What will it take for you to take Curry over LeBron all-time?

[falcolombardi]

Dude, they WERE harder to get to. When you can't come into the NBA at 18, and have to wait till 22/23, it's a LOT harder to compile counting stats.

Which is what this entire debate is about.

That, and Lebron spending more on his body per year than Wilt ever made, period, in any year. Even after adjusting for inflation.

every decade the nba got bigger so newer players will always have more resources than older ones

that doesnt mean you freeze record books forever

i think the problem with your positions is that you seem to want perfect fairness which doesnt exist, i could tell you that kareem record is tarnished because 50's players had to play without a shot clock

or say that 50's players records dont count cause segregation was still a thingh for a time

i could go to baseball and discount ty cobb or ruth record cause they didnt have to play against black japanese or caribbean players

or i could go to running and discount usain bolt records cause he had better shoes than jesse owens

conditions will never be perfectly equal, and is perfectlt valid to think kareem or wilt were more impressive scorers than lebron

is not perfectly valid to just pretend a record doesnt count

[TheLand13]

Who created the discussion? What criteria did they use? To me it makes no sense to not have the player who led the teams with the best regular season record and the best playoffs record not in the discussion.

Because we can analyze player performance without binding it completely to team success. LeBron hit the ground running at the start of his career and has put up historic numbers ever since. LeBron shouldn't be penalized for spending the first third of his career with an incompetent organization.

We can and the simple takeaway I see is that Curry is a more efficient player than LeBron and judging from the results that makes him a better player.

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. Just admit you’re biased towards Curry and are going to say he’s better no matter what and then at that point, a more valid conversation can be had.

[WarriorGM]

Because we can analyze player performance without binding it completely to team success. LeBron hit the ground running at the start of his career and has put up historic numbers ever since. LeBron shouldn't be penalized for spending the first third of his career with an incompetent organization.

We can and the simple takeaway I see is that Curry is a more efficient player than LeBron and judging from the results that makes him a better player.

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. Just admit you’re biased towards Curry and are going to say he’s better no matter what and then at that point, a more valid conversation can be had.

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

[JujitsuFlip]

Curry is already greater.

Pause.

[TheLand13]

We can and the simple takeaway I see is that Curry is a more efficient player than LeBron and judging from the results that makes him a better player.

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. Just admit you’re biased towards Curry and are going to say he’s better no matter what and then at that point, a more valid conversation can be had.

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

I’m not blaming the messenger. I’m calling out your obvious bias. If you’re not going to make an argument based on the reality at hand, I’m going to call you out for it.

Case and point: curry brings a bad team a championship faster? What are you basing this on? LeBron took an actual bad team to the NBA finals. And without his all star teammates, he did it again in 2015. Curry has never come close to accomplishing this. If you’re saying you can build a team around Curry quicker, this is also not true. In just one year’s time, LeBron made Miami, Cleveland, and LA champions. Again, Curry has never done this. If you want to say that he could, then that’s a discussion to be had. But you stated it as a fact. Curry has not made a bad team a champion in a seasons time. He would have to do that in order for your statement to be true.

In other words, you aren’t correct. At all. Stop with the lies and try just once to make an objective statement based on facts and reality.

[Dupp]

Time machine, being born a different player etc etc

[Miami_Lux]

We can and the simple takeaway I see is that Curry is a more efficient player than LeBron and judging from the results that makes him a better player.

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. Just admit you’re biased towards Curry and are going to say he’s better no matter what and then at that point, a more valid conversation can be had.

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

Nothing amuses me more than someone having an opinion that contradicts the overall majority (let’s say 99%) and then continues to claim that they actually know the facts and everybody else is wrong.

[floppymoose]

All time is pretty tough, and I'm a huge Curry-stan. I do think Curry had the peak year between the two though, in 2016. He was just unreal that year. It felt like a pull-up jumper from the logo with 18 seconds on the shot clock was good offense.

[WarriorGM]

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. Just admit you’re biased towards Curry and are going to say he’s better no matter what and then at that point, a more valid conversation can be had.

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

I’m not blaming the messenger. I’m calling out your obvious bias. If you’re not going to make an argument based on the reality at hand, I’m going to call you out for it.

Case and point: curry brings a bad team a championship faster? What are you basing this on? LeBron took an actual bad team to the NBA finals. And without his all star teammates, he did it again in 2015. Curry has never come close to accomplishing this. If you’re saying you can build a team around Curry quicker, this is also not true. In just one year’s time, LeBron made Miami, Cleveland, and LA champions. Again, Curry has never done this. If you want to say that he could, then that’s a discussion to be had. But you stated it as a fact. NOTHING has happened yet to support this claim. Meanwhile I have multiple examples to support my claim.

