Steph Top 10 All Time - According to Bleacher report

[XxIronChainzxX]

He's around #15 for me now but should crack top 10 after a couple more seasons of similar production.

Which of the guys I listed does he displace? I just don't see it.

1. Wilt
2. MJ
3. LeBron
4. Kareem
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Curry

That is what my list will look like when Curry breaks the barrier, unless LeBron does something that boosts him over MJ.

I just don't think there's anything he can do in the regular season to displace Hakeem. He needs at least a second title without as good or better a player all time. His MVP years were impressive, sure, and he had an impact on the game as a whole, but beside a 2 year span in the RS the dominance just isn't there.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Which of the guys I listed does he displace? I just don't see it.

1. Wilt
2. MJ
3. LeBron
4. Kareem
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Curry

That is what my list will look like when Curry breaks the barrier, unless LeBron does something that boosts him over MJ.

I just don't think there's anything he can do in the regular season to displace Hakeem. He needs at least a second title without as good or better a player all time. His MVP years were impressive, sure, and he had an impact on the game as a whole, but beside a 2 year span in the RS the dominance just isn't there.

Hey we're all entitled to our opinions, but the Warriors likely win titles with or without KD in 17 and 18. His impact in the playoffs is all-time elite despite a minor drop off from his historical RS production. I just hate narrative-based arguments and the misportrayal of "dominance". If MJ doesn't peace out in 94-95 and Hakeem doesn't win a ring, would that make him any worse of a player?

[XxIronChainzxX]

1. Wilt
2. MJ
3. LeBron
4. Kareem
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Curry

That is what my list will look like when Curry breaks the barrier, unless LeBron does something that boosts him over MJ.

I just don't think there's anything he can do in the regular season to displace Hakeem. He needs at least a second title without as good or better a player all time. His MVP years were impressive, sure, and he had an impact on the game as a whole, but beside a 2 year span in the RS the dominance just isn't there.

Hey we're all entitled to our opinions, but the Warriors likely win titles with or without KD in 17 and 18. His impact in the playoffs is all-time elite despite a minor drop off from his historical RS production. I just hate narrative-based arguments and the misportrayal of "dominance". If MJ doesn't peace out in 94-95 and Hakeem doesn't win a ring, would that make him any worse of a player?

I actually think KD wins in one or both of those years if he stays in OKC with the team they built there. I think Houston if the trade goes down wins in 2018.

But that's neither here nor there. Maybe Curry could best those stars, and then it would have changed my evaluation.

On Hakeem, it's not about the ring but the run. Losing to MJ does in a sense diminish his run because he's a notch in the belt. And MJ would be all the greater if he actually won 8 straight. On the flip side, if Hakeem beat MJ for even 1 title, imo it would be seen as greater than his 2. But it's really about the opportunity to have legendary run.

Curry is missing run. When he faced two great teams at his peak in 2016 - not historically great but great nonetheless - he ended up with 2 7 game series and a 1-1 record.

[red96]

List also has David Robinson 12th. Over Hakeem.

I dont think most Spurs fans would even agree with that.

[iggymcfrack]

[url][/url]

Seems about right for Steph. I think you can put him anywhere in the 9-14 range. The one player who’s rated way too high IMO is Larry Bird. He was the 3rd best player in a weak decade, his numbers fell off quite a bit in the postseason, and he wasn’t an impact defender like all the top 8-9 players should be IMO.

I would liken his defense to Curry's, maybe a tad better. Super high IQ and minimized his athletic disadvantages enough to be a good not great defender relative to position.

Yeah, that seems fair. Bird was probably even a better defender than Curry. But whereas Magic and Curry were both capable of being one man elite offenses to elevate them to the 10-14 range even without much of an impact on defense, I don't think Bird was quite at that level on O. He certainly doesn't belong in the Top 8 with the elite 2-way superstars.

[Pharmcat]

He revolutionized how game is played. Definite top10 if not top 5

[GeorgeMarcus]

I just don't think there's anything he can do in the regular season to displace Hakeem. He needs at least a second title without as good or better a player all time. His MVP years were impressive, sure, and he had an impact on the game as a whole, but beside a 2 year span in the RS the dominance just isn't there.

Hey we're all entitled to our opinions, but the Warriors likely win titles with or without KD in 17 and 18. His impact in the playoffs is all-time elite despite a minor drop off from his historical RS production. I just hate narrative-based arguments and the misportrayal of "dominance". If MJ doesn't peace out in 94-95 and Hakeem doesn't win a ring, would that make him any worse of a player?

I actually think KD wins in one or both of those years if he stays in OKC with the team they built there. I think Houston if the trade goes down wins in 2018.

But that's neither here nor there. Maybe Curry could best those stars, and then it would have changed my evaluation.

On Hakeem, it's not about the ring but the run. Losing to MJ does in a sense diminish his run because he's a notch in the belt. And MJ would be all the greater if he actually won 8 straight. On the flip side, if Hakeem beat MJ for even 1 title, imo it would be seen as greater than his 2. But it's really about the opportunity to have legendary run.

Curry is missing run. When he faced two great teams at his peak in 2016 - not historically great but great nonetheless - he ended up with 2 7 game series and a 1-1 record.

