RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[EmpireFalls]

The idea of a Steph Curry GOAT case is delusional, but to make one centering around being UNLUCKY with injury is one of the most hilarious statements ever written on the internet.

2015 - Jrue Holiday injured
Conley and Allen injured
Kyrie and Love injured and miss series

2017 - Kawhi injury (no Parker either)

2018 - CP3 hamstring injury when up 3-2

2022 - Murray/Porter/nearly everyone injured
Ja Morant injury midway through series
Tatum playing through shoulder and wrist injuries (just as detrimental to his performance as the knee was in 2016)

The Warriors do not have a single win without seeing crucial stars on other teams injured.

If you want to call Curry the GOAT there are ways to do it, but basing it off of him being oh so unlucky with injury? Come on.

2019 is the one season where he truly was unlucky, and that shouldn’t be ignored, but it left him in the exact situation that the Cavs were in during the 2015 series, so it cancels out.

The injuries in the 2019 playoffs left the Warriors in the same exact situation that the Cavaliers were in during the 2015 series? Really? I did not know that the Cavaliers were left without a credible number two option for the next few seasons due to their injuries in 2015.

Your entire post is full of such false equivalences and biased logic.

Just sticking to the 2015 and 2019 comparison again, saying they would just cancel out is presumptuous. Why should we assume that Curry could not have won both times if injuries weren't a factor? Indeed the body of evidence I'd argue suggests that Curry likely could have won in all three years of 2015, 2016, and 2019 if injuries didn't come up. Injuries hurt Curry's chances more than they helped him.

Same goes for the rest of your examples. Even with Kawhi not being injured in 2017 do you think the Warriors couldn't come back? 2018 too after what happened in 2019?

Referencing the 2022 Nuggets series is just a plain disingenuous example engaging in speculative fantasy. If Murray and MPJ were healthy they presumably would have helped Jokic attain a higher seed and they may not have even have played the Warriors.

As for the 2022 Grizzlies series, the Grizzlies had a great record without Ja during the regular season shifting to become a more defensive team without him. The Warriors beat both versions of the Grizzlies with Ja and without Ja 2-1. By the way GPII was also injured in the series.

Let's take a step back though. What are people really insinuating when they bring up these injury complaints? Isn't it basically saying that the Warriors were advantaged and that their opponents were disadvantaged?

To that Curry has a terrific rebuttal: Curry has been the one who has been in more disadvantageous positions than he could reasonably have expected.

2015 injuries to a couple of the opponents' supporting players? Pshaw! What is that next to the disadvantages Curry had to overcome: How about having your highest paid teammate be David Lee and barely useful? How about having a roster of teammates full of finals newbies? How about having as a coach a first-time coach? How about playing in the tougher conference? How about having to face all the top seeds possible on your playoffs path and each one being led by a player on the First Team All-NBA?

Curry had to overcome all of that to win his first title—and his critics are calling him lucky. I submit that far from 2015 being "lucky" it is one of the most impressive championship debut's of an all-time great in NBA history.

Yeah, while I wasn’t making any argument about “injury luck,” I do think that if we zoomed out a bit it’s difficult to make an argument that Steph was actually lucky with injuries. A few important points:

1. Long-term injuries to his teammates and himself ended any chance of his team contending in 2020 and 2021, which were two years right in the middle of his prime. This is a really big deal.

2. He had a lot of injury struggles early in his career, which were a major contributor to him being a bit of a late-bloomer compared to other all-time greats.

3. His team blew up with injuries in the 2019 playoffs.

4. Even after that 2020 & 2021 time period, his best offensive teammate—Klay Thompson—was a shadow of his former self. Steph still got another title, but it was definitely made a good bit harder due to that injury situation, and hurt their chances in 2023 and 2024.

5. Steph himself got injured in the 2016 playoffs, in a year that his team barely lost in the Finals (i.e. a good chance they win if he’s even a little better/healthier).

Of course, the Warriors also got their share of injury luck. Kyrie and Love were injured in the 2015 Finals. Kawhi got injured in the 2017 WCF. And Chris Paul got injured in the 2018 WCF. It’s possible the Warriors would’ve lost those series if those guys hadn’t gotten injured. In fact, in 2018, I’d even go so far as to say I think it’s more likely than not that the Warriors would’ve lost (though if we take away Iguodala’s injury too, then maybe that swings back the other way).

However, I think if you set the league’s injury sliders to zero for each season of Steph’s career, it’s by no means clear to me at all that Steph and the Warriors would be worse off. In fact, if anything, I’m inclined to think the opposite. To me, that doesn’t really matter, since I think players’ greatness can only be measured by what actually happened and what they actually achieved, not on hypotheticals. But if we’re going to go down that hypothetical route, I really don’t think it leads to a diminished view of Steph.

Oops sorry @lessthanjake I meant to quote @WarriorGM on the earlier post. Doing this on my phone so clicked the wrong one. I was rebutting to his point not yours.

Anyways find me a championship where Steph didn’t directly benefit from a crucial opposing star going down with injury. If you can do that, I will happily retract my argument and proclaim him to be the GOAT of all GOATs.

[WarriorGM]

But let me ask a question here: if an argument truly does exist for Curry to be the GOAT in this sport, why is it that in seven trips to an NBA finals, his most noteworthy finals series of all time is one that isn't even top ten?

What is your criteria for top 10? If the criteria is leading a team to a championship that wasn't expected to win one at the start of the season, Curry may well have two in the top 10.

If your criteria is amassing a boatload of box score stats then I must ask why is that your criteria? For example in a sweep is that necessary? Does it somehow mean you are a worse player if you don't put up gaudy box score stats but still win? If you are a consummate team player it may not be necessary.

The problem as I see it is that many people have been conditioned to believe that the kind of performances someone like LeBron puts up are the only mark of greatness. But it isn't. A better team player doesn't need to do what LeBron does all the time to win.

Can LeBron score 11 points and still leave you with the impression that he is probably the main reason his team won the game? Curry can. He just did so the other day in his last game against the Kings.

Why do none of his games standout with the test of time and are frequently cited as all time performances? Why does someone like LeBron, a person WarriorGM passionately thinks Curry is above as a player, have multiple playoff performances that have gone down in history, and one of which even created a meme?

Hell, let's visit this for a moment and discuss it in detail, shall we? What are some classic, all time playoff performances from LeBron? Off the top of my head, the ones that immediately come to mind are game 5 against Detroit in 2007, game 7 against Boston in 08 where he put up 45 against a historically great defense and almost carried Cleveland to what would have been a historic upset, game 6 against Boston in 2012 where he had one of the most historically dominant offensive performances of all time, game 7 against the Spurs in 2013 (a performance people like to ignore because they like to hyper focus on Ray Allen hitting one three pointer in game 6), games 5, 6 and 7 against GS in 2016, the infamous LeBronto game in 2018 where he literally just kept shooting for the hell of it and couldn't miss, game 7 against Boston that same year, and game 1 against Golden State where he dropped 51 on them. And hell, we don't even have to look at it from a scoring perspective. LeBron is responsible for one of the greatest and most memorable defensive plays of all time. He locked up the MVP in 2011 for an entire series and swung it in his teams favor as a result. He's also locked up the likes of Tony Parker and Paul Pierce.

Again, those are just off the top of my head.

What does Curry have that compares with any of this? He lit up Boston in game 4 in the 2022 Finals. He had a near 50 point piece against Toronto in 2019 but I can't remember what game it was. That's no small feat when you consider how great that Toronto team was. Apart from that... his playoff resume is actually pretty underwhelming.

I don't know why you cannot recall any great Curry performances. I can. Maybe you don't watch his games. Maybe you're on the east coast and don't get to see them because of the time difference. Maybe the media coverage sucks. Maybe the media coverage is slanted. Maybe east coast teams are just more inventive with their memes.

For example LeBron fans make a big deal about defeating the Raptors led by DeRozan and Lowry in 2018 and even created the LeBronto meme for it. You might even be led to believe that is the best example of superstar domination of a team these past few years. Truth is though Steph dominated the Lillard Trail Blazers even more thoroughly. You just don't hear about it as much. Despite that you see media comparing Steph to Lillard. That is at the level of ridiculous of comparing LeBron to DeRozan.

Come to think of it that LeBron 2018 run to the finals is sometimes referred to as his peak and LeBron has been lavished with praise for it. But who did he really beat? The best team he beat was probably the Celtics with a freshman Tatum and sophomore Brown. LeBron barely beat them in the closing moments of Game 7. It was exciting and probably left a lasting memory for those who viewed it and that's why such people probably hold it in high regard. The fact of the matter though is that Steph at a similar age to LeBron would meet a far more seasoned and experienced version of that team in 2022 and whip them in 6 to win the title that year. Objectively Curry's win against the Celtics should be considered more impressive.

People love to prop up playoff performances, coming up big on a consistent basis. I'm looking at LeBron... he has a multitude of all time performances, has had some dominant playoff series, is the greatest elimination game performer of all time, has had dominant defensive performances that shifted an entire series, and led a team to the only 3-1 comeback in Finals history. Curry on the other hand has blown a 3-1 lead in the finals. 2022 Finals vs Boston is his greatest achievement by far, but honestly? What else is there? His 2017 and 2018 Finals wins are overshadowed by Durant because people are clueless, Klay is the one given more credit for saving GS's season in 2016 when they overcame OKC and came back when down 3-1... and hell, Iggy was the one who ultimately got the FMVP award in 2015 and rightfully so (even though I still contend that Curry's performance in that series is underrated). 2022 saved Curry's reputation as someone who needed others to dominate for him... it was finally his time to show that he could lead a team to victory. It shouldn't have even taken that long.

You mention 3-1 comebacks as apparently something notable, waxing enthusiastically about LeBron's while dismissing Curry's. Why is that? Because it seems Klay gets more credit? Klay was great in game 6 and he averaged 25 4 2 in the Thunder series but in comparison Kyrie was great in games 5 and 7 with the winning shot and averaging 27 4 4 in the finals.

Maybe you can tell us why Klay should get primary credit for the the Warriors comeback while Kyrie shouldn't for the Cavaliers'.

Anyway in that Thunder series Curry eliminated two adjacent MVPs. What is the LeBron series that is comparable?

That series wasn't the only time Curry's Warriors staged a comeback from elimination games. They did so as well in 2018 against the Rockets. Curry ended up disposing of probably the two greatest rivals of his era at his position. He then did it again in 2019. What is the LeBron accomplishment that is comparable?

FMVPs are a joke used the way you seem to be using them as an indication of who was most important in a series. Giving it to Iguodala was narrative mumbo jumbo about how relatively egalitarian a team the 2015 Warriors were.

Curry's reputation was saved by 2022? Curry's reputation should have needed no saving. That you think it did should indicate really off-kilter representation of his accomplishments made to you or a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

So with all of this in mind and everything factored in, it's fair to say that LeBron is the better playoff performer, who has had a far greater impact on his team in that regard and has done more to help them than Curry has. He's a better all around player than Curry. Even in a career where he's spent half of it no longer trying in the regular season, he still has twice the MVP's Curry does, as well as twice the FMVP despite both having the same amount of rings. Even if you argue that Curry has the greater offensive impact (which he does, I won't deny it), there's too big of a gap in other aspects of the game that tips the balance in LeBron's favor.

With all of this in mind, I ask the question that I've asked multiple times now in this thread (or more so stated but whatever): what possible argument does Curry have over LeBron? He's not a better player, he hasn't been a better playoff performer, LeBron has outplayed him multiple times not even counting finals where you can definitely make the case he's done it three out of the four times (again, the one only being because of a hand injury, and before said injury, LeBron dropped 51 points). Like... what are we even doing here?