In other words, you aren’t correct. At all.

Curry's first year was 2009-2010. Won his first championship in the 2014-2015 season with the Warriors. He wasn't even given the keys to the team at the start and had a year he was out due to injury. According to BBRef he was around 26.

LeBron's first year was 2003-2004. Won his first championship in the 2011-2012 season with his second team the Heat. Needed a second year with a superteam to win. According to BBRef he was around 27.

Certainly looks to me like Steph took less time to turn around a lottery team.

LeBron with the Heat, second stint with Cavaliers and then with the Lakers had to go forming superteams and raiding team assets for star trades. Much easier and not the same thing to turn around a team when you also have multiple top draft picks to turn into stars. But you can go on pretending it is the same. LeBron's achievements are built upon multiple such smoke and mirror effects.

[WarriorGM]

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. Just admit you’re biased towards Curry and are going to say he’s better no matter what and then at that point, a more valid conversation can be had.

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

Nothing amuses me more than someone having an opinion that contradicts the overall majority (let’s say 99%) and then continues to claim that they actually know the facts and everybody else is wrong.

Again no facts in your statement.

[Johnny Tomala]

Nothing. Curry will never be top 10 for me. I don't have him in Top 20 so far.

[KyRo23]

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

Nothing amuses me more than someone having an opinion that contradicts the overall majority (let’s say 99%) and then continues to claim that they actually know the facts and everybody else is wrong.

Again no facts in your statement.

At some point you need to think to yourself "is literally every single person in this thread wrong or am I delusional?"

[TheLand13]

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

I’m not blaming the messenger. I’m calling out your obvious bias. If you’re not going to make an argument based on the reality at hand, I’m going to call you out for it.

Case and point: curry brings a bad team a championship faster? What are you basing this on? LeBron took an actual bad team to the NBA finals. And without his all star teammates, he did it again in 2015. Curry has never come close to accomplishing this. If you’re saying you can build a team around Curry quicker, this is also not true. In just one year’s time, LeBron made Miami, Cleveland, and LA champions. Again, Curry has never done this. If you want to say that he could, then that’s a discussion to be had. But you stated it as a fact. NOTHING has happened yet to support this claim. Meanwhile I have multiple examples to support my claim.

In other words, you aren’t correct. At all.

Curry's first year was 2009-2010. Won his first championship in the 2014-2015 season with the Warriors. He wasn't even given the keys to the team at the start and had a year he was out due to injury. According to BBRef he was around 26.

LeBron's first year was 2003-2004. Won his first championship in the 2011-2012 season with his second team the Heat. Needed a second year with a superteam to win. According to BBRef he was around 27.

Certainly looks to me like Steph took less time to turn around a lottery team.

LeBron with the Heat, second stint with Cavaliers and then with the Lakers had to go forming superteams and raiding team assets for star trades. Much easier and not the same thing to turn around a team when you also have multiple top draft picks to turn into stars. But you can go on pretending it is the same. LeBron's achievements are built upon multiple such smoke and mirror effects.

Yeah, and what did this ultimately come down to? Better management. Curry is not the reason golden State drafted Klay and Draymond and they turned out to be half of fame players. You’re giving Curry credit for things he had nothing to do with.

And even if this argument held up, you’re still not correct. Cleveland and LA were both bottom of the barrel teams. LeBron only needed two seasons to turn them into champions. Again, Curry has not done this.

Pointing out that Curry wasn’t the focal point or wasn’t given the keys to the kingdom also just kills the credibility of your argument. You originally said Curry is easier to build around. If he wasn’t originally being built around, then that means he got eventual hall of fame teammates by accident. Switching goalposts doesn’t make your argument correct.

[floppymoose]

Yeah, and what did this ultimately come down to? Better management. Curry is not the reason golden State drafted Klay and Draymond and they turned out to be half of fame players. You’re giving Curry credit for things he had nothing to do with.

I'm not coming into this with Curry > Lebron, but I do think there is a little more to the above. Curry may not deserve credit for those drafts, but he is a HUGE part of why that core has stayed together. And that absolutely is a big mark in his favor.

[WarriorGM]

I’m not blaming the messenger. I’m calling out your obvious bias. If you’re not going to make an argument based on the reality at hand, I’m going to call you out for it.

Case and point: curry brings a bad team a championship faster? What are you basing this on? LeBron took an actual bad team to the NBA finals. And without his all star teammates, he did it again in 2015. Curry has never come close to accomplishing this. If you’re saying you can build a team around Curry quicker, this is also not true. In just one year’s time, LeBron made Miami, Cleveland, and LA champions. Again, Curry has never done this. If you want to say that he could, then that’s a discussion to be had. But you stated it as a fact. NOTHING has happened yet to support this claim. Meanwhile I have multiple examples to support my claim.

