RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[70sFan]

What Is everyones goat players list by position top 5 each position?

Point Guards:
Magic, Curry, Stockton, West?, Oscar

Shooting Guards:
Jordan, Kobe, Iverson?, Wade, Harden??

Small Forwards:
Bird, Bron (I'm a haterLOL), Pippen, Kawhi, KD?

Power Fowards:
Duncan, Rodman, Malone, Davis, Garnett

Centers:
Russell, Shaq(3peat), Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem

??? are more for the unsure of exact position as some class them in others.

PGs: Magic, Curry, Oscar, West, Paul

SGs: Jordan, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Miller

SFs: James, Bird, Julius, Durant,Havlicek

PFs: Duncan, Garnett, Malone, Dirk, Barkley

Cs: Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq

[michaelm]

You know that I meant *beyond* a game six. Obvious.

Jordan was taken to 7 games 3 times in his career and he even lost once. Of course you cherrypick finals series, but Russell never lost any game 7 in his career.

As for 8 peat? Sure. But I'd be more impressed with two three peats, one all star teammate in the first three peat in dominant fashion than an 8 peat where the teammates are carrying the offense, you have fewer games to play to win each series and fewer series to win it all.

Russell still had to win more series in that 8 years span than Jordan in his 3 peat.
By the way, you know that Celtics offense sucked right? So much about teammates carrying Russell offensively.

Elaborate on George Milan having the same case as Jordan. I'd love to see how statistically dominant he was in every series, carrying his squad each time. I'm not talking about a certain or few series... I'm talking every series he played in with no blemishes. That's the level of consistency you're comparing him to.

Mikan won 5 titles and since you like scoring, Mikan led all the series in ppg outside of one 2-games series against Indiana. He's also the leading rebounder, unlike Jordan.

And no, Russell doesn't have a "significantly stronger" case..... he played in an era with less than half as many teams and a squad stacked with hall of famers that carried the scoring, and the team who scores more wins the game, so yes it's important.

You still didn't explain me what made Russell teams stacked and which Russell teammates were so good at scoring, so I am waiting.

And when looking at the stats, it was clear Jordan went berserk when needed and unless you can show stats that Russell's opposition had a significant dip in field goal percentage (not cherry picked, every finals series), there's no argument that his defense supersedes Jordan's ability to dominate offensively and particularly in the clutch. "Significantly stronger" has no facts to back it up.

That's a very rudimentary way to judge defense. It's roughly as stupid as judging Jordan based on FG%, which you know wouldn't look pretty when you look at the 2nd three-peat.

What I can show you is that Russell's teams were consistently the best defensive team both in the RS and PS and they failed miserably to do anything on defense without him.

I'll take Hakeem over Russell, since he had both sides of the game and if he wasn't Russell defensively, he certainly has the better offensive game by a large margin. Russell had 1/3 of his finals series in the .300-.400 field goal percentage on significantly less volume than Hakeem's usual and in more minutes. That's not even debatable.

Yeah, but Russell was either a rookie or in his last season during these finals series. I don't judge Jordan on his rookie or Wizards years.

1960-66 Russell in the finals:

18.9/25.8/4.6 on 50.2 FG% and 54.8 TS%

So much about Russell being bad offensive player.

Of course you'll say that I cherrypick, but the problem is that Russell won more titles than Jordan in his entire career in that period.

I am with you on Bill Russell of whom I have tried to make a study, the question I always ask is what more could he have done in his career, given I am told he was out one of the finals series the Celtics lost and had an ankle injury in the other. They lost the year before he joined them and the year after he retired. Another question for me is whether the all-stars on those Celtics teams were the reason Bill won, or whether they were all-stars because they were on Bill’s teams. Probably something of both, but it is hard to see how Bill was other than the foundation of it all.

Hard to compare across eras is all, LeBron vs Jordan as well imo.

[70sFan]

You know that I meant *beyond* a game six. Obvious.

Jordan was taken to 7 games 3 times in his career and he even lost once. Of course you cherrypick finals series, but Russell never lost any game 7 in his career.

As for 8 peat? Sure. But I'd be more impressed with two three peats, one all star teammate in the first three peat in dominant fashion than an 8 peat where the teammates are carrying the offense, you have fewer games to play to win each series and fewer series to win it all.