Tim Duncan is someone that has a GOAT case if you squint your eyes. Bird does. Magic does. Curry has absolutely no GOAT case at all. None. At this point, the only ones who truly have a case are Jordan, LeBron, Kareem and Russell. That's pretty much it. Anyone else at that point is just blind fanboyism that doesn't deserve any real merit. Maybe once Curry becomes a consensus top ten all time player (which right now he isn't), then we can move on to the next step in the process here. But at this point? He'd be lucky to make it farther than that.

No it is not fair to say LeBron is a better playoffs performer. No LeBron has not had a greater impact on or given more help to his team. LeBron may be a better all-around individual player but it's doubtful if he is a better team multiplier than Steph.

LeBron may have more media awards but on close examination the value of having more of them crumbles. More MVPs? LeBron got two of them despite teaming up with Wade and Bosh because their loss in 2011 showed they weren't close to invincible as was initially feared. Curry on the other hand was excluded from serious consideration for a number of years because he teamed up with Durant and they were too successful. Your continued harping on FMVPs shows your insistence on using severely flawed measures. You think KD's FMVPs are a winning argument against Curry? Why should LeBron's be? LeBron outplayed Curry in the finals? But LeBron lost 3 out of 4 times.

Maybe your understanding of outplaying is wrong. Maybe that's why an entirely new branch of analytics that isn't dependent on the box score arose in the wake of Curry's ascent.

That Curry can effect such change should give you a strong hint that Curry is overqualified for the discussion here.

[michaelm]

The injuries in the 2019 playoffs left the Warriors in the same exact situation that the Cavaliers were in during the 2015 series? Really? I did not know that the Cavaliers were left without a credible number two option for the next few seasons due to their injuries in 2015.

Your entire post is full of such false equivalences and biased logic.

Just sticking to the 2015 and 2019 comparison again, saying they would just cancel out is presumptuous. Why should we assume that Curry could not have won both times if injuries weren't a factor? Indeed the body of evidence I'd argue suggests that Curry likely could have won in all three years of 2015, 2016, and 2019 if injuries didn't come up. Injuries hurt Curry's chances more than they helped him.

Same goes for the rest of your examples. Even with Kawhi not being injured in 2017 do you think the Warriors couldn't come back? 2018 too after what happened in 2019?

Referencing the 2022 Nuggets series is just a plain disingenuous example engaging in speculative fantasy. If Murray and MPJ were healthy they presumably would have helped Jokic attain a higher seed and they may not have even have played the Warriors.

As for the 2022 Grizzlies series, the Grizzlies had a great record without Ja during the regular season shifting to become a more defensive team without him. The Warriors beat both versions of the Grizzlies with Ja and without Ja 2-1. By the way GPII was also injured in the series.

Let's take a step back though. What are people really insinuating when they bring up these injury complaints? Isn't it basically saying that the Warriors were advantaged and that their opponents were disadvantaged?

To that Curry has a terrific rebuttal: Curry has been the one who has been in more disadvantageous positions than he could reasonably have expected.

2015 injuries to a couple of the opponents' supporting players? Pshaw! What is that next to the disadvantages Curry had to overcome: How about having your highest paid teammate be David Lee and barely useful? How about having a roster of teammates full of finals newbies? How about having as a coach a first-time coach? How about playing in the tougher conference? How about having to face all the top seeds possible on your playoffs path and each one being led by a player on the First Team All-NBA?

Curry had to overcome all of that to win his first title—and his critics are calling him lucky. I submit that far from 2015 being "lucky" it is one of the most impressive championship debut's of an all-time great in NBA history.

Yeah, while I wasn’t making any argument about “injury luck,” I do think that if we zoomed out a bit it’s difficult to make an argument that Steph was actually lucky with injuries. A few important points:

1. Long-term injuries to his teammates and himself ended any chance of his team contending in 2020 and 2021, which were two years right in the middle of his prime. This is a really big deal.

2. He had a lot of injury struggles early in his career, which were a major contributor to him being a bit of a late-bloomer compared to other all-time greats.

3. His team blew up with injuries in the 2019 playoffs.

4. Even after that 2020 & 2021 time period, his best offensive teammate—Klay Thompson—was a shadow of his former self. Steph still got another title, but it was definitely made a good bit harder due to that injury situation, and hurt their chances in 2023 and 2024.

5. Steph himself got injured in the 2016 playoffs, in a year that his team barely lost in the Finals (i.e. a good chance they win if he’s even a little better/healthier).

Of course, the Warriors also got their share of injury luck. Kyrie and Love were injured in the 2015 Finals. Kawhi got injured in the 2017 WCF. And Chris Paul got injured in the 2018 WCF. It’s possible the Warriors would’ve lost those series if those guys hadn’t gotten injured. In fact, in 2018, I’d even go so far as to say I think it’s more likely than not that the Warriors would’ve lost (though if we take away Iguodala’s injury too, then maybe that swings back the other way).

However, I think if you set the league’s injury sliders to zero for each season of Steph’s career, it’s by no means clear to me at all that Steph and the Warriors would be worse off. In fact, if anything, I’m inclined to think the opposite. To me, that doesn’t really matter, since I think players’ greatness can only be measured by what actually happened and what they actually achieved, not on hypotheticals. But if we’re going to go down that hypothetical route, I really don’t think it leads to a diminished view of Steph.

Oops sorry @lessthanjake I meant to quote @WarriorGM on the earlier post. Doing this on my phone so clicked the wrong one. I was rebutting to his point not yours.

Anyways find me a championship where Steph didn’t directly benefit from a crucial opposing star going down with injury. If you can do that, I will happily retract my argument and proclaim him to be the GOAT of all GOATs.

Even the GSW board considers Warrior GM over the top, but I don't think he is more biased than some Lebron partisans.

Curry's teams being stronger is imo an argument for greatness rather than against same as it is even more so for Jordan. Curry contributed to the 2022 title win as an individual player at least as much as Lebron did to any of the title wins by his teams imo. It was a well constructed team with several players who had career best seasons, again an argument for Curry rather than against him imo.

[WarriorGM]

Yeah, while I wasn’t making any argument about “injury luck,” I do think that if we zoomed out a bit it’s difficult to make an argument that Steph was actually lucky with injuries. A few important points:

1. Long-term injuries to his teammates and himself ended any chance of his team contending in 2020 and 2021, which were two years right in the middle of his prime. This is a really big deal.

2. He had a lot of injury struggles early in his career, which were a major contributor to him being a bit of a late-bloomer compared to other all-time greats.

3. His team blew up with injuries in the 2019 playoffs.

4. Even after that 2020 & 2021 time period, his best offensive teammate—Klay Thompson—was a shadow of his former self. Steph still got another title, but it was definitely made a good bit harder due to that injury situation, and hurt their chances in 2023 and 2024.

5. Steph himself got injured in the 2016 playoffs, in a year that his team barely lost in the Finals (i.e. a good chance they win if he’s even a little better/healthier).

Of course, the Warriors also got their share of injury luck. Kyrie and Love were injured in the 2015 Finals. Kawhi got injured in the 2017 WCF. And Chris Paul got injured in the 2018 WCF. It’s possible the Warriors would’ve lost those series if those guys hadn’t gotten injured. In fact, in 2018, I’d even go so far as to say I think it’s more likely than not that the Warriors would’ve lost (though if we take away Iguodala’s injury too, then maybe that swings back the other way).

However, I think if you set the league’s injury sliders to zero for each season of Steph’s career, it’s by no means clear to me at all that Steph and the Warriors would be worse off. In fact, if anything, I’m inclined to think the opposite. To me, that doesn’t really matter, since I think players’ greatness can only be measured by what actually happened and what they actually achieved, not on hypotheticals. But if we’re going to go down that hypothetical route, I really don’t think it leads to a diminished view of Steph.

Oops sorry @lessthanjake I meant to quote @WarriorGM on the earlier post. Doing this on my phone so clicked the wrong one. I was rebutting to his point not yours.

Anyways find me a championship where Steph didn’t directly benefit from a crucial opposing star going down with injury. If you can do that, I will happily retract my argument and proclaim him to be the GOAT of all GOATs.

Even the GSW board considers Warrioir GM over the top, but I don't think he is much more biased than some Lebron partisans.

Curry's teams being stronger is imo an argument for greatness rather than against same as it is even more so for Jordan. Curry contributed to the 2022 title win as an individual player at least as much as Lebron did to any of the title wins by his teams imo. It was a well constructed team with several players who had career best seasons, again an argument for Curry rather than against him imo.

Your constant apologizing is probably indicative of why this topic doesn't get discussed more around here. Warriors fans in this forum are rather timid. Next time you apologize for me you should also note I was almost the only one on the GSW board picking Steph to lead the Warriors to a win in 2022 and certainly the most unequivocal when it came to Curry's status as the best player in the league.

[michaelm]

Oops sorry @lessthanjake I meant to quote @WarriorGM on the earlier post. Doing this on my phone so clicked the wrong one. I was rebutting to his point not yours.

Anyways find me a championship where Steph didn’t directly benefit from a crucial opposing star going down with injury. If you can do that, I will happily retract my argument and proclaim him to be the GOAT of all GOATs.

Even the GSW board considers Warrioir GM over the top, but I don't think he is much more biased than some Lebron partisans.

Curry's teams being stronger is imo an argument for greatness rather than against same as it is even more so for Jordan. Curry contributed to the 2022 title win as an individual player at least as much as Lebron did to any of the title wins by his teams imo. It was a well constructed team with several players who had career best seasons, again an argument for Curry rather than against him imo.

Your constant apologizing is probably indicative of why this topic doesn't get discussed more around here. Warriors fans in this forum are rather timid. Next time you apologize for me you should also note I was almost the only one on the GSW board picking Steph to lead the Warriors to a win in 2022 and certainly the most unequivocal when it came to Curry's status as the best player in the league.

And I have constantly said I consider Curry to be a better player to build a team around than Lebron, the implication in a team sport being fairly obvious to me. I also just said his contribution as an individual player to the 2022 title was at least as great as Lebron to any of the titles his teams won. GSW did deliberately tank in 2000 though, and that a nearly completely new team was built around Curry to win the 2022 title, on which several players literally unwanted by any other team in the NBA were strong contributors next to Curry is a point which can easily be made without implying Curry was the only change between the 2020 and 2022 teams. You did draw out a couple of Lebron partisans to make extreme claims themselves, so credit to you for that I guess.

[Iwasawitness]

What is your criteria for top 10? If the criteria is leading a team to a championship that wasn't expected to win one at the start of the season, Curry may well have two in the top 10.

I've made the mistake of doing this with you in the past, but seeing as to how I have nothing better to do right now since my girlfriend is sick... sure, I'll humor this.

No person in their right mind would use this criteria. This is a very selective thing that you are only applying because it has something to do with Curry. In reality, it's a very flawed premise. Pre season odds mean absolutely nothing, and they're often wrong. For example: for this season alone, the top five teams for pre-season odds were the following: Celtics, Knicks, Nuggets, Timberwolves, and Thunder. None of these teams currently have the best record in the league. The team that does wasn't even top ten. The NBA season is very long and so much happens over the course of it that drastically changes everything. You are much better off using odds at the beginning of the playoffs, as we have a much better idea of where teams are at and how they are shaping up going into the postseason. And in that regard, when doing actual research... the Warriors went into the postseason as favorites to win the championship in three of their four seasons, with 2022 being the exception (where the Brooklyn Nets, for some reason, were the favorites). LeBron, likewise, has also won a championship when his team weren't the favorites going into the playoffs (2016, where the Warriors were heavy favorites).

In other words, the criteria you use has to make sense. This one doesn't make any sense at all.