In other words, you aren’t correct. At all.

Curry's first year was 2009-2010. Won his first championship in the 2014-2015 season with the Warriors. He wasn't even given the keys to the team at the start and had a year he was out due to injury. According to BBRef he was around 26.

LeBron's first year was 2003-2004. Won his first championship in the 2011-2012 season with his second team the Heat. Needed a second year with a superteam to win. According to BBRef he was around 27.

Certainly looks to me like Steph took less time to turn around a lottery team.

LeBron with the Heat, second stint with Cavaliers and then with the Lakers had to go forming superteams and raiding team assets for star trades. Much easier and not the same thing to turn around a team when you also have multiple top draft picks to turn into stars. But you can go on pretending it is the same. LeBron's achievements are built upon multiple such smoke and mirror effects.

Yeah, and what did this ultimately come down to? Better management. Curry is not the reason golden State drafted Klay and Draymond and they turned out to be half of fame players. You’re giving Curry credit for things he had nothing to do with.

And even if this argument held up, you’re still not correct. Cleveland and LA were both bottom of the barrel teams. LeBron only needed two seasons to turn them into champions. Again, Curry has not done this.

Pointing out that Curry wasn’t the focal point or wasn’t given the keys to the kingdom also just kills the credibility of your argument. You originally said Curry is easier to build around. If he wasn’t originally being built around, then that means he got eventual hall of fame teammates by accident. Switching goalposts doesn’t make your argument correct.

Better management? LeBron was on the Heat which is widely considered as a well-managed team. LeBron still left. Maybe if LeBron had no say this could be brought up as a point but when he basically had carte blanche to create the team around him that he wanted for the majority of his career it's eye-rolling to suggest.

Cleveland the second time and LA were not bottom of the barrel. They were 30+ win teams when LeBron joined. Bottom of the barrel is the Warriors in 2020 when they literally finished last in the league standings with less than 20 wins when Curry was out due to injury.

It would be best to quote me saying Curry is easier to build around because offhand I don't recall saying that. Pointing out he wasn't given the keys to the team from the get go simply acknowledges how so many people have misevaluated Curry and continue to do so as shown by the number of people on this thread who keep doubting him despite being burned over and over again whenever they've doubted him.

[TheLand13]

Yeah, and what did this ultimately come down to? Better management. Curry is not the reason golden State drafted Klay and Draymond and they turned out to be half of fame players. You’re giving Curry credit for things he had nothing to do with.

I'm not coming into this with Curry > Lebron, but I do think there is a little more to the above. Curry may not deserve credit for those drafts, but he is a HUGE part of why that core has stayed together. And that absolutely is a big mark in his favor.

Yeah, absolutely. I’m not arguing that. But again, that core came into place in the first place because of competent management. And either way, that isn’t what this discussion is based around so it’s a mute point.

[TheLand13]

Curry's first year was 2009-2010. Won his first championship in the 2014-2015 season with the Warriors. He wasn't even given the keys to the team at the start and had a year he was out due to injury. According to BBRef he was around 26.

LeBron's first year was 2003-2004. Won his first championship in the 2011-2012 season with his second team the Heat. Needed a second year with a superteam to win. According to BBRef he was around 27.

Certainly looks to me like Steph took less time to turn around a lottery team.

LeBron with the Heat, second stint with Cavaliers and then with the Lakers had to go forming superteams and raiding team assets for star trades. Much easier and not the same thing to turn around a team when you also have multiple top draft picks to turn into stars. But you can go on pretending it is the same. LeBron's achievements are built upon multiple such smoke and mirror effects.

Yeah, and what did this ultimately come down to? Better management. Curry is not the reason golden State drafted Klay and Draymond and they turned out to be half of fame players. You’re giving Curry credit for things he had nothing to do with.

And even if this argument held up, you’re still not correct. Cleveland and LA were both bottom of the barrel teams. LeBron only needed two seasons to turn them into champions. Again, Curry has not done this.

Pointing out that Curry wasn’t the focal point or wasn’t given the keys to the kingdom also just kills the credibility of your argument. You originally said Curry is easier to build around. If he wasn’t originally being built around, then that means he got eventual hall of fame teammates by accident. Switching goalposts doesn’t make your argument correct.

Better management? LeBron was on the Heat which is widely considered as a well-managed team. LeBron still left. Maybe if LeBron had no say this could be brought up as a point but when he basically had carte blanche to create the team around him that he wanted for the majority of his career it's eye-rolling to suggest.

