The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10

Moderators: bwgood77, KingDavid, Domejandro, cupcakesnake, Harry Garris, ken6199, infinite11285, zimpy27, bisme37, Dirk

JN61
RealGM
Posts: 10,294
And1: 8,004
Joined: Jan 07, 2018
 

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#121 » by JN61 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:12 am

HMFFL wrote:
JN61 wrote:
Vox Populi wrote:So who are your Top 2 from each position?


Magic
Jordan
Lebron
Duncan
Kareem

Big O
Bryant
Bird
Garnett
Wilt

West
Wade
Durant
Malone
Russell

Curry
Harden
Havlicek
Nowitzki
Shaq

Giannis wouldn't even make my next list. Curry just edges his peers and makes to the last list because double MVP.
Just out of curiosity, why are you so high on Wade?

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

I'm not really that high on him just that SG is pretty weak position for this. Gould harden be above him? Sure but I feel that is pretty much a coin toss.
Pennebaker wrote:And Bird did it while being a defensive liability. But he also made All-Defensive teams, which was another controversial issue regarding Bird and votes.
Phystic
Analyst
Posts: 3,238
And1: 1,860
Joined: Jul 06, 2009
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#122 » by Phystic » Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:07 am

WarriorGM wrote:
Phystic wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
Here's the thing: that proposition should be taken very seriously and it is frankly amazing it hasn't been approached from that angle more. Which is an indication of how the discussion around Curry is weird and does not conform to the standard way others are talked about.

To me only two other players can claim to represent such outlier results: Russell and Jordan.



You mean the biggest winner in professional sports and arguably the greatest basketball player and most notable name in sports history? Neither of those players are listed in the top ten because they were the best player on their respective teams.

Again, it's not reasonable to use that as criteria. And like I said, I don't really mind people putting curry in the top ten or even leaving him out. I think there's an argument for both. Just don't agree that your reasoning is valid.


Are you saying they weren't the best player on their respective teams? What made them the biggest winner and the greatest and most notable name? You seem to be engaging in circular reasoning.

It is perfectly reasonable criteria. With Curry you get results that are without precedent. Many combinations of players have been tried but they don't have the record. As I said I think only Russell and Jordan can claim to have done something along winning lines that is arguably superior.



What? I'm saying them being the best player on their team is not the reason they are talked about as top ten all time. How am I "engaging in circular reasoning"?

I haven't said that Curry shouldn't be talked about as top ten, I've said him being the best player on the best regular season team is not the reason he should be talked about. It's really not that difficult to understand.

And there are definitely more than just Jordan and Russell that have arguments based solely on being winners
TheLand13
Analyst
Posts: 3,583
And1: 3,926
Joined: Aug 31, 2021
     

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#123 » by TheLand13 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:31 am

DimesandKnicks wrote:
TheLand13 wrote:
JN61 wrote:?

Lakers and Celtics are by far the greatest NBA teams. Nothing even comes close. Just because you have followed NBA since 2015 doesn't make rest of us forget.


I think he's talking about in terms of individual teams, in which case he has a valid argument, as the 2017 are arguably the greatest team ever assembled.

I strongly advise not taking anything WarriorGM says seriously. You're talking to a guy who thinks the 2015 Warriors had a weak supporting cast, and his logic here is laughably bad.

With all of that said, Curry's a top ten player of all time. In fact I have him firmly at the number 10 spot as of today. I think he's more than earned that spot too with the incredible body of work he's had and the legacy he's built for himself.

Giannis is not there yet. Can he get there? It kind of feels like he's in a similar situation that LeBron was in when he returned to Cleveland where the expectation was a dynasty, but Curry overshadowed him with what was going on in Golden State, that is until LeBron's Cavs pulled off the 3-1 comeback and made the rest of the world remember who the best player in the world really was. Jokic has overshadowed Giannis and it feels like the Bucks aren't the top dogs in the East anymore. Can that change? Sure, but I'm not liking their chances. They're an aging team and one of their core members is having nagging injury problems.


Steph Curry doesn’t win a championship with Giannis Bucks and Giannis wins championships w Steph’s Warriors. It really does amaze me how so many posters neglect the fact that basketball is a team sport.


Please do explain how I’m neglecting the team aspect of this sport? And while you’re at it, please do explain how Giannis still winning with the Warriors (he’s most definitely not winning in 2022) proves anything?
Hello Brooklyn wrote:Joe Harris is definitely better than Levert. On par with Jarrett Allen.

Hello Brooklyn wrote:Yes Derozan was Toronto's best player. Of course he was. Not Lowry.
TheLand13
Analyst
Posts: 3,583
And1: 3,926
Joined: Aug 31, 2021
     

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#124 » by TheLand13 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:34 am

lambchop wrote:Giannis still has to do more to crack that top 10. 1 ring, 1 DPOY and 2 MVPs won't do it. Probably needs another MVP and 1 or 2 awesome playoff runs (not necessarily culminating in rings).