If your criteria is amassing a boatload of box score stats then I must ask why is that your criteria? For example in a sweep is that necessary? Does it somehow mean you are a worse player if you don't put up gaudy box score stats but still win? If you are a consummate team player it may not be necessary.

I have no need to answer this stupid question because that isn't my criteria.

The problem as I see it is that many people have been conditioned to believe that the kind of performances someone like LeBron puts up are the only mark of greatness. But it isn't. A better team player doesn't need to do what LeBron does all the time to win.

Can LeBron score 11 points and still leave you with the impression that he is probably the main reason his team won the game? Curry can. He just did so the other day in his last game against the Kings.

Can he? So why is it that in situations where Curry has actually had an underwhelming game, his team usually loses? Sure you can use this for a random regular season game that means nothing, but that hasn't really been the case in the postseason, except for the occasions where it was due to his teammates stepping up big time and covering for his weaknesses. And that just... isn't a good thing.

I don't know why you cannot recall any great Curry performances. I can. Maybe you don't watch his games. Maybe you're on the east coast and don't get to see them because of the time difference. Maybe the media coverage sucks. Maybe the media coverage is slanted. Maybe east coast teams are just more inventive with their memes.

Maybe you should try re-reading my post, as I mention two games that were off the top of my head that were from Curry.

For example LeBron fans make a big deal about defeating the Raptors led by DeRozan and Lowry in 2018 and even created the LeBronto meme for it. You might even be led to believe that is the best example of superstar domination of a team these past few years. Truth is though Steph dominated the Lillard Trail Blazers even more thoroughly. You just don't hear about it as much. Despite that you see media comparing Steph to Lillard. That is at the level of ridiculous of comparing LeBron to DeRozan.

There are a couple things wrong with this line of thinking.

For starters, Curry dominating the Blazers (in what I assume is 2019) wasn't all that surprising, and in fact was to be expected. The Warriors were a terrible matchup for the Blazers and they didn't really have anyone to guard Curry, or even Klay for that matter. They weren't even a top 15 defense that year. This was easy pickings for the Warriors. Yeah, no one really expected it to be a complete sweep, but nonetheless, the Warriors were the favorites and for good reason.

The Cavaliers sweeping the Raptors on the other hand was a pretty big deal. The Raptors were one win short of reaching the 60 mark (which they only didn't because Wayne Ellington had the game of his life and stole that win from Toronto) and had a 7.29 SRS (Cleveland for the record only had a 0.59 SRS that season) that year in what was considered a more improved Eastern Conference (despite what people would like you to believe). The Raptors were the favorites going into the series, and opened up game 1 as 6.5 favorites to win (you see this bled? This is called doing research and fact checking before posting, try it sometime). Cleveland on the other hand was coming off of barely escaping a first round matchup against Indiana where they looked horribly exposed and dysfunctional as a team. This had all the makings of Toronto finally getting their revenge and ending LeBron's reign in the Eastern Conference.

Until it didn't happen. The Cavaliers took game one in an upset. And then game two happened, where LeBronto was officially born. See, it wasn't just this game that caused this to become a meme. LeBron had been dominating Toronto for years now, and they've just never been able to get their revenge. This was the first time they were expected to actually beat LeBron, and instead, LeBron spent a critical fourth quarter in game 2 posting up in random spots on the floor and just shooting, regardless of who was guarding him, and making every single shot. It was one of the most demoralizing beatdowns any team has ever received. It was basically LeBron's way of saying "you're not going to beat me and you never will". And to top it all off, he hits a game winner in the following game.

You may be correct that Steph was more dominant against Portland, but LeBron dominating Toronto was nonetheless a much bigger deal and a far greater statement.

Come to think of it that LeBron 2018 run to the finals is sometimes referred to as his peak and LeBron has been lavished with praise for it. But who did he really beat? The best team he beat was probably the Celtics with a freshman Tatum and sophomore Brown. LeBron barely beat them in the closing moments of Game 7. It was exciting and probably left a lasting memory for those who viewed it and that's why such people probably hold it in high regard. The fact of the matter though is that Steph at a similar age to LeBron would meet a far more seasoned and experienced version of that team in 2022 and whip them in 6 to win the title that year. Objectively Curry's win against the Celtics should be considered more impressive.

Again, a few things wrong with this line of reasoning.

Curry's 2022 Warriors team had great chemistry with good depth and nice pieces to compliment his style of play. Yeah, they don't really match up with his teams of old... but they didn't have to. They were still a really great team, one worthy of winning the championship that season.

The 2018 Cavaliers on the other hand were a mess, pretty much from the beginning. They spent 90% of that season relying heavily on the production of LeBron, who led the NBA in minutes that season despite being in his fifteenth season at this point (which is asinine). They didn't really have any depth, they were dysfunctional, and the shadow of Golden State was pretty much following them all season long. Their defense never really clicked, and their offense was completely absent without LeBron. And it doesn't help that they went through multiple major trades at the halfway point of the season, which pretty much reset everything.

You asked who did they beat in the playoffs that year? In the playoffs, they played the following three teams: Indiana, Toronto, and Boston.

Indiana: They weren't really anything special as a team, but they did have something that made them a bitch of a matchup for Cleveland: everyone in the starting lineup could shoot the three ball. This was a death sentence for the Cleveland defense as they already lacked rim protection and were pretty putrid at that end, but now they were forced to spread out their defense. They had to rely heavily on LeBron's offensive production just to win.

Toronto: Already explained earlier how elite of a team they were.

Boston: You're downplaying them horribly here. Yes, Tatum was a rookie and guys like Brown and Smart were still getting their feet wet, but they were the number one ranked defense in the league that year off the backs of Horford making first team all defense and having a lot of strong veteran players on the team. They were an extremely well rounded team. Hell, Marcus Morris was considered a LeBron stopper at the time, and LeBron completely dominated him all series long.

The thing about the 2018 run is that it was a demonstration of what kind of player LeBron had become. There were always talks of him being a flawed offensive player who required a specific group of players to win, who needed multiple all stars and couldn't do it without a superteam, who didn't have what it took to overcome superior teams. There's 99 things wrong with the line of thinking on display here but in the end it didn't really matter, because he still proved all of these things to be wrong and put on a postseason run the likes of which we had never seen before from any player, including Jordan. The level of dominance he displayed was otherworldly.

You mention 3-1 comebacks as apparently something notable, waxing enthusiastically about LeBron's while dismissing Curry's. Why is that? Because it seems Klay gets more credit? Klay was great in game 6 and he averaged 25 4 2 in the Thunder series but in comparison Kyrie was great in games 5 and 7 with the winning shot and averaging 27 4 4 in the finals.

Maybe you can tell us why Klay should get primary credit for the the Warriors comeback while Kyrie shouldn't for the Cavaliers'.

When did I say Klay should get primary credit for the Warriors 3-1 comeback? I simply mentioned the fact that Klay's game 6 performance overshadowed the contributions Curry made in making it possible, which is absolutely true. Klay actually gained a reputation as being more clutch as a player than Curry because of that one game, which isn't completely invalid because it wasn't the first time Klay was scorching hot and took teams out while Curry let him cook. But it does add to my point regarding the fact that when it comes right down to it, Curry simply did not dominate in the kind of fashion LeBron did.

Now granted, I can't really speak for why Klay should get primary credit, because I don't think he should. But I can tell you why I think LeBron should get primary credit while Kyrie shouldn't... for one thing, Kyrie Irving wasn't the one who had back to back 40 point performances and closed things out with one of the greatest defensive plays of all time with a triple double... LeBron was. And before you go on about pretty stats or whatever nonsense, LeBron was the one who had scored most of Cleveland's points in that fourth quarter that won Cleveland the championship. In fact, that three from Irving was the only basket he had in that entire quarter apart from a tip in that he made at the start of the quarter. In that low scoring fourth quarter, LeBron had 11 points while Irving only had 5. I'm not going to sit here and ignore the fact that Irving hit the crucial three that helped changed the trajectory of the game, but I'm also not going to shut my brain off like most people like to do and pretend that him hitting a three pointer changes the fact that LeBron had more than double the amount of points Irving did in that very quarter.

Anyway in that Thunder series Curry eliminated two adjacent MVPs. What is the LeBron series that is comparable?

...so did LeBron, in 2012. You're gonna have to do better than that.

That series wasn't the only time Curry's Warriors staged a comeback from elimination games. They did so as well in 2018 against the Rockets. Curry ended up disposing of probably the two greatest rivals of his era at his position. He then did it again in 2019. What is the LeBron accomplishment that is comparable?

Oh, you mean the series where Paul got injured? Is that the one you're referring to? I really hope you aren't trying to use that to prop up Curry when in reality, he benefited massively from a key injury that prevented Houston from sending the Warriors home early in what would have ultimately been a massive disappointment.

And I don't even know why you're bringing up 2019. The Rockets that season were a massive downgrade compared to the previous season. The 2018 Rockets had the top ranked offense on top of having a top ten defense. They weren't even top 15 defensively in 2019, had major chemistry issues, and they never recovered from losing Ariza and Moute to free agency. This is such a hilariously bad point that it's not even worth discussing why it's wrong. It'd be a waste of my time.

FMVPs are a joke used the way you seem to be using them as an indication of who was most important in a series. Giving it to Iguodala was narrative mumbo jumbo about how relatively egalitarian a team the 2015 Warriors were.

No, FMVP's are (for the most part) an accurate representation of just how great of an impact a player has on their team. Iggy getting the award wasn't for narrative purposes. He literally changed the outcome of the entire series. The Cavs had a 2-1 series lead over GS going into game 4 and had stolen homecourt advantage. Iggy getting inserted into the starting lineup changed everything. And on top of it, he was the third leading scorer for Golden State while shooting far better percentages than either Curry or Thompson. I'll always contend that Curry's 2015 series is underrated, but Iggy absolutely deserved FMVP over him.

Curry's reputation was saved by 2022? Curry's reputation should have needed no saving. That you think it did should indicate really off-kilter representation of his accomplishments made to you or a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

Should not have needed saving and needed saving are two different things. The fact of the matter is, at that point, Curry had a reputation as someone who benefited from being on historically stacked teams while winning under very favorable circumstances. He had no FMVP wins, was coming off of two poor seasons and a lot of people thought the Warriors dynasty had come to an end. You can sit here and pretend all you want that you had some crystal ball telling you the Warriors were bound for another finals run, but how you feel and what you think doesn't change what the narrative was at the time. Curry having the reputation that I described doesn't matter if it was based on misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is, it existed and him winning in 2022 proved a lot of people wrong. You of all people should be embracing that fact, not trying to fight it.

No it is not fair to say LeBron is a better playoffs performer. No LeBron has not had a greater impact on or given more help to his team. LeBron may be a better all-around individual player but it's doubtful if he is a better team multiplier than Steph.

Then please, by all means, show me the instances where Curry made it to a Finals without a stacked team filled with multiple all stars, multiple all defensive players, good solid roleplayers that fit him to a T and great coaching. LeBron has done this three times. Curry on the other hand has never done it.

LeBron may have more media awards but on close examination the value of having more of them crumbles. More MVPs? LeBron got two of them despite teaming up with Wade and Bosh because their loss in 2011 showed they weren't close to invincible as was initially feared.

That isn't why he got the MVP awards. He got them because he took his game to another level and put voters in a position where they had no choice but to give him said award. Try being consistent with reality here. Making **** up isn't going to help you.

Curry on the other hand was excluded from serious consideration for a number of years because he teamed up with Durant and they were too successful.