Russell still had to win more series in that 8 years span than Jordan in his 3 peat.
By the way, you know that Celtics offense sucked right? So much about teammates carrying Russell offensively.

Elaborate on George Milan having the same case as Jordan. I'd love to see how statistically dominant he was in every series, carrying his squad each time. I'm not talking about a certain or few series... I'm talking every series he played in with no blemishes. That's the level of consistency you're comparing him to.

Mikan won 5 titles and since you like scoring, Mikan led all the series in ppg outside of one 2-games series against Indiana. He's also the leading rebounder, unlike Jordan.

And no, Russell doesn't have a "significantly stronger" case..... he played in an era with less than half as many teams and a squad stacked with hall of famers that carried the scoring, and the team who scores more wins the game, so yes it's important.

You still didn't explain me what made Russell teams stacked and which Russell teammates were so good at scoring, so I am waiting.

And when looking at the stats, it was clear Jordan went berserk when needed and unless you can show stats that Russell's opposition had a significant dip in field goal percentage (not cherry picked, every finals series), there's no argument that his defense supersedes Jordan's ability to dominate offensively and particularly in the clutch. "Significantly stronger" has no facts to back it up.

That's a very rudimentary way to judge defense. It's roughly as stupid as judging Jordan based on FG%, which you know wouldn't look pretty when you look at the 2nd three-peat.

What I can show you is that Russell's teams were consistently the best defensive team both in the RS and PS and they failed miserably to do anything on defense without him.

I'll take Hakeem over Russell, since he had both sides of the game and if he wasn't Russell defensively, he certainly has the better offensive game by a large margin. Russell had 1/3 of his finals series in the .300-.400 field goal percentage on significantly less volume than Hakeem's usual and in more minutes. That's not even debatable.

Yeah, but Russell was either a rookie or in his last season during these finals series. I don't judge Jordan on his rookie or Wizards years.

1960-66 Russell in the finals:

18.9/25.8/4.6 on 50.2 FG% and 54.8 TS%

So much about Russell being bad offensive player.

Of course you'll say that I cherrypick, but the problem is that Russell won more titles than Jordan in his entire career in that period.

I am with you on Bill Russell of whom I have tried to make a study, the question I always ask is what more could he have done in his career, given I am told he was out one of the finals series the Celtics lost and had an ankle injury in the other. They lost the year before he joined them and the year after he retired. Another question for me is whether the all-stars on those Celtics teams were the reason Bill won, or whether they were all-stars because they were on Bill’s teams. Probably something of both, but it is hard to see how Bill wasn’t the foundation of it all.

Hard to compare across eras is all, LeBron vs Jordan as well imo.

Russell lost one series when he was healthy - in 1967 ECF against Wilt's Sixers. He lost one finals when he played hurt and missed time. These are the only times he lost in his professional career.

I think it's very easy to realize how "stacked" Celtics were once you start comparing them to their opponents. Take a look at 1966 team for example and compare it to the Lakers or Sixers rosters. What exactly makes Celtics so much superior? Same with 1969 vs Knicks and Lakers.

Of course Russell had some stacked rosters in his career. You don't win 11 rings with bad cast around you - especially early in his career. Once 1950s stars became old and the league added more talent, Russell's teams had no business winning 90% of the titles in the 1960s, yet they did with only one constant on the team.

[bledredwine]

wasn’t taken to a game six and has the highest respect of his greatest contemporaries.

Another hilarious blunder by yours truly.

Facts! Too funny

[Iwasawitness]

wasn’t taken to a game six and has the highest respect of his greatest contemporaries.

Another hilarious blunder by yours truly.

Where has Scrutanbulls been? not sure exact name? hope he ok above anything else, haven't see much of him.

Now that you mention it, he hasn’t posted in this thread in a while. Hopefully it stays that way.

[ReggiesKnicks]

What Is everyones goat players list by position top 5 each position?

I don't have an official list, but there are my Top 5 and in relative order with nothing concrete.

PG: Steph Curry, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Steve Nash

SG: Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, James Harden, Reggie Miller, Dwyane Wade

SF: LeBron James, Larry Bird, Kevin Durant, Julius Erving, Scottie Pippen

PF: Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Bob Pettit, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley

C: Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Tim Duncan, Wilt Chamberlain, Hakeem Olajuwon

Next Up:

Chris Paul, Manu Ginobili, John Havlicek, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Shaquille O'Neal

I consider Duncan more of a Center than PF but he would be #1 as the Power Forwards.

