How can Curry be a top 3 point guard all time when it’s debatable if he’s even top 5 all time point guard?

[og15]

I easily take Magic, Oscar, Stockton, Thomas, Paul over Curry. I don’t even think twice tbh. He’s got a ways to go still.

FWIW, a player CAN lead a revolutionary change to the game and not be on Mt.Rushmore. Think about that.

so if chris paul runs that team they almost win 4 chips still? i love cp3 but steph is getting way underrated and derrick rose isnt even comparable.

They absolutely still win. What kind of joke is this? Of course they do. And they even have a great chance of winning in ‘16 because of CP3’s much better defense.

Big fan of Paul, and Steph is not the world’s most durable guy himself, but Paul’s inability to stay healthy in the playoffs always makes it questionable to make statements like they would win this much over this many years. Of course different circumstances won’t yield the same injury situation, but on average there’s about a 50% chance he goes down or is injured for some part of the playoffs. That’s tough on any team unless the injury is in the first round and you’re a top seed with a weaker opponent.

[WarriorGM]

so if chris paul runs that team they almost win 4 chips still? i love cp3 but steph is getting way underrated and derrick rose isnt even comparable.

They absolutely still win. What kind of joke is this? Of course they do. And they even have a great chance of winning in ‘16 because of CP3’s much better defense.

Big fan of Paul, and Steph is not the world’s most durable guy himself, but Paul’s inability to stay healthy in the playoffs always makes it questionable to make statements like they would win this much over this many years. Of course different circumstances won’t yield the same injury situation, but on average there’s about a 50% chance he goes down or is injured for some part of the playoffs. That’s tough on any team unless the injury is in the first round and you’re a top seed with a weaker opponent.

Even this comment underrates Curry. Durability isn't the reason Curry has a better record than Chris Paul. Curry is simply better. We're talking about a guy who has done things that haven't been done before. What has Chris Paul done that matches what Curry has? Paul has played with two all-stars of his own. He's played with an MVP. Did any of his teams reach 67-wins once? Much less three times? Did he win an MVP? Much less the only unanimous one? Chris Paul is a terrific player but it goes to show how great Curry is when Paul doesn't have an argument without dreaming one up. Curry's critics show they are still in a state of shock when they try to compare him to players that simply aren't in the same tier.

[iggymcfrack]

People trying to put Isiah over Curry just HAVE TO be trolling. Like it's dumb enough when they do it against Chris Paul, but at least they have one argument there (rings). With Curry, they don't even have that. Steph has MORE rings. It's just insane.

[PistolPeteJR]

That trinket Jerry West (1/9 in the finals) was awarded over Bill Russell (11/12 in the finals) in a finals loss? Yes it tells a lot.

As do RINGZ. That's the point. Go familiarize yourself with the context of this discussion before coming to chime in.

Rings are at least determined by objective numbers, scores in basketball games, not a narrative based vote with no criteria among a limited number of media denizens

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

[WarriorGM]

As do RINGZ. That's the point. Go familiarize yourself with the context of this discussion before coming to chime in.

Rings are at least determined by objective numbers, scores in basketball games, not a narrative based vote with no criteria among a limited number of media denizens

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

You can go ahead and try. Fact of the matter is they aren't the same. Rings are won on the court. FMVPs are given off of it. Ask a player if he is primarily there to win championships or to win FMVPs.

[PistolPeteJR]

Rings are at least determined by objective numbers, scores in basketball games, not a narrative based vote with no criteria among a limited number of media denizens

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

You can go ahead and try. Fact of the matter is they aren't the same. Rings are won on the court. FMVPs are given off of it. Ask a player if he is primarily there to win championships or to win FMVPs.

Lol what does that have to do with anything?

The point is that FMVPs go into a player's evaluation whether a person likes it or not. Simple.

[michaelm]

As do RINGZ. That's the point. Go familiarize yourself with the context of this discussion before coming to chime in.

Rings are at least determined by objective numbers, scores in basketball games, not a narrative based vote with no criteria among a limited number of media denizens

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

It is a narrative based award decided by 10 or so NBA journalists, a breed quite often derided on this very forum. Since it is such an important award, perhaps you can list the strict criteria by which it is judged, and how objectivity is maintained. It is not as though he didn’t play well in all 3 titles they won, and a great player like Durant who also played very well and had the highlight reel stuff 1 on 1 with LeBron, the guy with whom the NBA media are particularly preoccupied, winning hardly makes Curry a hack.

[WarriorGM]

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

You can go ahead and try. Fact of the matter is they aren't the same. Rings are won on the court. FMVPs are given off of it. Ask a player if he is primarily there to win championships or to win FMVPs.

Lol what does that have to do with anything?

The point is that FMVPs go into a player's evaluation whether a person likes it or not. Simple.