Nonsense like this is why I stopped bothering with you in the past and why I'm wondering what am I doing with my life. They were too successful? What the hell does that even mean? MVP is a regular season award that is mostly based on how well your team performs. Curry won his unanimous MVP award in a season where his team had the the most successful regular season of all time, but somehow the following team winning less games were too successful? Hell, LeBron's fourth MVP happened during a season when his team had a 27 game winning streak and they won 66 games, one less than the 2017 team did. Hell, the 2018 team didn't even win 60 games. So what the hell are you even talking about here? What part of your ass did you pull this one out of? This would be like me saying I didn't get the job because I did too well in the interview.

You're continued harping on FMVPs shows your insistence on using severely flawed measures. You think KD's FMVPs are a winning argument against Curry? Why should LeBron's be? LeBron outplayed Curry in the finals? But LeBron lost 3 out of 4 times.

Because for one thing, it demonstrates how much more LeBron meant to his team than Curry did. It tells me that there's a legitimate chance Curry could have been out with an injury in the KD Warriors teams, and they'd still probably win their championships. You can't replace LeBron on those teams with someone else and expect them to win. Hell, odds are the Cavs don't even make the playoffs without him.

And I don't think I need to answer why LeBron losing 3 out of 4 times is irrelevant. In all three instances, Curry had a much better team. Hell, he had a better team in the situation where he didn't win. Again, what are we doing here? And for that matter, what are we even arguing at this point? If we're trying to argue that Curry had the better teams, you're right on the money. But again, you're bringing up irrelevant points because you're trying desperately to add points in Curry's favor. It doesn't work that way if they aren't relevant.

Maybe your understanding of outplaying is wrong. Maybe that's why an entirely new branch of analytics that isn't dependent on the box score arose in the wake of Curry's ascent.

That Curry can effect such change should give you a strong hint that Curry is overqualified for the discussion here.

You of all people shouldn't be telling anyone that their understanding of something is wrong. You just got done trying to claim that Curry didn't win an MVP during the Durant seasons because they were "too successful" which is one of the most laughable things I've ever heard and will probably sig after this. I think what you really need to do is educate yourself on the type of impact LeBron has had on his teams and why he will always be ranked higher than Curry. Newsflash: it isn't because of biased media voting or whatever nonsense you want to claim, it's because he's a better player. Always has been and always will be. At some point you're going to need to accept that.

[Iwasawitness]

Oops sorry @lessthanjake I meant to quote @WarriorGM on the earlier post. Doing this on my phone so clicked the wrong one. I was rebutting to his point not yours.

Anyways find me a championship where Steph didn’t directly benefit from a crucial opposing star going down with injury. If you can do that, I will happily retract my argument and proclaim him to be the GOAT of all GOATs.

Even the GSW board considers Warrioir GM over the top, but I don't think he is much more biased than some Lebron partisans.

Curry's teams being stronger is imo an argument for greatness rather than against same as it is even more so for Jordan. Curry contributed to the 2022 title win as an individual player at least as much as Lebron did to any of the title wins by his teams imo. It was a well constructed team with several players who had career best seasons, again an argument for Curry rather than against him imo.

Your constant apologizing is probably indicative of why this topic doesn't get discussed more around here. Warriors fans in this forum are rather timid. Next time you apologize for me you should also note I was almost the only one on the GSW board picking Steph to lead the Warriors to a win in 2022 and certainly the most unequivocal when it came to Curry's status as the best player in the league.

You've made a mention of this multiple times now like you don't pick the Warriors to win every year. Hell, at the start of the season you said MVP was Curry's award to lose. You predicting that Golden State would win in 2022 means literally nothing.

[michaelm]

What is your criteria for top 10? If the criteria is leading a team to a championship that wasn't expected to win one at the start of the season, Curry may well have two in the top 10.

I've made the mistake of doing this with you in the past, but seeing as to how I have nothing better to do right now since my girlfriend is sick... sure, I'll humor this.

No person in their right mind would use this criteria. This is a very selective thing that you are only applying because it has something to do with Curry. In reality, it's a very flawed premise. Pre season odds mean absolutely nothing, and they're often wrong. For example: for this season alone, the top five teams for pre-season odds were the following: Celtics, Knicks, Nuggets, Timberwolves, and Thunder. None of these teams currently have the best record in the league. The team that does wasn't even top ten. The NBA season is very long and so much happens over the course of it that drastically changes everything. You are much better off using odds at the beginning of the playoffs, as we have a much better idea of where teams are at and how they are shaping up going into the postseason. And in that regard, when doing actual research... the Warriors went into the postseason as favorites to win the championship in three of their four seasons, with 2022 being the exception (where the Brooklyn Nets, for some reason, were the favorites). LeBron, likewise, has also won a championship when his team weren't the favorites going into the playoffs (2016, where the Warriors were heavy favorites).

In other words, the criteria you use has to make sense. This one doesn't make any sense at all.

If your criteria is amassing a boatload of box score stats then I must ask why is that your criteria? For example in a sweep is that necessary? Does it somehow mean you are a worse player if you don't put up gaudy box score stats but still win? If you are a consummate team player it may not be necessary.

I have no need to answer this stupid question because that isn't my criteria.

The problem as I see it is that many people have been conditioned to believe that the kind of performances someone like LeBron puts up are the only mark of greatness. But it isn't. A better team player doesn't need to do what LeBron does all the time to win.

Can LeBron score 11 points and still leave you with the impression that he is probably the main reason his team won the game? Curry can. He just did so the other day in his last game against the Kings.

Can he? So why is it that in situations where Curry has actually had an underwhelming game, his team usually loses? Sure you can use this for a random regular season game that means nothing, but that hasn't really been the case in the postseason, except for the occasions where it was due to his teammates stepping up big time and covering for his weaknesses. And that just... isn't a good thing.

I don't know why you cannot recall any great Curry performances. I can. Maybe you don't watch his games. Maybe you're on the east coast and don't get to see them because of the time difference. Maybe the media coverage sucks. Maybe the media coverage is slanted. Maybe east coast teams are just more inventive with their memes.

Maybe you should try re-reading my post, as I mention two games that were off the top of my head that were from Curry.

For example LeBron fans make a big deal about defeating the Raptors led by DeRozan and Lowry in 2018 and even created the LeBronto meme for it. You might even be led to believe that is the best example of superstar domination of a team these past few years. Truth is though Steph dominated the Lillard Trail Blazers even more thoroughly. You just don't hear about it as much. Despite that you see media comparing Steph to Lillard. That is at the level of ridiculous of comparing LeBron to DeRozan.

There are a couple things wrong with this line of thinking.

For starters, Curry dominating the Blazers (in what I assume is 2019) wasn't all that surprising, and in fact was to be expected. The Warriors were a terrible matchup for the Blazers and they didn't really have anyone to guard Curry, or even Klay for that matter. They weren't even a top 15 defense that year. This was easy pickings for the Warriors. Yeah, no one really expected it to be a complete sweep, but nonetheless, the Warriors were the favorites and for good reason.

The Cavaliers sweeping the Raptors on the other hand was a pretty big deal. The Raptors were one win short of reaching the 60 mark (which they only didn't because Wayne Ellington had the game of his life and stole that win from Toronto) and had a 7.29 SRS (Cleveland for the record only had a 0.59 SRS that season) that year in what was considered a more improved Eastern Conference (despite what people would like you to believe). The Raptors were the favorites going into the series, and opened up game 1 as 6.5 favorites to win (you see this bled? This is called doing research and fact checking before posting, try it sometime). Cleveland on the other hand was coming off of barely escaping a first round matchup against Indiana where they looked horribly exposed and dysfunctional as a team. This had all the makings of Toronto finally getting their revenge and ending LeBron's reign in the Eastern Conference.

Until it didn't happen. The Cavaliers took game one in an upset. And then game two happened, where LeBronto was officially born. See, it wasn't just this game that caused this to become a meme. LeBron had been dominating Toronto for years now, and they've just never been able to get their revenge. This was the first time they were expected to actually beat LeBron, and instead, LeBron spent a critical fourth quarter in game 2 posting up in random spots on the floor and just shooting, regardless of who was guarding him, and making every single shot. It was one of the most demoralizing beatdowns any team has ever received. It was basically LeBron's way of saying "you're not going to beat me and you never will". And to top it all off, he hits a game winner in the following game.

You may be correct that Steph was more dominant against Portland, but LeBron dominating Toronto was nonetheless a much bigger deal and a far greater statement.

Come to think of it that LeBron 2018 run to the finals is sometimes referred to as his peak and LeBron has been lavished with praise for it. But who did he really beat? The best team he beat was probably the Celtics with a freshman Tatum and sophomore Brown. LeBron barely beat them in the closing moments of Game 7. It was exciting and probably left a lasting memory for those who viewed it and that's why such people probably hold it in high regard. The fact of the matter though is that Steph at a similar age to LeBron would meet a far more seasoned and experienced version of that team in 2022 and whip them in 6 to win the title that year. Objectively Curry's win against the Celtics should be considered more impressive.

Again, a few things wrong with this line of reasoning.

Curry's 2022 Warriors team had great chemistry with good depth and nice pieces to compliment his style of play. Yeah, they don't really match up with his teams of old... but they didn't have to. They were still a really great team, one worthy of winning the championship that season.

The 2018 Cavaliers on the other hand were a mess, pretty much from the beginning. They spent 90% of that season relying heavily on the production of LeBron, who led the NBA in minutes that season despite being in his fifteenth season at this point (which is asinine). They didn't really have any depth, they were dysfunctional, and the shadow of Golden State was pretty much following them all season long. Their defense never really clicked, and their offense was completely absent without LeBron. And it doesn't help that they went through multiple major trades at the halfway point of the season, which pretty much reset everything.

You asked who did they beat in the playoffs that year? In the playoffs, they played the following three teams: Indiana, Toronto, and Boston.

Indiana: They weren't really anything special as a team, but they did have something that made them a bitch of a matchup for Cleveland: everyone in the starting lineup could shoot the three ball. This was a death sentence for the Cleveland defense as they already lacked rim protection and were pretty putrid at that end, but now they were forced to spread out their defense. They had to rely heavily on LeBron's offensive production just to win.

Toronto: Already explained earlier how elite of a team they were.

Boston: You're downplaying them horribly here. Yes, Tatum was a rookie and guys like Brown and Smart were still getting their feet wet, but they were the number one ranked defense in the league that year off the backs of Horford making first team all defense and having a lot of strong veteran players on the team. They were an extremely well rounded team. Hell, Marcus Morris was considered a LeBron stopper at the time, and LeBron completely dominated him all series long.

The thing about the 2018 run is that it was a demonstration of what kind of player LeBron had become. There were always talks of him being a flawed offensive player who required a specific group of players to win, who needed multiple all stars and couldn't do it without a superteam, who didn't have what it took to overcome superior teams. There's 99 things wrong with the line of thinking on display here but in the end it didn't really matter, because he still proved all of these things to be wrong and put on a postseason run the likes of which we had never seen before from any player, including Jordan. The level of dominance he displayed was otherworldly.

You mention 3-1 comebacks as apparently something notable, waxing enthusiastically about LeBron's while dismissing Curry's. Why is that? Because it seems Klay gets more credit? Klay was great in game 6 and he averaged 25 4 2 in the Thunder series but in comparison Kyrie was great in games 5 and 7 with the winning shot and averaging 27 4 4 in the finals.

Maybe you can tell us why Klay should get primary credit for the the Warriors comeback while Kyrie shouldn't for the Cavaliers'.

When did I say Klay should get primary credit for the Warriors 3-1 comeback? I simply mentioned the fact that Klay's game 6 performance overshadowed the contributions Curry made in making it possible, which is absolutely true. Klay actually gained a reputation as being more clutch as a player than Curry because of that one game, which isn't completely invalid because it wasn't the first time Klay was scorching hot and took teams out while Curry let him cook. But it does add to my point regarding the fact that when it comes right down to it, Curry simply did not dominate in the kind of fashion LeBron did.

