan never actually had to experience a full rebuild. He started his career with a player who as it so happens some consider a top 15 player of all-time. After that he played with a player primarily responsible for beating Team USA with Duncan on it in the Olympics and with hindsight using the more advanced analytics of today may even have had an argument of being the best player in the league. Then later in his career was joined by a future perennial top 4 player in the league.

Actually he did have to take part in rebuild which occurred from fall of '01 to fall of '04. After the Spurs got swept by the Lakers in '01 David Robinson was way past his prime. He fell off greatly after '01. The Spurs had 0 all-star players during that 3 years playing with Duncan. They weren't even projected to be a top 4 team in the west heading into the '01-'02 season and most experts had them being around 5-7. That team's second leading scorer was 36 year old David Robinson averaging 12.2 points a game and it's third leading scorer was a 32 year old Steve Smith who averaged 11.6 points a game. Duncan lead that team to the second best record in the West and ended up winning his first MVP. Spurs added Parker and Manu during that stretch but it took them a full 3 years to develop. So yes Duncan did take part in a rebuild he was just that good that the Spurs could still win a ton of games off of his talent. It's why he won back to back MVPs during that stretch.

The bolded stuff above is incorrect. Heading into the 2001-2002 season, the Spurs were the 2nd favorite to win the title: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2002_preseason_odds.html. The Lakers were obviously the favorites, but the Spurs were easily the team with the 2nd best odds to win.

The worst odds they had in that era you identify was having the 4th best preseason odds to win the title in 2002-2003, and even then their preseason over/under on wins was 55.5. For reference, the Warriors this season had the exact same preseason odds to win the title as the 2002-2003 Spurs did (both in terms of actual odds and in terms of having the 4th best odds), but had only a 48.5 over/under on wins.

And the 2020-2021 Warriors are just an entirely different animal in this regard. Their preseason over/under barely had them as a .500 team, and their title odds were miles worse than any Spurs team in the era you are talking about. Fourteen teams (including seven Western Conference teams) had higher preseason over/under projections than the Warriors that year. They actually did better than the preseason expectations.

Do me a favor and put a Warriors avatar on your SN so I know not to waste my time with you

[DoctorX]

Actually he did have to take part in rebuild which occurred from fall of '01 to fall of '04. After the Spurs got swept by the Lakers in '01 David Robinson was way past his prime. He fell off greatly after '01. The Spurs had 0 all-star players during that 3 years playing with Duncan. They weren't even projected to be a top 4 team in the west heading into the '01-'02 season and most experts had them being around 5-7. That team's second leading scorer was 36 year old David Robinson averaging 12.2 points a game and it's third leading scorer was a 32 year old Steve Smith who averaged 11.6 points a game. Duncan lead that team to the second best record in the West and ended up winning his first MVP. Spurs added Parker and Manu during that stretch but it took them a full 3 years to develop. So yes Duncan did take part in a rebuild he was just that good that the Spurs could still win a ton of games off of his talent. It's why he won back to back MVPs during that stretch.

That's not true. The Spurs went into the 2001-02 season as the 2nd favorites for the title. This is how Timmy-myths are created on RealGM.

Here are the 2001-02 preseason odds:

- Los Angeles Lakers +200
- San Antonio Spurs +500
- Sacramento Kings +1000
- Philadelphia 76ers +1000
- Orlando Magic +1000
- Milwaukee Bucks +1000
- New York Knicks +1200
- Miami Heat +1200
- Toronto Raptors +1500
- Dallas Mavericks +1500

They also had the 2nd best Over-Under.

Team............................. Over-Under.......... Actual Win-Loss
Los Angeles Lakers ............ 58.5.................. 58-24 (under)
San Antonio Spurs.............. 53.5.................. 58-24 (over)
Seattle SuperSonics............. 53.5.................. 45-37 (under)
Sacramento Kings............... 52.5.................. 61-21 (over)
Dallas Mavericks................. 52.5.................. 57-25 (over)

Don't waste your time with me. I know your stance on Duncan and the Spurs. You are a biased Laker fan that is obsessed with putting Kobe above Duncan and will go out at all lengths to make sure Kobe is ranked above Duncan. From this point forward I'm not responding to any of your posts.