I see Curry as a top 10 player, though I'm not sure who to remove from the top 10.


I really dislike this argument of “Giannis needs another MVP or two and x amount of championships”

No he doesn’t. Everyone’s top ten journey is different and your number of accolades isn’t what defines that.
Hello Brooklyn wrote:Joe Harris is definitely better than Levert. On par with Jarrett Allen.

Hello Brooklyn wrote:Yes Derozan was Toronto's best player. Of course he was. Not Lowry.
TheLand13
Analyst
Posts: 3,583
And1: 3,926
Joined: Aug 31, 2021
     

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#125 » by TheLand13 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:35 am

DimesandKnicks wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
DimesandKnicks wrote:
Steph Curry doesn’t win a championship with Giannis Bucks and Giannis wins championships w Steph’s Warriors. It really does amaze me how so many posters neglect the fact that basketball is a team sport.


Funny how you need to create imaginary scenarios when there are real ones. Why wouldn't Curry win with the Bucks? He has already won with teams that were two and three years removed from 15-win and 23-win seasons respectively. It really does amaze me that people ignore that Curry's accomplishments are such outliers than they have rarely been emulated by anyone given any other group of teammates.


Because Curry has played on really good teams. Teams so good he was only deemed the most impactful player in the finals once. He doesn’t win a championship with Bucks, and people putting him over Kobe now?!! He doesn’t win championships on those Gasoline Bynum Odom teams either.

The Warriors accomplishments*


I’m not sure why people having him over Kobe surprises you. At this point I don’t really think Kobe has an argument over Steph.
Hello Brooklyn wrote:Joe Harris is definitely better than Levert. On par with Jarrett Allen.

Hello Brooklyn wrote:Yes Derozan was Toronto's best player. Of course he was. Not Lowry.
User avatar
durden_tyler
RealGM
Posts: 11,134
And1: 2,641
Joined: Jun 04, 2003
 

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#126 » by durden_tyler » Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:08 am

Curry is already Top 5.
If there is no basketball in heaven, i am not going.
User avatar
Lalouie
RealGM
Posts: 16,463
And1: 8,118
Joined: May 12, 2017

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#127 » by Lalouie » Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:31 am

DimesandKnicks wrote:
I think it should actually be about who the best players are. Your legacy is highly dependent on what organization you end up on. And fans ask why guys are demanding trades.


wow. i totally disagree. :) :) :) first of all, to some degree these goats all have to perform and performance is measured by numbers....that's sports. in a sense the top 100 players ALL bring numbers. you dont get in if you are a 7/8/6 31%/72% on a losing team your whole life. the very nature of a TEAM sport dictates you melding with others. and "BEST" cannot truly be compared across eras. it becomes a bias dictated by personal standards

i disagree with you because legacy is not numbers based. it is how you change the game. it is what you leave behind

for instance, lew alcindor changed the dunk rule in college ball not because he played on the bruins. he made winners out of every team he played with. he was a first in many areas

oscar was the first to give us a glimpse of what "skillset" was because he commanded so may skills we had to take notice

before drJ, the dunk was just a way to score 100% of the time when a players was close to the basket. just watch how players dunked before him. all they did was throw the ball down. actually i think the first big time dunker was the totally overlooked gus johnson. after the dr players used the dunk as their own personal signature

and on and on and on,,,but let's FIRST remind ourselves that you don't get noticed if you don't have numbers and that in a team sport you're no island. i am also giving props to those who gave the game it's building blocks. there is no kobe w/o michael. there is no michael w/o the dr, thompson, baylor, m. johnson. lebron is an accumulation of 50 years of basketball,,,,oscar was an accumulation of,,,,,5YRS???

so if everything has some sort of subjective or discretionary bias and if numbers can be twisted to your taste, what is the LEAST depedent on them. i say legacy because legacy is undeniable imo. you cannot take away what these guys gave to the game
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,846
And1: 4,451
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#128 » by Dutchball97 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:03 am

WarriorGM wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:This method would see me replace Wilt, Shaq and Hakeem with West, Kobe and KG. Curry is still behind West and Oscar at PG imo and Giannis is maybe the 7th best PF at this stage of his career.


You guys over on the comparison board keep saying this but provide zilch in the form of reasoning. Behind West and Oscar? Why? As far as I can see they don't even have a semblance of an argument.


If you can't see a semblance of an argument for Oscar and West over Curry you're gonna need new glasses or something.