Now granted, I can't really speak for why Klay should get primary credit, because I don't think he should. But I can tell you why I think LeBron should get primary credit while Kyrie shouldn't... for one thing, Kyrie Irving wasn't the one who had back to back 40 point performances and closed things out with one of the greatest defensive plays of all time with a triple double... LeBron was. And before you go on about pretty stats or whatever nonsense, LeBron was the one who had scored most of Cleveland's points in that fourth quarter that won Cleveland the championship. In fact, that three from Irving was the only basket he had in that entire quarter apart from a tip in that he made at the start of the quarter. In that low scoring fourth quarter, LeBron had 11 points while Irving only had 5. I'm not going to sit here and ignore the fact that Irving hit the crucial three that helped changed the trajectory of the game, but I'm also not going to shut my brain off like most people like to do and pretend that him hitting a three pointer changes the fact that LeBron had more than double the amount of points Irving did in that very quarter.

Anyway in that Thunder series Curry eliminated two adjacent MVPs. What is the LeBron series that is comparable?

...so did LeBron, in 2012. You're gonna have to do better than that.

That series wasn't the only time Curry's Warriors staged a comeback from elimination games. They did so as well in 2018 against the Rockets. Curry ended up disposing of probably the two greatest rivals of his era at his position. He then did it again in 2019. What is the LeBron accomplishment that is comparable?

Oh, you mean the series where Paul got injured? Is that the one you're referring to? I really hope you aren't trying to use that to prop up Curry when in reality, he benefited massively from a key injury that prevented Houston from sending the Warriors home early in what would have ultimately been a massive disappointment.

And I don't even know why you're bringing up 2019. The Rockets that season were a massive downgrade compared to the previous season. The 2018 Rockets had the top ranked offense on top of having a top ten defense. They weren't even top 15 defensively in 2019, had major chemistry issues, and they never recovered from losing Ariza and Moute to free agency. This is such a hilariously bad point that it's not even worth discussing why it's wrong. It'd be a waste of my time.

FMVPs are a joke used the way you seem to be using them as an indication of who was most important in a series. Giving it to Iguodala was narrative mumbo jumbo about how relatively egalitarian a team the 2015 Warriors were.

No, FMVP's are (for the most part) an accurate representation of just how great of an impact a player has on their team. Iggy getting the award wasn't for narrative purposes. He literally changed the outcome of the entire series. The Cavs had a 2-1 series lead over GS going into game 4 and had stolen homecourt advantage. Iggy getting inserted into the starting lineup changed everything. And on top of it, he was the third leading scorer for Golden State while shooting far better percentages than either Curry or Thompson. I'll always contend that Curry's 2015 series is underrated, but Iggy absolutely deserved FMVP over him.

Curry's reputation was saved by 2022? Curry's reputation should have needed no saving. That you think it did should indicate really off-kilter representation of his accomplishments made to you or a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

Should not have needed saving and needed saving are two different things. The fact of the matter is, at that point, Curry had a reputation as someone who benefited from being on historically stacked teams while winning under very favorable circumstances. He had no FMVP wins, was coming off of two poor seasons and a lot of people thought the Warriors dynasty had come to an end. You can sit here and pretend all you want that you had some crystal ball telling you the Warriors were bound for another finals run, but how you feel and what you think doesn't change what the narrative was at the time. Curry having the reputation that I described doesn't matter if it was based on misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is, it existed and him winning in 2022 proved a lot of people wrong. You of all people should be embracing that fact, not trying to fight it.

No it is not fair to say LeBron is a better playoffs performer. No LeBron has not had a greater impact on or given more help to his team. LeBron may be a better all-around individual player but it's doubtful if he is a better team multiplier than Steph.

Then please, by all means, show me the instances where Curry made it to a Finals without a stacked team filled with multiple all stars, multiple all defensive players, good solid roleplayers that fit him to a T and great coaching. LeBron has done this three times. Curry on the other hand has never done it.

LeBron may have more media awards but on close examination the value of having more of them crumbles. More MVPs? LeBron got two of them despite teaming up with Wade and Bosh because their loss in 2011 showed they weren't close to invincible as was initially feared.

That isn't why he got the MVP awards. He got them because he took his game to another level and put voters in a position where they had no choice but to give him said award. Try being consistent with reality here. Making **** up isn't going to help you.

Curry on the other hand was excluded from serious consideration for a number of years because he teamed up with Durant and they were too successful.

Nonsense like this is why I stopped bothering with you in the past and why I'm wondering what am I doing with my life. They were too successful? What the hell does that even mean? MVP is a regular season award that is mostly based on how well your team performs. Curry won his unanimous MVP award in a season where his team had the the most successful regular season of all time, but somehow the following team winning less games were too successful? Hell, LeBron's fourth MVP happened during a season when his team had a 27 game winning streak and they won 66 games, one less than the 2017 team did. Hell, the 2018 team didn't even win 60 games. So what the hell are you even talking about here? What part of your ass did you pull this one out of? This would be like me saying I didn't get the job because I did too well in the interview.

You're continued harping on FMVPs shows your insistence on using severely flawed measures. You think KD's FMVPs are a winning argument against Curry? Why should LeBron's be? LeBron outplayed Curry in the finals? But LeBron lost 3 out of 4 times.

Because for one thing, it demonstrates how much more LeBron meant to his team than Curry did. It tells me that there's a legitimate chance Curry could have been out with an injury in the KD Warriors teams, and they'd still probably win their championships. You can't replace LeBron on those teams with someone else and expect them to win. Hell, odds are the Cavs don't even make the playoffs without him.

And I don't think I need to answer why LeBron losing 3 out of 4 times is irrelevant. In all three instances, Curry had a much better team. Hell, he had a better team in the situation where he didn't win. Again, what are we doing here? And for that matter, what are we even arguing at this point? If we're trying to argue that Curry had the better teams, you're right on the money. But again, you're bringing up irrelevant points because you're trying desperately to add points in Curry's favor. It doesn't work that way if they aren't relevant.

Maybe your understanding of outplaying is wrong. Maybe that's why an entirely new branch of analytics that isn't dependent on the box score arose in the wake of Curry's ascent.

That Curry can effect such change should give you a strong hint that Curry is overqualified for the discussion here.

You of all people shouldn't be telling anyone that their understanding of something is wrong. You just got done trying to claim that Curry didn't win an MVP during the Durant seasons because they were "too successful" which is one of the most laughable things I've ever heard and will probably sig after this. I think what you really need to do is educate yourself on the type of impact LeBron has had on his teams and why he will always be ranked higher than Curry. Newsflash: it isn't because of biased media voting or whatever nonsense you want to claim, it's because he's a better player. Always has been and always will be. At some point you're going to need to accept that.

What is laughable is you reproving another poster for being biased.

However much you try to make NBA basketball about individual play and individual player statistics including unproven and unprovable metrics ultimately there are only team achievements in NBA basketball, and Curry has won the same number of titles as LeBron, has led possibly the best team of all time and was half of one of the all time best duos in the NBA. LeBron has done neither of the latter 2 things and not through any lack of effort as far as stacking teams goes himself.

Warrior GM has given you the example of the 2022 title winning GSW team and while he over egged the pudding in regard to the 2020 team you have otherwise just waffled on about Curry being helped by all stars. That 2022 team was a well constructed team which included players whom literally no one else in the NBA wanted, and which coalesced around Curry and played great team ball to win a title, including several players having their best years ever which is rather the point, with significant individual performances by Curry in addition. Perhaps LeBron should have considered the well constructed team approach himself at some point in time.

I don’t argue about Curry being the GOAT, who is Jordan for me who both has more individual attributes/skills than Curry has and more team success than Curry as do Kareem and other top 10 players, but as I have repeatedly said I will take Curry leading my team to 4 titles mostly in the same era over a wandering LeBron anytime.

[WarriorGM]

What is your criteria for top 10? If the criteria is leading a team to a championship that wasn't expected to win one at the start of the season, Curry may well have two in the top 10.

I've made the mistake of doing this with you in the past, but seeing as to how I have nothing better to do right now since my girlfriend is sick... sure, I'll humor this.

No person in their right mind would use this criteria. This is a very selective thing that you are only applying because it has something to do with Curry. In reality, it's a very flawed premise. Pre season odds mean absolutely nothing, and they're often wrong. For example: for this season alone, the top five teams for pre-season odds were the following: Celtics, Knicks, Nuggets, Timberwolves, and Thunder. None of these teams currently have the best record in the league. The team that does wasn't even top ten. The NBA season is very long and so much happens over the course of it that drastically changes everything. You are much better off using odds at the beginning of the playoffs, as we have a much better idea of where teams are at and how they are shaping up going into the postseason. And in that regard, when doing actual research... the Warriors went into the postseason as favorites to win the championship in three of their four seasons, with 2022 being the exception (where the Brooklyn Nets, for some reason, were the favorites). LeBron, likewise, has also won a championship when his team weren't the favorites going into the playoffs (2016, where the Warriors were heavy favorites).

In other words, the criteria you use has to make sense. This one doesn't make any sense at all.

You can use odds just before the playoffs but pre-season odds do not have the biases introduced in the regular season. For example some players in certain situations do not take the regular season seriously. Second Cavaliers stint LeBron is one of them. He did not fear his opposition in the weak Eastern Conference so he did just enough to get by. Conversely some teams that perform very well in the regular season were exposed as paper tigers that no one since has taken seriously. The 60-win 2015 Atlanta Hawks for example. With their record that year they got 4 all-star selections. LeBron's Cavaliers swept the Hawks with basically the same roster they faced the Warriors with in the finals but you never hear about the win against the Hawks anymore lest it detract from the narrative that LeBron playing without Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love was such a massive disadvantage.

If your criteria is amassing a boatload of box score stats then I must ask why is that your criteria? For example in a sweep is that necessary? Does it somehow mean you are a worse player if you don't put up gaudy box score stats but still win? If you are a consummate team player it may not be necessary.

I have no need to answer this stupid question because that isn't my criteria.

Lots written down little really said. What is your criteria then?

The problem as I see it is that many people have been conditioned to believe that the kind of performances someone like LeBron puts up are the only mark of greatness. But it isn't. A better team player doesn't need to do what LeBron does all the time to win.

Can LeBron score 11 points and still leave you with the impression that he is probably the main reason his team won the game? Curry can. He just did so the other day in his last game against the Kings.

Can he? So why is it that in situations where Curry has actually had an underwhelming game, his team usually loses? Sure you can use this for a random regular season game that means nothing, but that hasn't really been the case in the postseason, except for the occasions where it was due to his teammates stepping up big time and covering for his weaknesses. And that just... isn't a good thing.

Does Curry usually lose in games where he had an "underwhelming" game? Curry's detractors characterize the 2015 finals as an underwhelming performance from Curry despite Curry having the highest scoring finals 4th quarters in a decade in that series. The Warriors won in 6.

I don't know why you cannot recall any great Curry performances. I can. Maybe you don't watch his games. Maybe you're on the east coast and don't get to see them because of the time difference. Maybe the media coverage sucks. Maybe the media coverage is slanted. Maybe east coast teams are just more inventive with their memes.

Maybe you should try re-reading my post, as I mention two games that were off the top of my head that were from Curry.

Remembering only two games from Curry's numerous trips to the finals does not change the assessment. You are ill informed.

For example LeBron fans make a big deal about defeating the Raptors led by DeRozan and Lowry in 2018 and even created the LeBronto meme for it. You might even be led to believe that is the best example of superstar domination of a team these past few years. Truth is though Steph dominated the Lillard Trail Blazers even more thoroughly. You just don't hear about it as much. Despite that you see media comparing Steph to Lillard. That is at the level of ridiculous of comparing LeBron to DeRozan.