[Grumpy Heat Fan]

Jordan was taken to 7 games 3 times in his career and he even lost once. Of course you cherrypick finals series, but Russell never lost any game 7 in his career.


Russell still had to win more series in that 8 years span than Jordan in his 3 peat.
By the way, you know that Celtics offense sucked right? So much about teammates carrying Russell offensively.


Mikan won 5 titles and since you like scoring, Mikan led all the series in ppg outside of one 2-games series against Indiana. He's also the leading rebounder, unlike Jordan.


You still didn't explain me what made Russell teams stacked and which Russell teammates were so good at scoring, so I am waiting.


That's a very rudimentary way to judge defense. It's roughly as stupid as judging Jordan based on FG%, which you know wouldn't look pretty when you look at the 2nd three-peat.

What I can show you is that Russell's teams were consistently the best defensive team both in the RS and PS and they failed miserably to do anything on defense without him.



Yeah, but Russell was either a rookie or in his last season during these finals series. I don't judge Jordan on his rookie or Wizards years.

1960-66 Russell in the finals:

18.9/25.8/4.6 on 50.2 FG% and 54.8 TS%

So much about Russell being bad offensive player.

Of course you'll say that I cherrypick, but the problem is that Russell won more titles than Jordan in his entire career in that period.

I am with you on Bill Russell of whom I have tried to make a study, the question I always ask is what more could he have done in his career, given I am told he was out one of the finals series the Celtics lost and had an ankle injury in the other. They lost the year before he joined them and the year after he retired. Another question for me is whether the all-stars on those Celtics teams were the reason Bill won, or whether they were all-stars because they were on Bill’s teams. Probably something of both, but it is hard to see how Bill wasn’t the foundation of it all.

Hard to compare across eras is all, LeBron vs Jordan as well imo.

Russell lost one series when he was healthy - in 1967 ECF against Wilt's Sixers. He lost one finals when he played hurt and missed time. These are the only times he lost in his professional career.

I think it's very easy to realize how "stacked" Celtics were once you start comparing them to their opponents. Take a look at 1966 team for example and compare it to the Lakers or Sixers rosters. What exactly makes Celtics so much superior? Same with 1969 vs Knicks and Lakers.

Of course Russell had some stacked rosters in his career. You don't win 11 rings with bad cast around you - especially early in his career. Once 1950s stars became old and the league added more talent, Russell's teams had no business winning 90% of the titles in the 1960s, yet they did with only one constant on the team.

Russel was not even the greatest in his own generation. Wilt did everything Bill could do, but better. Wilt was the superior player. Better scorer, better defender, better rebounder.

Bill was averaging 23 boards per game? That's nice. Wilt came into the league and started leading the league at 27 rpg. The one thing Bill should be better at, he's not. Because Wilt was a much better scorer. Wilt is the 2nd greatest scorer to ever play, after Michael.



Bill was great, but he couldn't even be the dominant player in his own position, in his own generation. Heck, Bill is not better than Kareem either.

We already had this discussion back in the 90s when a lot of these people who saw Bill and Wilt play, were still alive. MJ was and still is, the consensus GOAT. Remember, when MJ retired with the Chicago Bulls in 1998, MJ had the highest PPG ever, even higher than Wilt, for a career 32 ppg. It was his old man comeback Wizards years at 40 yrs old that dropped all of his averages. But if you look at solely MJ with the Bulls - it's ridiculous how dominant he was.

[bledredwine]

Another hilarious blunder by yours truly.

Where has Scrutanbulls been? not sure exact name? hope he ok above anything else, haven't see much of him.

Now that you mention it, he hasn’t posted in this thread in a while. Hopefully it stays that way.

I agree. At the same time, I also hope that he’s alright.

[70sFan]

Russel was not even the greatest in his own generation.

What should he have done to be the greatest in his own generation? The man accomplished everything he could in his career.

Wilt did everything Bill could do, but better. Wilt was the superior player. Better scorer, better defender, better rebounder.

Bill was averaging 23 boards per game? That's nice. Wilt came into the league and started leading the league at 27 rpg. The one thing Bill should be better at, he's not. Because Wilt was a much better scorer. Wilt is the 2nd greatest scorer to ever play, after Michael.