Depends on who is doing the evaluation. Anyone really knowledgeable could ignore it. Anyone who relies upon it exclusively reveals they don't know much of anything.

[PistolPeteJR]

Rings are at least determined by objective numbers, scores in basketball games, not a narrative based vote with no criteria among a limited number of media denizens

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

It is a narrative based award decided by 10 or so NBA journalists, a breed quite often derided on this very forum. Since it is such an important award, perhaps you can list the strict criteria by which it is judged, and how objectivity is maintained. It is not as though he didn’t play well in all 3
titles they won, and a great player like Durant who also played very well And had the highlight reel stuff 1 on 1 with LrBron, the guy won whom the NBA media are particularly preoccupied , winning hardly makes Curry a hack.

Okay first off, I never once implied it's JUST AS important as rings in player evaluation, but that it DOES, in fact, matter, whether a person likes it or not.

Secondly, rings are not the perfect evaluator either for a PLAYER's worth, and I would hope this is obvious. Again, not saying rings don't matter, of course they do.

[WarriorGM]

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

It is a narrative based award decided by 10 or so NBA journalists, a breed quite often derided on this very forum. Since it is such an important award, perhaps you can list the strict criteria by which it is judged, and how objectivity is maintained. It is not as though he didn’t play well in all 3
titles they won, and a great player like Durant who also played very well And had the highlight reel stuff 1 on 1 with LrBron, the guy won whom the NBA media are particularly preoccupied , winning hardly makes Curry a hack.

Okay first off, I never once implied it's JUST AS important as rings in player evaluation, but that it DOES, in fact, matter, whether a person likes it or not.

Secondly, rings are not the perfect evaluator either for a PLAYER's worth, and I would hope this is obvious. Again, not saying rings don't matter, of course they do.

It matters to those who place importance on it. The award—really all awards—are at their core an opinion. People who put stock in the FMVP are basically saying they respect the opinion of the eleven voters who voted on it. Those who don't even know that's what they are putting their faith in when they bring up the FMVP as a reason for anything can be ignored by those who do know what's going on.

[PistolPeteJR]

It is a narrative based award decided by 10 or so NBA journalists, a breed quite often derided on this very forum. Since it is such an important award, perhaps you can list the strict criteria by which it is judged, and how objectivity is maintained. It is not as though he didn’t play well in all 3
titles they won, and a great player like Durant who also played very well And had the highlight reel stuff 1 on 1 with LrBron, the guy won whom the NBA media are particularly preoccupied , winning hardly makes Curry a hack.

Okay first off, I never once implied it's JUST AS important as rings in player evaluation, but that it DOES, in fact, matter, whether a person likes it or not.

Secondly, rings are not the perfect evaluator either for a PLAYER's worth, and I would hope this is obvious. Again, not saying rings don't matter, of course they do.

It matters to those who place importance on it. The award—really all awards—are at their core an opinion. People who put stock in the FMVP are basically saying they respect the opinion of the eleven voters who voted on it. Those who don't even know that's what they are putting their faith in when they bring up the FMVP as a reason for anything can be ignored by those who do know what's going on.

Lol okay man, you do you; but I assure you, you're in the super minority.

[WarriorGM]

Okay first off, I never once implied it's JUST AS important as rings in player evaluation, but that it DOES, in fact, matter, whether a person likes it or not.

Secondly, rings are not the perfect evaluator either for a PLAYER's worth, and I would hope this is obvious. Again, not saying rings don't matter, of course they do.

It matters to those who place importance on it. The award—really all awards—are at their core an opinion. People who put stock in the FMVP are basically saying they respect the opinion of the eleven voters who voted on it. Those who don't even know that's what they are putting their faith in when they bring up the FMVP as a reason for anything can be ignored by those who do know what's going on.

Lol okay man, you do you; but I assure you, you're in the super minority.

Your assurances are heartwarming. Following the herd isn't my thing. Hard to be exceptional in that case. Curry may not be racking up the awards they give out every year but his records stand alone in NBA history. If I am in a super minority that recognizes the value of the latter over the former so be it.

[Rodwilliams]

hows this topic up to page 12? Curry is on par with Shaq quite honestly and has a solid case for top 5 DOA. His gravitational pull was as pronounced and stats probably even more so mind blowing.

What?!?!?!!!?!?! Curry on par with Shaq?!?!?!?!!?!! What are you smoking?

[Coxy]

I would only take Magic over Curry at PG.

[StarScream84]

How are people saying they would take Stockton, Nash, Thomas or Paul over Curry when Curry has accomplished and been better then all of them? This is just hate of Curry leading to stupid statements by people.

I mean, some people value longevity, durability, defense and consistency. I would never pick Thomas over Curry, but Nash and Paul aren't that worse as you imply.