There are a couple things wrong with this line of thinking.

For starters, Curry dominating the Blazers (in what I assume is 2019) wasn't all that surprising, and in fact was to be expected. The Warriors were a terrible matchup for the Blazers and they didn't really have anyone to guard Curry, or even Klay for that matter. They weren't even a top 15 defense that year. This was easy pickings for the Warriors. Yeah, no one really expected it to be a complete sweep, but nonetheless, the Warriors were the favorites and for good reason.

The Cavaliers sweeping the Raptors on the other hand was a pretty big deal. The Raptors were one win short of reaching the 60 mark (which they only didn't because Wayne Ellington had the game of his life and stole that win from Toronto) and had a 7.29 SRS (Cleveland for the record only had a 0.59 SRS that season) that year in what was considered a more improved Eastern Conference (despite what people would like you to believe). The Raptors were the favorites going into the series, and opened up game 1 as 6.5 favorites to win (you see this bled? This is called doing research and fact checking before posting, try it sometime). Cleveland on the other hand was coming off of barely escaping a first round matchup against Indiana where they looked horribly exposed and dysfunctional as a team. This had all the makings of Toronto finally getting their revenge and ending LeBron's reign in the Eastern Conference.

Until it didn't happen. The Cavaliers took game one in an upset. And then game two happened, where LeBronto was officially born. See, it wasn't just this game that caused this to become a meme. LeBron had been dominating Toronto for years now, and they've just never been able to get their revenge. This was the first time they were expected to actually beat LeBron, and instead, LeBron spent a critical fourth quarter in game 2 posting up in random spots on the floor and just shooting, regardless of who was guarding him, and making every single shot. It was one of the most demoralizing beatdowns any team has ever received. It was basically LeBron's way of saying "you're not going to beat me and you never will". And to top it all off, he hits a game winner in the following game.

You may be correct that Steph was more dominant against Portland, but LeBron dominating Toronto was nonetheless a much bigger deal and a far greater statement.

Steph at this point was playing without Durant. The Trail Blazers had just eliminated the Nuggets. The Warriors-Trail Blazers series was the Western Conference Finals. LeBron's series against the Raptors was an Eastern Conference Semi-Final. In any event this is just more support for using pre-season odds where the Cavaliers had +515 odds to win a championship and the Raptors had +15000 odds. The difference should have made expecting a sweep a distinct possibility. If you thought the result was an upset whatever method gave you that idea looks suspect.

Come to think of it that LeBron 2018 run to the finals is sometimes referred to as his peak and LeBron has been lavished with praise for it. But who did he really beat? The best team he beat was probably the Celtics with a freshman Tatum and sophomore Brown. LeBron barely beat them in the closing moments of Game 7. It was exciting and probably left a lasting memory for those who viewed it and that's why such people probably hold it in high regard. The fact of the matter though is that Steph at a similar age to LeBron would meet a far more seasoned and experienced version of that team in 2022 and whip them in 6 to win the title that year. Objectively Curry's win against the Celtics should be considered more impressive.

Again, a few things wrong with this line of reasoning.

Curry's 2022 Warriors team had great chemistry with good depth and nice pieces to compliment his style of play. Yeah, they don't really match up with his teams of old... but they didn't have to. They were still a really great team, one worthy of winning the championship that season.

The 2018 Cavaliers on the other hand were a mess, pretty much from the beginning. They spent 90% of that season relying heavily on the production of LeBron, who led the NBA in minutes that season despite being in his fifteenth season at this point (which is asinine). They didn't really have any depth, they were dysfunctional, and the shadow of Golden State was pretty much following them all season long. Their defense never really clicked, and their offense was completely absent without LeBron. And it doesn't help that they went through multiple major trades at the halfway point of the season, which pretty much reset everything.

You asked who did they beat in the playoffs that year? In the playoffs, they played the following three teams: Indiana, Toronto, and Boston.

Indiana: They weren't really anything special as a team, but they did have something that made them a bitch of a matchup for Cleveland: everyone in the starting lineup could shoot the three ball. This was a death sentence for the Cleveland defense as they already lacked rim protection and were pretty putrid at that end, but now they were forced to spread out their defense. They had to rely heavily on LeBron's offensive production just to win.

Toronto: Already explained earlier how elite of a team they were.

Boston: You're downplaying them horribly here. Yes, Tatum was a rookie and guys like Brown and Smart were still getting their feet wet, but they were the number one ranked defense in the league that year off the backs of Horford making first team all defense and having a lot of strong veteran players on the team. They were an extremely well rounded team. Hell, Marcus Morris was considered a LeBron stopper at the time, and LeBron completely dominated him all series long.

The thing about the 2018 run is that it was a demonstration of what kind of player LeBron had become. There were always talks of him being a flawed offensive player who required a specific group of players to win, who needed multiple all stars and couldn't do it without a superteam, who didn't have what it took to overcome superior teams. There's 99 things wrong with the line of thinking on display here but in the end it didn't really matter, because he still proved all of these things to be wrong and put on a postseason run the likes of which we had never seen before from any player, including Jordan. The level of dominance he displayed was otherworldly.

All I see there is a lot of narrative. You seem to be suggesting Curry having chemistry with his team makes his victory less impressive while LeBron having a mess of a team makes his victory more impressive. I fail to see a reason why LeBron making moves that cause turmoil in his team should be a reason to be impressed.

You mention 3-1 comebacks as apparently something notable, waxing enthusiastically about LeBron's while dismissing Curry's. Why is that? Because it seems Klay gets more credit? Klay was great in game 6 and he averaged 25 4 2 in the Thunder series but in comparison Kyrie was great in games 5 and 7 with the winning shot and averaging 27 4 4 in the finals.

Maybe you can tell us why Klay should get primary credit for the the Warriors comeback while Kyrie shouldn't for the Cavaliers'.

When did I say Klay should get primary credit for the Warriors 3-1 comeback? I simply mentioned the fact that Klay's game 6 performance overshadowed the contributions Curry made in making it possible, which is absolutely true. Klay actually gained a reputation as being more clutch as a player than Curry because of that one game, which isn't completely invalid because it wasn't the first time Klay was scorching hot and took teams out while Curry let him cook. But it does add to my point regarding the fact that when it comes right down to it, Curry simply did not dominate in the kind of fashion LeBron did.

Now granted, I can't really speak for why Klay should get primary credit, because I don't think he should. But I can tell you why I think LeBron should get primary credit while Kyrie shouldn't... for one thing, Kyrie Irving wasn't the one who had back to back 40 point performances and closed things out with one of the greatest defensive plays of all time with a triple double... LeBron was. And before you go on about pretty stats or whatever nonsense, LeBron was the one who had scored most of Cleveland's points in that fourth quarter that won Cleveland the championship. In fact, that three from Irving was the only basket he had in that entire quarter apart from a tip in that he made at the start of the quarter. In that low scoring fourth quarter, LeBron had 11 points while Irving only had 5. I'm not going to sit here and ignore the fact that Irving hit the crucial three that helped changed the trajectory of the game, but I'm also not going to shut my brain off like most people like to do and pretend that him hitting a three pointer changes the fact that LeBron had more than double the amount of points Irving did in that very quarter.

2016 Western Conference Finals

Game 5
Curry 31 7 6
Klay 27 5 2

Game 6
Curry 31 10 9
Klay 41 4 0

Game 7
Curry 36 5 8
Klay 21 5 0

Klay's Game 6 performance in this series earned him the moniker Game 6 Klay. Deserved. Still to put things into perspective Curry had a higher gamescore in game 6 and it was a regular enough game from him that you for one don't bother to deem it worth remembering.

Last quarter heroics in a game 7 your measure? Game 7 4th quarter had Curry tripling Klay's scoring 15 to 5. For the entire second half Curry likewise tripled Klay's scoring output 24 to 8.

Should be worth noting the Warriors were trailing by double digits somewhere around the halfway mark in both games 6 and 7.

But yeah: Game 6 Klay! Game 6 Klay!

Anyway in that Thunder series Curry eliminated two adjacent MVPs. What is the LeBron series that is comparable?

...so did LeBron, in 2012. You're gonna have to do better than that.

LeBron taking out the baby Thunder with his superteam is comparable to Curry taking out the mature Thunder with his OG teammates? Seems like a pattern.

That series wasn't the only time Curry's Warriors staged a comeback from elimination games. They did so as well in 2018 against the Rockets. Curry ended up disposing of probably the two greatest rivals of his era at his position. He then did it again in 2019. What is the LeBron accomplishment that is comparable?

Oh, you mean the series where Paul got injured? Is that the one you're referring to? I really hope you aren't trying to use that to prop up Curry when in reality, he benefited massively from a key injury that prevented Houston from sending the Warriors home early in what would have ultimately been a massive disappointment.

Similar situation to the 2016 finals isn't it? Should we start characterizing LeBron's victory as him benefitting massively from the Warriors playing down a starter the last three games?

And I don't even know why you're bringing up 2019. The Rockets that season were a massive downgrade compared to the previous season. The 2018 Rockets had the top ranked offense on top of having a top ten defense. They weren't even top 15 defensively in 2019, had major chemistry issues, and they never recovered from losing Ariza and Moute to free agency. This is such a hilariously bad point that it's not even worth discussing why it's wrong. It'd be a waste of my time.

Is that the case? I thought the series was virtually tied at two games a piece and a tied score with a quarter to go when Durant suffered his injury and went down in game 5. You could hear the player commentators commenting on the series licking their chops expecting Curry and the Warriors to get their comeuppance at the hands of the Harden-Paul Rockets. Didn't come. Curry even game them a full half head start in the next game before he started scoring. Curry still won beating the Rockets on their home floor. Didn't even get to a Game 7.

That doesn't jog you memory? But you remember LeBron beating Victor Oladipo?

FMVPs are a joke used the way you seem to be using them as an indication of who was most important in a series. Giving it to Iguodala was narrative mumbo jumbo about how relatively egalitarian a team the 2015 Warriors were.

No, FMVP's are (for the most part) an accurate representation of just how great of an impact a player has on their team. Iggy getting the award wasn't for narrative purposes. He literally changed the outcome of the entire series. The Cavs had a 2-1 series lead over GS going into game 4 and had stolen homecourt advantage. Iggy getting inserted into the starting lineup changed everything. And on top of it, he was the third leading scorer for Golden State while shooting far better percentages than either Curry or Thompson. I'll always contend that Curry's 2015 series is underrated, but Iggy absolutely deserved FMVP over him.

Curry's reputation was saved by 2022? Curry's reputation should have needed no saving. That you think it did should indicate really off-kilter representation of his accomplishments made to you or a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

Should not have needed saving and needed saving are two different things. The fact of the matter is, at that point, Curry had a reputation as someone who benefited from being on historically stacked teams while winning under very favorable circumstances. He had no FMVP wins, was coming off of two poor seasons and a lot of people thought the Warriors dynasty had come to an end. You can sit here and pretend all you want that you had some crystal ball telling you the Warriors were bound for another finals run, but how you feel and what you think doesn't change what the narrative was at the time. Curry having the reputation that I described doesn't matter if it was based on misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is, it existed and him winning in 2022 proved a lot of people wrong. You of all people should be embracing that fact, not trying to fight it.

This "reputation" you speak of was a concocted narrative just like the current one you champion that Curry has no case being called the greatest. Both are false. Shouldn't it bother you that the same people spinning the previous narrative are the same people spinning the current one?

No it is not fair to say LeBron is a better playoffs performer. No LeBron has not had a greater impact on or given more help to his team. LeBron may be a better all-around individual player but it's doubtful if he is a better team multiplier than Steph.

