Steph Top 10 All Time - According to Bleacher report

[a8bil]

IMO you can't be top 10 all time without being elite on both ends of the floor. Steph is a top 10 offensive player, but there is a long list of guards in front of him all time on defense.

Magic?

[Drygon]

Curry definitely has potential for being a top 10 player of all time if he continues to stack up with team/individual accolades.

Having that said, he is definitely not there yet.

[nzahir]

Really hard to place him right now (and I've said it before, maybe even in this thread).

1 ring w/o KD and vs a depleted Cavs team.

0 fmvps

He doesn't have the long dominant run yet, but hes still playing.

I think him winning another ring and getting a fmvp makes him undisputed top 10.

Would be hard to argue against:
4 rings
2 mvps
1 fmvp
Greatest shooter ever

The era he played in greatly helps Curry maybe the most of anyone. I think without handchecking and every rule favoring offense, it makes it nearly impossible to defend guys running off of picks (many which are illegal and moving, but rarely called). And if you play too close on a guy, they just flail into you (should be a charge many times)

If he played with the rules of the 80s and 90s, he would struggle much more than he does in the finals on a consistent basis

[Hoopstar23]

Really hard to place him right now (and I've said it before, maybe even in this thread).

1 ring w/o KD and vs a depleted Cavs team.

0 fmvps

He doesn't have the long dominant run yet, but hes still playing.

I think him winning another ring and getting a fmvp makes him undisputed top 10.

Would be hard to argue against:
4 rings
2 mvps
1 fmvp
Greatest shooter ever

The era he played in greatly helps Curry maybe the most of anyone. I think without handchecking and every rule favoring offense, it makes it nearly impossible to defend guys running off of picks (many which are illegal and moving, but rarely called). And if you play too close on a guy, they just flail into you (should be a charge many times)

If he played with the rules of the 80s and 90s, he would struggle much more than he does in the finals on a consistent basis

80s and 90s players wouldnt know how to guard Curry..now some of the dribbling rules and coaching ideologies may limit him...

[WarriorGM]

Really hard to place him right now (and I've said it before, maybe even in this thread).

I don't see why it's hard to place him. One should already have a relatively clear range. There just aren't that many players with a comparable résumé as it is.

He doesn't have the long dominant run yet, but hes still playing.

What does this long dominant run you are looking for look like? Name the 5-year periods that showed more dominance. How many players in history have done anything close to what Curry has accomplished in the past 5 years? I'm unsure there are any.

- 3 rings in 5 consecutive finals appearances coming out of the stronger Western Conference
- the record regular season record plus 2 67-win seasons
- the regular playoffs record
- 2 MVPs one being the only unanimous one on record

[nzahir]

Really hard to place him right now (and I've said it before, maybe even in this thread).

I don't see why it's hard to place him. One should already have a relatively clear range. There just aren't that many players with a comparable résumé as it is.

He doesn't have the long dominant run yet, but hes still playing.

What does this long dominant run you are looking for look like? Name the 5-year periods that showed more dominance. How many players in history have done anything close to what Curry has accomplished in the past 5 years? I'm unsure there are any.

- 3 rings in 5 consecutive finals appearances coming out of the stronger Western Conference
- the record regular season record plus 2 67-win seasons
- the regular playoffs record
- 2 MVPs one being the only unanimous one on record

Maybe I didn’t word the dominant run part well.
His longevity and total stats rn compared to most greats is below average

[LuckyLeprechaun]

IMO you can't be top 10 all time without being elite on both ends of the floor. Steph is a top 10 offensive player, but there is a long list of guards in front of him all time on defense.

ok, justify this view. why

Because top 10 is an extremely specific criteria. There are more than 10 players in NBA history that were elite on both ends of the court, so if a guy is only elite on one end, he would have to be light years ahead on that end to make up for deficiencies on the other. If you're building a team and you could take 2 players, one who is the best scorer but only an average defender and another who is an elite scorer but not the best in the league, but is also an elite defender, you take the second guy every time.

Or putting it another way, Kawhi Leonard, arguably the best 2 way player in the NBA just beat Steph Curry.