That's laughable take. Wilt was a better scorer. He was a better offensive rebounder. He was definitely a worse defender. Worse ball-handler, worse P&R partner, worse in transition. They are very different players with different advantages and I understand people liking Wilt more for his scoring, but saying Wilt was better at everything is laughable.

Bill was great, but he couldn't even be the dominant player in his own position, in his own generation. Heck, Bill is not better than Kareem either.

No player in the league history ever dominated his era to the same degree Russell did. You should start to understand that basketball isn't about individually scoring as many points as possible.

Remember, when MJ retired with the Chicago Bulls in 1998, MJ had the highest PPG ever, even higher than Wilt, for a career 32 ppg. It was his old man comeback Wizards years at 40 yrs old that dropped all of his averages. But if you look at solely MJ with the Bulls - it's ridiculous how dominant he was.

That's cute, now we remove parts of Jordan's career to make him look better? Without Wizards years, Jordan basically played 11 full seasons. Take out Wilt's last 2 seasons of his career and he'd average 33 ppg.

[lessthanjake]

Russell has a GOAT case, on the back of winning 11 titles. There’s really no way to deny that that gives him a case for it.

That said, I think a lot of people look at the context and see a nascent league with very few teams and see the Celtics almost never facing a standout team (i.e. if you look at the SRS of their playoff opponents, it’s virtually always middling—more on that below). Because the league was so small, in their 11 title-winning years, the Celtics only had to win 25 playoff series. It’s actually basically the same number of series wins as the Bulls had to win to get their 6 titles (i.e. 24 series wins). And the SRS of those Celtics’ opponents in their title-winning years were, in chronological order: -1.03, -0.27, 3.74, -1.42, 2.77, 1.77, 1.93, 2.99, 2.63, 1.80, 1.24, 2.67, 4.43, 4.41, -0.13, 1.70, 1.03, 4.16, 2.76, -1.70, 7.96, 4.99, 4.79, 5.48, and 3.48. Of course, one can try to say that those middling SRSs merely reflect parity and so one could assert that maybe teams weren’t standing out because all the teams were really good. But that doesn’t seem like the most natural conclusion when we are talking about a league that is genuinely not very well established yet. It was more like a struggling sports league that had a lot of organizations trying to make it up as they went. That’s the context here. The most likely conclusion is that there was parity of mediocrity, as well as so few teams that the Celtics usually only had to win two series in order to win the title. That is a much easier context to win a title in than it became in later decades.

Of course, there’s an argument that, even if that’s all true, it doesn’t mean Russell isn’t the GOAT. After all, even if the context makes his achievements much less gaudy, there’s virtually nothing more he could’ve done in terms of winning. He really did almost entirely max out on possible team achievements. And that’s why he undeniably has a GOAT case. But I think the retort to that is that we know he was a genuinely flawed player with some major weaknesses individually, so it probably makes sense to infer that the incredible team achievements were pretty dependent on the easier context, and that Russell would not have achieved nearly as much if plopped into a more established league with more teams. There’s no way to really know though, so that’s why there’s always a valid argument for Russell on the grounds of basically “He essentially maxed out on possible achievements in his era.”

[ReggiesKnicks]

Russell has a GOAT case, on the back of winning 11 titles. There’s really no way to deny that that gives him a case for it.

That said, I think a lot of people look at the context and see a nascent league with very few teams and see the Celtics almost never facing a standout team (i.e. if you look at the SRS of their playoff opponents, it’s virtually always middling—more on that below). Because the league was so small, in their 11 title-winning years, the Celtics only had to win 25 playoff series. It’s actually basically the same number of series wins as the Bulls had to win to get their 6 titles (i.e. 24 series wins). And the SRS of those Celtics’ opponents in their title-winning years were, in chronological order: -1.03, -0.27, 3.74, -1.42, 2.77, 1.77, 1.93, 2.99, 2.63, 1.80, 1.24, 2.67, 4.43, 4.41, -0.13, 1.70, 1.03, 4.16, 2.76, -1.70, 7.96, 4.99, 4.79, 5.48, and 3.48. Of course, one can try to say that those middling SRSs merely reflect parity and so one could assert that maybe teams weren’t standing out because all the teams were really good. But that doesn’t seem like the most natural conclusion when we are talking about a league that is genuinely not very well established yet. It was more like a struggling sports league that had a lot of organizations trying to make it up as they went. That’s the context here. The most likely conclusion is that there was parity of mediocrity, as well as so few teams that the Celtics usually only had to win two series in order to win the title. That is a much easier context to win a title in than it became in later decades.