Then please, by all means, show me the instances where Curry made it to a Finals without a stacked team filled with multiple all stars, multiple all defensive players, good solid roleplayers that fit him to a T and great coaching. LeBron has done this three times. Curry on the other hand has never done it.

2015? 2022? For clarity, in what years do you believe did LeBron do this? It must also be pointed out that all-star and all-defense selections are largely a function of great regular season records. Leading teams to a great regular season record is punished by this evaluation method while regular season underperformance is rewarded.

LeBron may have more media awards but on close examination the value of having more of them crumbles. More MVPs? LeBron got two of them despite teaming up with Wade and Bosh because their loss in 2011 showed they weren't close to invincible as was initially feared.

That isn't why he got the MVP awards. He got them because he took his game to another level and put voters in a position where they had no choice but to give him said award. Try being consistent with reality here. Making **** up isn't going to help you.

Funny all I heard during the Warriors years with KD is that forming a superteam disqualified Curry and Durant from being a serious MVP contender.

Curry on the other hand was excluded from serious consideration for a number of years because he teamed up with Durant and they were too successful.

Nonsense like this is why I stopped bothering with you in the past and why I'm wondering what am I doing with my life. They were too successful? What the hell does that even mean? MVP is a regular season award that is mostly based on how well your team performs. Curry won his unanimous MVP award in a season where his team had the the most successful regular season of all time, but somehow the following team winning less games were too successful? Hell, LeBron's fourth MVP happened during a season when his team had a 27 game winning streak and they won 66 games, one less than the 2017 team did. Hell, the 2018 team didn't even win 60 games. So what the hell are you even talking about here? What part of your ass did you pull this one out of? This would be like me saying I didn't get the job because I did too well in the interview.

The fact of the matter is neither Curry nor Durant ever finished top 4 in MVP voting while they played together. Neither of them ever got so much as a first place vote during that period. LeBron even when the Heatles backlash was at its fiercest in 2011 got multiple first place votes. The highest rank in MVP votes Steph got in that time was 5th in 2019. The highest Durant ranked got was 7th. In 2020 after luring yet another star player to join him LeBron finished 2nd in MVP voting and Anthony Davis finished 6th higher than Durant ever did on the Warriors. BSPN's ranking list even listed LeBron and Davis as the top two highest ranked players for 2020.

None of that makes sense. I'll leave it as a logical exercise to figure out under what circumstances anyone could come up with such BS.

You're continued harping on FMVPs shows your insistence on using severely flawed measures. You think KD's FMVPs are a winning argument against Curry? Why should LeBron's be? LeBron outplayed Curry in the finals? But LeBron lost 3 out of 4 times.

Because for one thing, it demonstrates how much more LeBron meant to his team than Curry did. It tells me that there's a legitimate chance Curry could have been out with an injury in the KD Warriors teams, and they'd still probably win their championships. You can't replace LeBron on those teams with someone else and expect them to win. Hell, odds are the Cavs don't even make the playoffs without him.

And I don't think I need to answer why LeBron losing 3 out of 4 times is irrelevant. In all three instances, Curry had a much better team. Hell, he had a better team in the situation where he didn't win. Again, what are we doing here? And for that matter, what are we even arguing at this point? If we're trying to argue that Curry had the better teams, you're right on the money. But again, you're bringing up irrelevant points because you're trying desperately to add points in Curry's favor. It doesn't work that way if they aren't relevant.

FMVPs demonstrate nothing except the state of mind of its 11 voters. They cannot prove anything on the court.

Your argument that LeBron being more essential to chances of victory is more valuable is rational but it rewards putting all one's eggs in one basket and punishes teams and players for being more versatile and robust. It also fatally undermines your suggestion that Iguodala was deserving of an FMVP.

Maybe your understanding of outplaying is wrong. Maybe that's why an entirely new branch of analytics that isn't dependent on the box score arose in the wake of Curry's ascent.

That Curry can effect such change should give you a strong hint that Curry is overqualified for the discussion here.

You of all people shouldn't be telling anyone that their understanding of something is wrong. You just got done trying to claim that Curry didn't win an MVP during the Durant seasons because they were "too successful" which is one of the most laughable things I've ever heard and will probably sig after this. I think what you really need to do is educate yourself on the type of impact LeBron has had on his teams and why he will always be ranked higher than Curry. Newsflash: it isn't because of biased media voting or whatever nonsense you want to claim, it's because he's a better player. Always has been and always will be. At some point you're going to need to accept that.

So we've been told over and over again since LeBron first emerged. Why is it then that it feels less and less believable?

[The4thHorseman]

LeBron got 4 Finals MVP votes in 2015.

Curry got 4 Finals MVP votes over 5 straight appearances combined and zero votes in 4 of them.

That doesn't look good for a top 10 resume' let alone looking to be called GOAT

[DOT]

Steph doesn't have the accolades to be GOAT

His entire career: 2 MVPs, 4 championships, 1 FMVP, 11 All Star selections, 2 time scoring champ, 1 time steals champ, 10 total All-NBA selections, 4 1st team all-NBAs. Career 25,080 points (.625 TS), 6,500 assists over 16 seasons, 1014 games played. 26th all time in scoring, for reference

LeBron from 2008 to 2018: 4 MVPs, 3 championships, 3 FMVPs, 11 All Star selections, 1 time scoring champ, 5 1st team all-defense, 1 2nd team all-defense, 11 1st team All-NBAs, 22,599 points (.604 TS), 6,175 assists over 11 seasons, 827 games played

I think I could make a compelling case that LeBron just in those 11 seasons has more of a GOAT argument than Steph, but even if you want to argue otherwise, that's only half of LeBron's career

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

And give it like 20 years, the same way people talk about MJ's accomplishments with a mythic sense of embellishment, people are gonna start saying LeBron was so good that guys got FMVPs simply for guarding him, or he was so good that the last 2 MVPs needed to team up to beat him, or some such

Same thing people have done with MJ the last 30 or so years.

[michaelm]

LeBron got 4 Finals MVP votes in 2015.

Curry got 4 Finals MVP votes over 5 straight appearances combined and zero votes in 4 sof them.

That doesn't look good for a top 10 resume' let alone looking to be called GOAT

I don t particularly care about LeBron having a stronger case for being GOAT. I am happy to take the 4 titles won by my team led by Curry and the 3:1 record those teams have against LeBron led teams in the finals though.

[lessthanjake]

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

I think this is true in the sense that it is something that is a pervasive view amongst the general public. But, in reality, Steph should’ve been Finals MVP every single time, because his presence was the one breaking down the opposing defense every time. In all those series against the Cavaliers, the Cavaliers were guarding Steph in a way that consistently opened up things for the rest of the team. And they had to do that, because they were so afraid that if they didn’t Steph would just go off and dominate them. Basically the only time in the Finals a team actually tried to not desperately sell out their defense to limit Steph was Game 4 in 2022, and we saw what happened. Of course, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Steph was the most impactful player in those Finals, because he was also demonstrably the most impactful player on those Warriors in general.

I’ll just leave this here again. The idea that it was correct not to have this player be Finals MVP in this series is just silly to me:

Watch on YouTube

The amusing thing about Iguodala being MVP for “stopping” LeBron is that LeBron had had a negative opponent-relative TS% in every series in those playoffs. That series wasn’t even his worst rTS% in those playoffs. He was in a serious shooting slump. Moving Iguodala to the starting lineup helped the Warriors, but it was more about the effect of going small (because Iguodala replaced Bogut in the starting lineup) than it was about Iguodala specifically. Meanwhile, Durant was really good in 2017 and 2018, but it was basically box-score watching to put him above Steph, given how the Cavaliers were playing them.

[michaelm]

Steph doesn't have the accolades to be GOAT

His entire career: 2 MVPs, 4 championships, 1 FMVP, 11 All Star selections, 2 time scoring champ, 1 time steals champ, 10 total All-NBA selections, 4 1st team all-NBAs. Career 25,080 points (.625 TS), 6,500 assists over 16 seasons, 1014 games played. 26th all time in scoring, for reference

LeBron from 2008 to 2018: 4 MVPs, 3 championships, 3 FMVPs, 11 All Star selections, 1 time scoring champ, 5 1st team all-defense, 1 2nd team all-defense, 11 1st team All-NBAs, 22,599 points (.604 TS), 6,175 assists over 11 seasons, 827 games played

I think I could make a compelling case that LeBron just in those 11 seasons has more of a GOAT argument than Steph, but even if you want to argue otherwise, that's only half of LeBron's career

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

And give it like 20 years, the same way people talk about MJ's accomplishments with a mythic sense of embellishment, people are gonna start saying LeBron was so good that guys got FMVPs simply for guarding him, or he was so good that the last 2 MVPs needed to team up to beat him, or some such

Same thing people have done with MJ the last 30 or so years.

One poster is calling Curry the GOAT. If people want to denigrate Curry in answer to that poster I am very happy to put them right however. You can have LeBron as GOAT, I am very happy to have the 2017 GSW team as the GOAT team or close to being so, and significantly due to Curry.

[michaelm]

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

I think this is true in the sense that it is something that is a pervasive view amongst the general public. But, in reality, Steph should’ve been Finals MVP every single time, because his presence was the one breaking down the opposing defense every time. In all those series against the Cavaliers, the Cavaliers were guarding Steph in a way that consistently opened up things for the rest of the team. And they had to do that, because they were so afraid that if they didn’t Steph would just go off and dominate them. Basically the only time in the Finals a team actually tried to not desperately sell out their defense to limit Steph was Game 4 in 2022, and we saw what happened. Of course, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Steph was the most impactful player in those Finals, because he was also demonstrably the most impactful player on those Warriors in general.

I’ll just leave this here again. The idea that it was correct not to have this player be Finals MVP in this series is just silly to me:

Watch on YouTube

The amusing thing about Iguodala being MVP for “stopping” LeBron is that LeBron had had a negative opponent-relative TS% in every series in those playoffs. That series wasn’t even his worst rTS% in those playoffs. He was in a serious shooting slump. Moving Iguodala to the starting lineup helped the Warriors, but it was more about the effect of going small (because Iguodala replaced Bogut in the starting lineup) than it was about Iguodala specifically. Meanwhile, Durant was really good in 2017 and 2018, but it was basically box-score watching to put him above Steph, given how the Cavaliers were playing them.

Iguodala also scored well in 2015. Going small was crucial as you say, Mozgov was matching or bettering Bogut, and small ball took care of him.

I have no problem with Iguodala or KD getting those FMVP awards, they played very well and were crucial to the title wins, but Iguodala is on the record a few years ago when there was press coverage of how valuable the franchise had become that Joe Lacob should be grateful to Steph because it was mainly down to him.

[lessthanjake]

Curry on the other hand was excluded from serious consideration for a number of years because he teamed up with Durant and they were too successful.

Nonsense like this is why I stopped bothering with you in the past and why I'm wondering what am I doing with my life. They were too successful? What the hell does that even mean? MVP is a regular season award that is mostly based on how well your team performs. Curry won his unanimous MVP award in a season where his team had the the most successful regular season of all time, but somehow the following team winning less games were too successful? Hell, LeBron's fourth MVP happened during a season when his team had a 27 game winning streak and they won 66 games, one less than the 2017 team did. Hell, the 2018 team didn't even win 60 games. So what the hell are you even talking about here? What part of your ass did you pull this one out of? This would be like me saying I didn't get the job because I did too well in the interview.