Why ?. If a team built around a player wins it wins.

Because defense is half the game and someone that brings both at all time great levels has more impact than someone that does just one at that level.

Jordan (9 all defense)
Lebron - (5 all defense. for most of his career has been elite on D, blocks on splitter and iggy comes to mind)
Kobe
Hakeem
Magic
Shaq
Kareem
Russell
KG
Duncan (15 total all defense teams)
Wade and Bird both got 3 all defense second teams, Wade also most blocks by a guard ever

most of the top guys were dominant on both ends weren't they?

Most of those guys except Magic (theoretically) weren't PGs. If you can build a winning team around Curry you can build a winning team around him as I have said. It is a team sport and there are no victories other than team victories in the sport.

Curry has had a defensive MVP in Draymond and one of the better 2 way players in Klay for every title, and Durant, another one of the best 2 ways players in the league for some of them as well. I highly doubt a team like the Knicks would have been able to build a contender around Steph. When the number of stars were equal this year due to GSs injuries, the team with the best 2 way player surprised most people and beat Curry's team. Why? Because elite on both ends > elite on 1 end.

Also, it doesn't matter if they were PGs or not. This is a discussion of best players ever. If you're saying it's unfair to expect PGs to be elite on both ends, then fine. That just means PG isn't the most important position. Which makes sense since the vast majority of title winning teams didn't have a PG as their best player. Curry and Magic are 2 exceptions and both had tons of elite players with them.

[WarriorGM]

IMO you can't be top 10 all time without being elite on both ends of the floor. Steph is a top 10 offensive player, but there is a long list of guards in front of him all time on defense.

ok, justify this view. why

Because top 10 is an extremely specific criteria. There are more than 10 players in NBA history that were elite on both ends of the court, so if a guy is only elite on one end, he would have to be light years ahead on that end to make up for deficiencies on the other. If you're building a team and you could take 2 players, one who is the best scorer but only an average defender and another who is an elite scorer but not the best in the league, but is also an elite defender, you take the second guy every time.

Or putting it another way, Kawhi Leonard, arguably the best 2 way player in the NBA just beat Steph Curry.

Because defense is half the game and someone that brings both at all time great levels has more impact than someone that does just one at that level.

Jordan (9 all defense)
Lebron - (5 all defense. for most of his career has been elite on D, blocks on splitter and iggy comes to mind)
Kobe
Hakeem
Magic
Shaq
Kareem
Russell
KG
Duncan (15 total all defense teams)
Wade and Bird both got 3 all defense second teams, Wade also most blocks by a guard ever

most of the top guys were dominant on both ends weren't they?

Most of those guys except Magic (theoretically) weren't PGs. If you can build a winning team around Curry you can build a winning team around him as I have said. It is a team sport and there are no victories other than team victories in the sport.

Curry has had a defensive MVP in Draymond and one of the better 2 way players in Klay for every title, and Durant, another one of the best 2 ways players in the league for some of them as well. I highly doubt a team like the Knicks would have been able to build a contender around Steph. When the number of stars were equal this year due to GSs injuries, the team with the best 2 way player surprised most people and beat Curry's team. Why? Because elite on both ends > elite on 1 end.

Also, it doesn't matter if they were PGs or not. This is a discussion of best players ever. If you're saying it's unfair to expect PGs to be elite on both ends, then fine. That just means PG isn't the most important position. Which makes sense since the vast majority of title winning teams didn't have a PG as their best player. Curry and Magic are 2 exceptions and both had tons of elite players with them.

The two-way player theory is the same reductionist thinking behind 7 foot player > 6 foot player and more athletic player > less athletic player. All sounds good in theory and in general may hold true but if in practice the shorter less athletic guy is the one who is winning and making an impact then he is the guy winning and making an impact. There is only one real measure: wins. The rest are indicators.

Switch Kawhi and Curry in last year's finals and the Raptors would still win. Kawhi was great but he wasn't noticeably greater than Curry. The Raptors' depth given the Warriors' injuries clearly was though.