Cleveland the second time and LA were not bottom of the barrel. They were 30+ win teams when LeBron joined. Bottom of the barrel is the Warriors in 2020 when they literally finished last in the league standings with less than 20 wins when Curry was out due to injury.

It would be best to quote me saying Curry is easier to build around because offhand I don't recall saying that. Pointing out he wasn't given the keys to the team from the get go simply acknowledges how so many people have misevaluated Curry and continue to do so as shown by the number of people on this thread who keep doubting him despite being burned over and over again whenever they've doubted him.

So wait, you AREN’T trying to argue that Curry is better to build around? Then what exactly is your argument here? Because you literally just got done saying that Curry is better based on how it took less time for Curry to win a title than LeBron. So explain what exactly your point is here, because now you just went from making asinine statements to not making any sense.

[SecondTake]

We can and the simple takeaway I see is that Curry is a more efficient player than LeBron and judging from the results that makes him a better player.

That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. Just admit you’re biased towards Curry and are going to say he’s better no matter what and then at that point, a more valid conversation can be had.

With a bad team Curry brings them to a championship faster. With a good team Curry's is more dominant.

If you recognize that NBA basketball is a team game, Curry is simply better. That you are resorting to blaming the messenger instead of facts kind of tells the story.

Basketball is a 'team' game? Lol. Soccer is a team game.

Sent from my SM-S908W using RealGM mobile app

[WarriorGM]

Yeah, and what did this ultimately come down to? Better management. Curry is not the reason golden State drafted Klay and Draymond and they turned out to be half of fame players. You’re giving Curry credit for things he had nothing to do with.

And even if this argument held up, you’re still not correct. Cleveland and LA were both bottom of the barrel teams. LeBron only needed two seasons to turn them into champions. Again, Curry has not done this.

Pointing out that Curry wasn’t the focal point or wasn’t given the keys to the kingdom also just kills the credibility of your argument. You originally said Curry is easier to build around. If he wasn’t originally being built around, then that means he got eventual hall of fame teammates by accident. Switching goalposts doesn’t make your argument correct.

Better management? LeBron was on the Heat which is widely considered as a well-managed team. LeBron still left. Maybe if LeBron had no say this could be brought up as a point but when he basically had carte blanche to create the team around him that he wanted for the majority of his career it's eye-rolling to suggest.

Cleveland the second time and LA were not bottom of the barrel. They were 30+ win teams when LeBron joined. Bottom of the barrel is the Warriors in 2020 when they literally finished last in the league standings with less than 20 wins when Curry was out due to injury.

It would be best to quote me saying Curry is easier to build around because offhand I don't recall saying that. Pointing out he wasn't given the keys to the team from the get go simply acknowledges how so many people have misevaluated Curry and continue to do so as shown by the number of people on this thread who keep doubting him despite being burned over and over again whenever they've doubted him.

So wait, you AREN’T trying to argue that Curry is better to build around? Then what exactly is your argument here? Because you literally just got done saying that Curry is better based on how it took less time for Curry to win a title than LeBron. So explain what exactly your point is here, because now you just went from making asinine statements to not making any sense.

Curry is better to build around but not exactly easier to build around for optimal results.

[TheLand13]

Better management? LeBron was on the Heat which is widely considered as a well-managed team. LeBron still left. Maybe if LeBron had no say this could be brought up as a point but when he basically had carte blanche to create the team around him that he wanted for the majority of his career it's eye-rolling to suggest.

Cleveland the second time and LA were not bottom of the barrel. They were 30+ win teams when LeBron joined. Bottom of the barrel is the Warriors in 2020 when they literally finished last in the league standings with less than 20 wins when Curry was out due to injury.

It would be best to quote me saying Curry is easier to build around because offhand I don't recall saying that. Pointing out he wasn't given the keys to the team from the get go simply acknowledges how so many people have misevaluated Curry and continue to do so as shown by the number of people on this thread who keep doubting him despite being burned over and over again whenever they've doubted him.

So wait, you AREN’T trying to argue that Curry is better to build around? Then what exactly is your argument here? Because you literally just got done saying that Curry is better based on how it took less time for Curry to win a title than LeBron. So explain what exactly your point is here, because now you just went from making asinine statements to not making any sense.

Curry is better to build around but not exactly easier to build around for optimal results.

Okay, now again, I ask: what are you basing this on? LeBron is a better playmaker, a better defender literally capable of turning a team into a top ten, sometimes even top 5, in his prime almost entirely on his own. And he was an elite scorer on top of that. He can play multiple positions. And has won championships with three completely different teams, all as the best player. I see no argument for Curry being better to build around other than he’s a better teammate, which is a valid point, but not when the talent gap is as wide as it is.