I think it’s pretty obvious that WarriorsGM has a valid point about this actually. I’ll articulate the point a bit differently. MVP voters do not take kindly to situations in which a team has two major superstars. Even if the team does incredibly well, the attitude is that the team *should* do that well and that neither one of the superstars should get full credit for how good the team is. This is a large part of why LeBron was a very distant 3rd in MVP voting in 2011, behind two players that everyone knew he was better than. And it’s why Steph and Durant barely got MVP votes in 2017, despite their team being dominant in the regular season. For LeBron, the 2011 Finals combined with a relatively unimpressive 2011 Heat regular season ended up resetting the narrative on this, though. After they lost in the Finals, people stopped really thinking that the Heat *should* just be dominant. And when combined with Wade taking a bit of a back seat to LeBron to avoid some of the issues that occurred with LeBron in the 2011 Finals, this opened up room for LeBron to be given credit for the Heat doing well in the regular season. This reset never happened for the Warriors, because they were dominant from the beginning, so people never moved off of the “This team *should* dominate, so I can’t give too much of the credit to either guy” sentiment. And if people never move off of that sentiment, then neither Steph nor Durant could have a realistic shot at MVP. I feel like people who followed basketball in these years should generally understand that this was the sentiment.

Granted, Steph wasn’t going to get MVP in 2018 anyways, since he missed too many games, and arguably the same thing is true in 2019. So the biggest effect of the above is probably just in 2017 in particular—where Steph was surely the most valuable player in the league, but couldn’t win MVP because he wasn’t being given due credit for the team’s success. Steph probably still was the most valuable player in the NBA in 2018 and 2019 when he played—one need only look at the team’s record when he did and didn’t play to see that—but missing 31 games and 13 games definitely put a damper on his MVP case, such that he was unlikely to get MVP even without the above-discussed issue.

I do think there’s a good chance LeBron doesn’t get the 2012 MVP if the Heat had won the 2011 Finals, though—because that reset of expectations would not have happened, and the Heat’s success would’ve been regarded as a continued expected result of the teaming up of superstars, and LeBron would’ve therefore gotten less credit for their success. Even the 2013 MVP might not have happened. Granted, I think that that would’ve been *wrong*, and merely a result of wrong-headed thinking and narrative-building by MVP voters. But I do think, realistically, this sort of thing is pretty obviously a major factor that affects MVP voting.

You're continued harping on FMVPs shows your insistence on using severely flawed measures. You think KD's FMVPs are a winning argument against Curry? Why should LeBron's be? LeBron outplayed Curry in the finals? But LeBron lost 3 out of 4 times.

Because for one thing, it demonstrates how much more LeBron meant to his team than Curry did. It tells me that there's a legitimate chance Curry could have been out with an injury in the KD Warriors teams, and they'd still probably win their championships. You can't replace LeBron on those teams with someone else and expect them to win. Hell, odds are the Cavs don't even make the playoffs without him.

The KD Warriors played a lot of games without Steph, and they gave us no reason to believe they were very good without Steph. They played 47 games without Steph in the regular season, and they went 24-23, with a -1.18 net rating per 100 possessions. They did play some playoff games without him in those years too, which were all against middling early-round opponents and were disproportionately home games, but if we add those to the mix, we have the Warriors going 29-24 with a +0.28 net rating per 100 possessions in games without Steph. And this is a team that won at a 65-win pace with a +10.18 net rating per 100 possessions in games with Steph. I think it’s very hard to look at things and conclude that Curry didn’t mean about as much as someone could mean to a team. They were not a terrible team without him, but his impact on them was demonstrably enormous and definitely looks GOAT-like. This is the strongest part of a case for Steph IMO.

[MavsDirk41]

Steph doesn't have the accolades to be GOAT

His entire career: 2 MVPs, 4 championships, 1 FMVP, 11 All Star selections, 2 time scoring champ, 1 time steals champ, 10 total All-NBA selections, 4 1st team all-NBAs. Career 25,080 points (.625 TS), 6,500 assists over 16 seasons, 1014 games played. 26th all time in scoring, for reference

LeBron from 2008 to 2018: 4 MVPs, 3 championships, 3 FMVPs, 11 All Star selections, 1 time scoring champ, 5 1st team all-defense, 1 2nd team all-defense, 11 1st team All-NBAs, 22,599 points (.604 TS), 6,175 assists over 11 seasons, 827 games played

I think I could make a compelling case that LeBron just in those 11 seasons has more of a GOAT argument than Steph, but even if you want to argue otherwise, that's only half of LeBron's career

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

And give it like 20 years, the same way people talk about MJ's accomplishments with a mythic sense of embellishment, people are gonna start saying LeBron was so good that guys got FMVPs simply for guarding him, or he was so good that the last 2 MVPs needed to team up to beat him, or some such

Same thing people have done with MJ the last 30 or so years.

I love how you come on here calling people a Steph homer or Jordan glazer when you are both for James. Quit acting like you are some unbiased fan.

[WarriorGM]

Steph doesn't have the accolades to be GOAT

His entire career: 2 MVPs, 4 championships, 1 FMVP, 11 All Star selections, 2 time scoring champ, 1 time steals champ, 10 total All-NBA selections, 4 1st team all-NBAs. Career 25,080 points (.625 TS), 6,500 assists over 16 seasons, 1014 games played. 26th all time in scoring, for reference

LeBron from 2008 to 2018: 4 MVPs, 3 championships, 3 FMVPs, 11 All Star selections, 1 time scoring champ, 5 1st team all-defense, 1 2nd team all-defense, 11 1st team All-NBAs, 22,599 points (.604 TS), 6,175 assists over 11 seasons, 827 games played

I think I could make a compelling case that LeBron just in those 11 seasons has more of a GOAT argument than Steph, but even if you want to argue otherwise, that's only half of LeBron's career

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

And give it like 20 years, the same way people talk about MJ's accomplishments with a mythic sense of embellishment, people are gonna start saying LeBron was so good that guys got FMVPs simply for guarding him, or he was so good that the last 2 MVPs needed to team up to beat him, or some such

Same thing people have done with MJ the last 30 or so years.

Again someone else making a big deal about the FMVPs. Let's repeat: why should anyone care what 11 media personalities appointed by the broadcast network paying billions for the rights to broadcast the games have to say? Is it so easy to buy your thoughts and beliefs? We can all just watch the games and judge for ourselves. All awards are dressed up opinions. Have any of you ever thought to wonder why these awards are created? They are there to peddle a certain viewpoint. All of them.

Opinions only have worth if they are accurate. The FMVP not being awarded to Steph the first three times its voters had the opportunity to do so when he won a championship is not a failure on Steph's part, it is a failure of the award's voters if their intention was to recognize value that contributed to winning championships. And their failure is made clear each time Steph succeeds.

[DOT]

Steph doesn't have the accolades to be GOAT

His entire career: 2 MVPs, 4 championships, 1 FMVP, 11 All Star selections, 2 time scoring champ, 1 time steals champ, 10 total All-NBA selections, 4 1st team all-NBAs. Career 25,080 points (.625 TS), 6,500 assists over 16 seasons, 1014 games played. 26th all time in scoring, for reference

LeBron from 2008 to 2018: 4 MVPs, 3 championships, 3 FMVPs, 11 All Star selections, 1 time scoring champ, 5 1st team all-defense, 1 2nd team all-defense, 11 1st team All-NBAs, 22,599 points (.604 TS), 6,175 assists over 11 seasons, 827 games played

I think I could make a compelling case that LeBron just in those 11 seasons has more of a GOAT argument than Steph, but even if you want to argue otherwise, that's only half of LeBron's career

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

And give it like 20 years, the same way people talk about MJ's accomplishments with a mythic sense of embellishment, people are gonna start saying LeBron was so good that guys got FMVPs simply for guarding him, or he was so good that the last 2 MVPs needed to team up to beat him, or some such

Same thing people have done with MJ the last 30 or so years.

I love how you come on here calling people a Steph homer or Jordan glazer when you are both for James. Quit acting like you are some unbiased fan.

I mean, I've said it numerous times that I have MJ #1 and LeBron #2, I just think the arguments people use to prop MJ up are moronic and if LeBron and MJ both had the exact same careers but LeBron came earlier, those same people would be arguing LeBron as the GOAT because it isn't about anything tangible, it's just their nostalgia talking

I know I'm biased. Everybody has biases. But there are only 4 people you can really argue as the GOAT, and even then I don't think Russell holds up enough due to the sheer difference in play back then, and Kareem's case was centrally about longevity, which he has now lost to LeBron. I don't think anyone other than those 4 has a reasonable argument, and the people trying to push others are the MJ stans because they know nobody else has a case over MJ, so they can feel secure in arguing for them because anyone who compares Steph or worse Kobe to MJ would get laughed out of the building.

[MavsDirk41]

Steph doesn't have the accolades to be GOAT

His entire career: 2 MVPs, 4 championships, 1 FMVP, 11 All Star selections, 2 time scoring champ, 1 time steals champ, 10 total All-NBA selections, 4 1st team all-NBAs. Career 25,080 points (.625 TS), 6,500 assists over 16 seasons, 1014 games played. 26th all time in scoring, for reference

LeBron from 2008 to 2018: 4 MVPs, 3 championships, 3 FMVPs, 11 All Star selections, 1 time scoring champ, 5 1st team all-defense, 1 2nd team all-defense, 11 1st team All-NBAs, 22,599 points (.604 TS), 6,175 assists over 11 seasons, 827 games played

I think I could make a compelling case that LeBron just in those 11 seasons has more of a GOAT argument than Steph, but even if you want to argue otherwise, that's only half of LeBron's career

Anyone who isn't a blind Steph homer or a Jordan glazer who only tries to elevate other players solely because they know LeBron is the only real threat to MJ as the GOAT and therefore want to drag him down would be able to agree that Steph doesn't have a GOAT argument. The most damaging thing to his case is the fact that while he has 4 rings, he only has 1 FMVP

And give it like 20 years, the same way people talk about MJ's accomplishments with a mythic sense of embellishment, people are gonna start saying LeBron was so good that guys got FMVPs simply for guarding him, or he was so good that the last 2 MVPs needed to team up to beat him, or some such

Same thing people have done with MJ the last 30 or so years.

I love how you come on here calling people a Steph homer or Jordan glazer when you are both for James. Quit acting like you are some unbiased fan.

I mean, I've said it numerous times that I have MJ #1 and LeBron #2, I just think the arguments people use to prop MJ up are moronic and if LeBron and MJ both had the exact same careers but LeBron came earlier, those same people would be arguing LeBron as the GOAT because it isn't about anything tangible, it's just their nostalgia talking

I know I'm biased. Everybody has biases. But there are only 4 people you can really argue as the GOAT, and even then I don't think Russell holds up enough due to the sheer difference in play back then, and Kareem's case was centrally about longevity, which he has now lost to LeBron. I don't think anyone other than those 4 has a reasonable argument, and the people trying to push others are the MJ stans because they know nobody else has a case over MJ, so they can feel secure in arguing for them because anyone who compares Steph or worse Kobe to MJ would get laughed out of the building.

Jordan, James, Kareem, and Russell are the only serious goat candidates imo. I 100% agree with you on that. But Kareem won what, 3 national championships in college? Yea, i factor that in too. He is the greatest college player ever, plus he has 6 nba league mvps, a goat basketball peak, was a two way player, the most iconic shot in basketball history, the longevity, and the rings. He has as much a case for basketball goat as any other player. Russell won like no other player ever plain and simple. 11 championships. Just dominate. James obviously has 4 championships, 4 mvps, a two way player, the longevity, and a goat level peak. Jordan is the goat for me because he never had letdowns like James did in the big moments, was a two way player, the goat peak for me, most clutch player ive seen, stayed with one franchise and won 2 3 peats.

We dont know how James would have faired in the 80/90s anymore than we know how Jordan would fair in the modern era. Truth be told, any of the 4 players i mentioned could be the goat and there will never be a consensus.