As to PGs, they usually make an impact on the game differently from those in other positions. In particular PGs tend to excel at playmaking which usually relies on speed and coordination something big guys just have a natural disadvantage in. Playmakers also tend to make players around them look good. If you are automatically biased against PGs especially in this era where the PG has determined the success of teams more often than not then it's likely you are using biased criteria.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Really hard to place him right now (and I've said it before, maybe even in this thread).

I don't see why it's hard to place him. One should already have a relatively clear range. There just aren't that many players with a comparable résumé as it is.

He doesn't have the long dominant run yet, but hes still playing.

What does this long dominant run you are looking for look like? Name the 5-year periods that showed more dominance. How many players in history have done anything close to what Curry has accomplished in the past 5 years? I'm unsure there are any.

- 3 rings in 5 consecutive finals appearances coming out of the stronger Western Conference
- the record regular season record plus 2 67-win seasons
- the regular playoffs record
- 2 MVPs one being the only unanimous one on record

Maybe I didn’t word the dominant run part well.
His longevity and total stats rn compared to most greats is below average

If total stats = cumulative stats then that's just an extension of the longevity argument. In terms of the numbers he's putting up in prime seasons, he goes toe to toe with GOAT level players.

[nzahir]

I don't see why it's hard to place him. One should already have a relatively clear range. There just aren't that many players with a comparable résumé as it is.



What does this long dominant run you are looking for look like? Name the 5-year periods that showed more dominance. How many players in history have done anything close to what Curry has accomplished in the past 5 years? I'm unsure there are any.

- 3 rings in 5 consecutive finals appearances coming out of the stronger Western Conference
- the record regular season record plus 2 67-win seasons
- the regular playoffs record
- 2 MVPs one being the only unanimous one on record

Maybe I didn’t word the dominant run part well.
His longevity and total stats rn compared to most greats is below average

If total stats = cumulative stats then that's just an extension of the longevity argument. In terms of the numbers he's putting up in prime seasons, he goes toe to toe with GOAT level players.

Longevity and numbers do play some part in the argument, especially when guys are close

Most arguments are pretty subjective besides numbers (advanced and basic) and total numbers.

Atm the guy has 0 fmvps, you can't be top 10 without at least 1, if not 2. Its not easy to crack the top 10.

[WarriorGM]

Maybe I didn’t word the dominant run part well.
His longevity and total stats rn compared to most greats is below average

If total stats = cumulative stats then that's just an extension of the longevity argument. In terms of the numbers he's putting up in prime seasons, he goes toe to toe with GOAT level players.

Longevity and numbers do play some part in the argument, especially when guys are close

Most arguments are pretty subjective besides numbers (advanced and basic) and total numbers.

Atm the guy has 0 fmvps, you can't be top 10 without at least 1, if not 2. Its not easy to crack the top 10.

Again why does that criteria matter more than let's say leading a team to 70+ wins or having a unanimous MVP? Oh right if those were the criteria he's in a category all his own. Aside from Curry having already had finals performances much better than others who have won the FMVP in other years, Curry passes stricter more objective criteria.

[dhsilv2]

IMO you can't be top 10 all time without being elite on both ends of the floor. Steph is a top 10 offensive player, but there is a long list of guards in front of him all time on defense.

ok, justify this view. why

Because top 10 is an extremely specific criteria. There are more than 10 players in NBA history that were elite on both ends of the court, so if a guy is only elite on one end, he would have to be light years ahead on that end to make up for deficiencies on the other. If you're building a team and you could take 2 players, one who is the best scorer but only an average defender and another who is an elite scorer but not the best in the league, but is also an elite defender, you take the second guy every time.

Or putting it another way, Kawhi Leonard, arguably the best 2 way player in the NBA just beat Steph Curry.

1. Who said scorer? Offense is not just scoring.
2. Leonard did not just beat curry.
3. Leonard isn't an elite two way player in 2019.

While defense is often undervalued a player simply must be better than another. Being strong on both ends is by no means a prerequisite for that. Neither Magic nor Bird were elite defenders. Kobe's best offensive seasons were far below elite defensively. Russel was not an elite offensive player yet he's a top 10 guy.