So you cherry picked the things that you think made them better but failed to mention that Curry has more rings, more MVP’s, broke the record for most 3 pointers in a season, led a 73 win team.

[VanWest82]

Curry isn't a PG. Draymond is their PG and has been since 2015.

[MMyhre]

Whatever makes you feel better ... sigh.

Two time MVP...the only unanimous MVP in history. 3 time champion...best shooter of all time with equal passing and handles to Zeke and a much better shooter than Magic. But let's ignore all that because he playing in a team concept (unselfish) and is great running and shooting off screens.

Must take a lot of energy to argue a guy is not top 3 point guard in the history of the league....

And always performing worse in the postseason, unlike Magic & IT. Almost like the playoffs matter more or something?!

[nizaam]

They absolutely still win. What kind of joke is this? Of course they do. And they even have a great chance of winning in ‘16 because of CP3’s much better defense.

Big fan of Paul, and Steph is not the world’s most durable guy himself, but Paul’s inability to stay healthy in the playoffs always makes it questionable to make statements like they would win this much over this many years. Of course different circumstances won’t yield the same injury situation, but on average there’s about a 50% chance he goes down or is injured for some part of the playoffs. That’s tough on any team unless the injury is in the first round and you’re a top seed with a weaker opponent.

Even this comment underrates Curry. Durability isn't the reason Curry has a better record than Chris Paul. Curry is simply better. We're talking about a guy who has done things that haven't been done before. What has Chris Paul done that matches what Curry has? Paul has played with two all-stars of his own. He's played with an MVP. Did any of his teams reach 67-wins once? Much less three times? Did he win an MVP? Much less the only unanimous one? Chris Paul is a terrific player but it goes to show how great Curry is when Paul doesn't have an argument without dreaming one up. Curry's critics show they are still in a state of shock when they try to compare him to players that simply aren't in the same tier.

Exactly, Paul has never won a chip but he would have won the same ammount if not more with the warriors. Its possible but hypothetical unlike Currys rings. Also Curry was a nightmare to contain when healthy, Paul has never been a nightmare offensively. The same people who say curry is overrated also complain that Durant joined a top 3 player....

[michaelm]

The fact remains that if people want to suddenly go "FMVPs don't mean a thing" to twist things into their desired narrative, the same will be done with "RINGZ", regardless of how both are determined, because both are a very real part of a player's evaluation.

It is a narrative based award decided by 10 or so NBA journalists, a breed quite often derided on this very forum. Since it is such an important award, perhaps you can list the strict criteria by which it is judged, and how objectivity is maintained. It is not as though he didn’t play well in all 3
titles they won, and a great player like Durant who also played very well And had the highlight reel stuff 1 on 1 with LrBron, the guy won whom the NBA media are particularly preoccupied , winning hardly makes Curry a hack.

Okay first off, I never once implied it's JUST AS important as rings in player evaluation, but that it DOES, in fact, matter, whether a person likes it or not.

Secondly, rings are not the perfect evaluator either for a PLAYER's worth, and I would hope this is obvious. Again, not saying rings don't matter, of course they do.

He had another all time great on his team, just like Magic won the award over Kareem or Kawhi Leonard did over Tim Duncan (I obviously rate all 4 of the aforementioned players ahead of Curry btw), both awards which many dispute btw, but giving the award to the new guys hardly diminished Kareem or Tim Duncan. Like Kareem and Duncan, Curry played a team role and contributed significantly to the FMVP looking good, while KD did the highlight reel stuff one on one against LeBron.

If you want me to spell out the narrative, for 8 years the award was pretty much given either to LeBron or if his team lost mostly to his direct opponent, and if you wish to argue the prevailing narrative hasn’t been pretty much about LeBron during his career you must not follow the NBA media, in whom you place such faith in regard to deciding the FMVP award, overly.

[michaelm]

Whatever makes you feel better ... sigh.

Two time MVP...the only unanimous MVP in history. 3 time champion...best shooter of all time with equal passing and handles to Zeke and a much better shooter than Magic. But let's ignore all that because he playing in a team concept (unselfish) and is great running and shooting off screens.

Must take a lot of energy to argue a guy is not top 3 point guard in the history of the league....

And always performing worse in the postseason, unlike Magic & IT. Almost like the playoffs matter more or something?!

Nonsense, his overall play-off numbers which have been posted several times are excellent including his 4th quarter numbers, and he has played a major part in victories in every round of the playoffs for 5 successive years, except the 2016 finals and 2019 finals, and in both of those series the opposing teams had the luxury of having all time great players in LeBron and Kawhi who had no need to defend their direct opponent and could hence focus on Curry; neither of those guys has taken the same team to the finals in five successive years either btw.