Of course, there’s an argument that, even if that’s all true, it doesn’t mean Russell isn’t the GOAT. After all, even if the context makes his achievements much less gaudy, there’s virtually nothing more he could’ve done in terms of winning. He really did almost entirely max out on possible team achievements. And that’s why he undeniably has a GOAT case. But I think the retort to that is that we know he was a genuinely flawed player with some major weaknesses individually, so it probably makes sense to infer that the incredible team achievements were pretty dependent on the easier context, and that Russell would not have achieved nearly as much if plopped into a more established league with more teams. There’s no way to really know though, so that’s why there’s always a valid argument for Russell on the grounds of basically “He essentially maxed out on possible achievements in his era.”

Can't all this apply to the whole LeBron vs Jordan argument, but in favor of LeBron?

-LeBron played in a more developed league with more teams
-LeBron played in a more talented league
-LeBron played against better teams (by the SRS metric you are using to display Russell's opponents)
-LeBron is the most "well-rounded" player ever and could do the most things on basketball court at an elite level, even more than Jordan

All of these are nearly identical to the same arguments you provided for Russell and then responses you provided in your post.

I'd also caution anyone here, and yourself, to approach a GOaT conversation or analysis in a way you do. You seemingly have all the answers to all the questions or evidence you provide. It is as if you are presenting pseudo-arguments with well-rounded responses in order to prevent any actual arguments to your points. Its a tactic commonly taught in High School debate courses/clubs.

Present an artificial argument that sounds good in theory but is surface level and then have answers for the artificial and generally low-level argument to make it seem like the artificial argument has a basis but is refuted.

It's cute.

I'm not one to argue one way or another in favor of a player as the GOAT of this sport. The main candidates are all generations apart and, for the majority of people in this thread (yourself included), you are approaching this whole debate as "Here is my side, let me show why my side is the GOAT" instead of from a POV of "I don't know who the GOAT is, let's find out". That's already going to inhibit biases, which we as humans are infallible to.

[lessthanjake]

Russell has a GOAT case, on the back of winning 11 titles. There’s really no way to deny that that gives him a case for it.

That said, I think a lot of people look at the context and see a nascent league with very few teams and see the Celtics almost never facing a standout team (i.e. if you look at the SRS of their playoff opponents, it’s virtually always middling—more on that below). Because the league was so small, in their 11 title-winning years, the Celtics only had to win 25 playoff series. It’s actually basically the same number of series wins as the Bulls had to win to get their 6 titles (i.e. 24 series wins). And the SRS of those Celtics’ opponents in their title-winning years were, in chronological order: -1.03, -0.27, 3.74, -1.42, 2.77, 1.77, 1.93, 2.99, 2.63, 1.80, 1.24, 2.67, 4.43, 4.41, -0.13, 1.70, 1.03, 4.16, 2.76, -1.70, 7.96, 4.99, 4.79, 5.48, and 3.48. Of course, one can try to say that those middling SRSs merely reflect parity and so one could assert that maybe teams weren’t standing out because all the teams were really good. But that doesn’t seem like the most natural conclusion when we are talking about a league that is genuinely not very well established yet. It was more like a struggling sports league that had a lot of organizations trying to make it up as they went. That’s the context here. The most likely conclusion is that there was parity of mediocrity, as well as so few teams that the Celtics usually only had to win two series in order to win the title. That is a much easier context to win a title in than it became in later decades.

Of course, there’s an argument that, even if that’s all true, it doesn’t mean Russell isn’t the GOAT. After all, even if the context makes his achievements much less gaudy, there’s virtually nothing more he could’ve done in terms of winning. He really did almost entirely max out on possible team achievements. And that’s why he undeniably has a GOAT case. But I think the retort to that is that we know he was a genuinely flawed player with some major weaknesses individually, so it probably makes sense to infer that the incredible team achievements were pretty dependent on the easier context, and that Russell would not have achieved nearly as much if plopped into a more established league with more teams. There’s no way to really know though, so that’s why there’s always a valid argument for Russell on the grounds of basically “He essentially maxed out on possible achievements in his era.”

Can't all this apply to the whole LeBron vs Jordan argument, but in favor of LeBron?