Beating MJ's Bulls once may well deserve more credit than 2 rings without MJ, but that's just as speculative as saying Curry doesn't win in 17 and 18. But regardless, he has played just fine against the great teams he went up against (without Durant):
Against OKC in '16: 27.9ppg on 62.3 TS%, 6.3 rpg, 5.9apg
Against TOR in '19: 30.5 on 59.8 TS%, 5.2 rpg, 6apg
Against HOU in '15: 31.2ppg on 68.0 TS%, 4.6rpg, 5.6 apg

Also had a great series when they took down LeBron in 2015, but I assume you don't qualify that as a great team because of injuries. There are no gimmies in playoff basketball but people find ways to diminish Curry's consistent success.

[WarriorGM]

Even without a superstar in KD, Curry has made the finals 3 times winning one of them. Just on that basis Top 20 can be argued. Then you add in the championships with Durant one of which was record setting, the record setting dominance of the regular seasons, and the 2 MVPs one of which was the one and so far only unanimous and Top 10 doesn't look so far-fetched.

[ProcessDoctor]

around 15 makes more sense, but both he and KD will be in the top-10/12 when it's all said and done.

I think Steph has a better chance to move up to that range than KD. I'm not rooting against KD, but I think his productivity will take a hit post-injury. I also think Steph has a better chance at winning another ring in GS than KD does in Brooklyn.

[ProcessDoctor]

Regarding the list, I don't think it's all that bad. The top 9 look good, although IMO it should be a different order:

1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Russell
8. Duncan
9. Shaq
(10. Hakeem)

11-25 also looks pretty good in terms of names. David Robinson might be a tad high, but he's always hard to judge because of injuries. I'd probably put him in that 15-17 range.

[WICKED17]

Total nonsense, definetly not now nor will he ever be.
That does not mean he does not belong on a top ? List . Just never top 10, a ridiculous opinion by Bleacher. Pathetic!

[Sark]

Drinking Bleach Report.

[Strepbacter]

Curry isn't even in the top twenty.

[Clyde Frazier]

Don't like the list too much as a longevity / durability guy. Also, this was written by Andy Bailey who's a huge fan of doing blind player A vs player B polls on Twitter thinking he's so clever. Essentially to catch people's own biases. When in actuality all those polls do is remove context from the players being compared. He's literally posting them all over Twitter today to defend his rankings.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Don't like the list too much as a longevity / durability guy

Oh, you're one of those guys

Lol kidding, longevity is by far the best reason to take issue with Curry on All-Time lists. I weigh longevity less than the average person, but I can accept yours as a reasonable viewpoint (and a better measure of career value if that's the goal).

[Capn'O]

I can't take any list seriously that puts Isiah Thomas at 47. Get your head out of the **** books and watch some damn PLAYOFF games. Good lord.

[Raps in 4]

Easily. He'll have a strong case for top-5 when his career is over.

He's one of the greatest offensive players ever. He changed how the game is played with his dominance.

[levon]

Don't like the list too much as a longevity / durability guy. Also, this was written by Andy Bailey who's a huge fan of doing blind player A vs player B polls on Twitter thinking he's so clever. Essentially to catch people's own biases. When in actuality all those polls do is remove context from the players being compared. He's literally posting them all over Twitter today to defend his rankings.

Scrolled through his Twitter. A quote

The difference between me and those who react to me is the reactions generally have no evidentiary basis.

Eyes rolled into my **** head.

[Triple7]

He's around #15 for me now but should crack top 10 after a couple more seasons of similar production.

Which of the guys I listed does he displace? I just don't see it.

1. Wilt
2. MJ
3. LeBron
4. Kareem
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Curry

That is what my list will look like when Curry breaks the barrier, unless LeBron does something that boosts him over MJ.

Lebron will never get past MJ ever! I have no problem with Curry over Kobe if he wins 2 more rings, or gets at least one fmvp. Otherwise, i think Kobe tops him still.

[Raps in 4]

Hey we're all entitled to our opinions, but the Warriors likely win titles with or without KD in 17 and 18. His impact in the playoffs is all-time elite despite a minor drop off from his historical RS production. I just hate narrative-based arguments and the misportrayal of "dominance". If MJ doesn't peace out in 94-95 and Hakeem doesn't win a ring, would that make him any worse of a player?

I actually think KD wins in one or both of those years if he stays in OKC with the team they built there. I think Houston if the trade goes down wins in 2018.

But that's neither here nor there. Maybe Curry could best those stars, and then it would have changed my evaluation.

On Hakeem, it's not about the ring but the run. Losing to MJ does in a sense diminish his run because he's a notch in the belt. And MJ would be all the greater if he actually won 8 straight. On the flip side, if Hakeem beat MJ for even 1 title, imo it would be seen as greater than his 2. But it's really about the opportunity to have legendary run.

Curry is missing run. When he faced two great teams at his peak in 2016 - not historically great but great nonetheless - he ended up with 2 7 game series and a 1-1 record.

Beating MJ's Bulls once may well deserve more credit than 2 rings without MJ, but that's just as speculative as saying Curry doesn't win in 17 and 18. But regardless, he has played just fine against the great teams he went up against (without Durant):
Against OKC in '16: 27.9ppg on 62.3 TS%, 6.3 rpg, 5.9apg
Against TOR in '19: 30.5 on 59.8 TS%, 5.2 rpg, 6apg
Against HOU in '15: 31.2ppg on 68.0 TS%, 4.6rpg, 5.6 apg

Also had a great series when they took down LeBron in 2015, but I assume you don't qualify that as a great team because of injuries. There are no gimmies in playoff basketball but people find ways to diminish Curry's consistent success.

He's a shooter so there will naturally be variance in his game over small samples.

People who hate on him are either:

a) Jealous of his success
b) Angry that he "ruined the game by turning it into a 3-point contest"