-LeBron played in a more developed league with more teams
-LeBron played in a more talented league
-LeBron played against better teams (by the SRS metric you are using to display Russell's opponents)
-LeBron is the most "well-rounded" player ever and could do the most things on basketball court at an elite level, even more than Jordan

All of these are nearly identical to the same arguments you provided for Russell and then responses you provided in your post.

One could try to make a similar argument, but it’s really not remotely comparable. The size of the league in Jordan’s and LeBron’s era was similar (and definitely nowhere near as different as Russell’s era was to other GOAT candidates’ eras). The number of rounds you had to get through to win a title was not different in Jordan’s and LeBron’s eras. The league was not a nascent, struggling league in Jordan’s era, but rather a well-established league. There’s just not any real similarity with some of the major points I made regarding Russell. Meanwhile, you also make points here that aren’t actually true. If we looked at opponent SRS, Jordan’s opponents don’t look middling at all, and in fact look stronger on balance than LeBron’s. In fact, there’s not many all-time greats who have faced higher average opponent SRS in the playoffs than Jordan. So that aspect is really nothing like Russell, and in fact goes the opposite direction from the analogy you’re making. And while you could argue LeBron is more “well-rounded,” that isn’t really responsive to the point I made about Russell—which was that he had pretty glaring flaws as a player (specifically on offense). While Jordan and LeBron both have strengths and weaknesses, neither of them has the kind of glaring flaws I was referring to.

[WarriorGM]

If LeBron has an argument against Jordan, Steph has an argument against Jordan.

[Iwasawitness]

If LeBron has an argument against Jordan, Steph has an argument against Jordan.

No, he definitely doesn’t.

[WarriorGM]

If LeBron has an argument against Jordan, Steph has an argument against Jordan.

No, he definitely doesn’t.

Oh he definitely does.

[Iwasawitness]

If LeBron has an argument against Jordan, Steph has an argument against Jordan.

No, he definitely doesn’t.

Oh he definitely does.

No, he doesn’t. You haven’t been able to make an argument for his case in the past and you’re not going to be able to do it now. This thread has enough horrible takes already, it doesn’t need your help.

[WarriorGM]

No, he definitely doesn’t.

Oh he definitely does.

No, he doesn’t. You haven’t been able to make an argument for his case in the past and you’re not going to be able to do it now. This thread has enough horrible takes already, it doesn’t need your help.

That's like saying you haven't been able to make a case for LeBron in the past and you're not going to be able to do it now. All the attempts to shunt Curry aside have looked increasing ludicrous over the years. They've failed because Curry has a better case than LeBron despite all the smoke and mirrors used to muddle the issue.

[AmIWrongDude]

Oh he definitely does.

No, he doesn’t. You haven’t been able to make an argument for his case in the past and you’re not going to be able to do it now. This thread has enough horrible takes already, it doesn’t need your help.

That's like saying you haven't been able to make a case for LeBron in the past and you're not going to be able to do it now. All the attempts to shunt Curry aside have looked increasing ludicrous over the years. They've failed because Curry has a better case than LeBron despite all the smoke and mirrors used to muddle the issue.

There’s enough other threads to talk about Steph. He has no business being talked about in this one.

[WarriorGM]

No, he doesn’t. You haven’t been able to make an argument for his case in the past and you’re not going to be able to do it now. This thread has enough horrible takes already, it doesn’t need your help.

That's like saying you haven't been able to make a case for LeBron in the past and you're not going to be able to do it now. All the attempts to shunt Curry aside have looked increasing ludicrous over the years. They've failed because Curry has a better case than LeBron despite all the smoke and mirrors used to muddle the issue.

There’s enough other threads to talk about Steph. He has no business being talked about in this one.

He is the only player from this era worth talking about regarding this topic so if it is going to be brought up expect him to feature. Indeed he should be the most prominent name.

[AmIWrongDude]

That's like saying you haven't been able to make a case for LeBron in the past and you're not going to be able to do it now. All the attempts to shunt Curry aside have looked increasing ludicrous over the years. They've failed because Curry has a better case than LeBron despite all the smoke and mirrors used to muddle the issue.

There’s enough other threads to talk about Steph. He has no business being talked about in this one.

He is the only player from this era worth talking about regarding this topic so if it is going to be brought up expect him to feature. Indeed he should be the most prominent name.

This is not the GOAT Shooter thread it’s the GOAT thread