Both Oscar and West have better longevity than Curry, they were significantly more consistent year to year and while I'm aware some people are insanely high on Curry's peak, I don't think he was much better than Oscar and West at his peak, if at all. Outside of rings, Curry doesn't have a lot going for him here.
WarriorGM
Head Coach
Posts: 6,518
And1: 2,985
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#129 » by WarriorGM » Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:48 am

Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:This method would see me replace Wilt, Shaq and Hakeem with West, Kobe and KG. Curry is still behind West and Oscar at PG imo and Giannis is maybe the 7th best PF at this stage of his career.


You guys over on the comparison board keep saying this but provide zilch in the form of reasoning. Behind West and Oscar? Why? As far as I can see they don't even have a semblance of an argument.


If you can't see a semblance of an argument for Oscar and West over Curry you're gonna need new glasses or something.

Both Oscar and West have better longevity than Curry, they were significantly more consistent year to year and while I'm aware some people are insanely high on Curry's peak, I don't think he was much better than Oscar and West at his peak, if at all. Outside of rings, Curry doesn't have a lot going for him here.


A whole lot of waffle with vague reference to better longevity and peak backed up by...uh nothing.

West famously has his one win in nine finals appearances which initially sounds really impressive despite the losses until you consider almost half of those runs were in two round playoffs. By my count Curry has already won more playoffs series than West. I don't see much of a longevity advantage if any when you go into the weeds. Playing a more concentrated number of playoffs series consecutively over a shorter span of years is also more taxing than spreading them out over more years.

Oscar has these descriptions of his all-around game epitomized by his triple double year. As much as people may protest though Westbrook has kind of taken the luster off that achievement. Which leaves that really nice championship season with Kareem towards the end of his career in a newly expanded league. MVP for one year. I don't see the peak advantage.
TheLand13
Analyst
Posts: 3,583
And1: 3,926
Joined: Aug 31, 2021
     

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#130 » by TheLand13 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:11 am

Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:This method would see me replace Wilt, Shaq and Hakeem with West, Kobe and KG. Curry is still behind West and Oscar at PG imo and Giannis is maybe the 7th best PF at this stage of his career.


You guys over on the comparison board keep saying this but provide zilch in the form of reasoning. Behind West and Oscar? Why? As far as I can see they don't even have a semblance of an argument.


If you can't see a semblance of an argument for Oscar and West over Curry you're gonna need new glasses or something.

Both Oscar and West have better longevity than Curry, they were significantly more consistent year to year and while I'm aware some people are insanely high on Curry's peak, I don't think he was much better than Oscar and West at his peak, if at all. Outside of rings, Curry doesn't have a lot going for him here.


I can’t believe I’m actually about to side with WarriorGM in a debate (especially given how much of a clown show his posts and arguments are), but I don’t really see an argument for Robertson over Curry at all. West is a different story.

Robertson was a multi skilled player who was the first what I like to call “empty stats player”. He was incredibly skilled in multiple aspects of the game but it never led to team success and there’s a reason for that. Oscar had better longevity than Curry? I don’t think what he was during that time frame is as great as people make it out to be. We’re talking about a guy who missed the playoffs in four different seasons during his prime. That is inexcusable. Curry has been very fortunate in his career with the teams he’s had around him, but he proved in 2022 that he could win a championship even without a good supporting cast. If you were to ask where Oscar is on my all time list… he’d probably be in the 15-20 range if I’m being honest.

A legend in the history of basketball… but Curry is in another tier compared to him.

West there’s an argument for in my opinion. West was a very capable leader just like Curry and was an incredible player on both ends of the floor. His offensive impact doesn’t come close to matching Curry’s but his defense is what closes the gap here. I guess it ultimately just comes down to what you think is more valuable. Me? I personally think Curry is a better leader, better to build around, and his overall impact outweighs the one west had. I feel terrible for West because he just had terrible postseason luck, but in the end I just think that with what Curry has done and what he’s been able to accomplish… the point goes to him here.
Hello Brooklyn wrote:Joe Harris is definitely better than Levert. On par with Jarrett Allen.

Hello Brooklyn wrote:Yes Derozan was Toronto's best player. Of course he was. Not Lowry.
User avatar
Lalouie
RealGM
Posts: 16,463
And1: 8,118
Joined: May 12, 2017

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#131 » by Lalouie » Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:25 am

2/3 of realgm were born during or after mj so they dont count. it you didn't live through the viseral experience you don't get it.

therefore it has to be left to the doddering old guys who are yet to lose their mind
User avatar
Lalouie
RealGM
Posts: 16,463
And1: 8,118
Joined: May 12, 2017

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#132 » by Lalouie » Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:32 am

TheLand13 wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
his posts and arguments are), but I don’t really see an argument for Robertson over Curry at all. West is a different story.

Robertson was a multi skilled player who was the first what I like to call “empty stats player”.



this is insane. he had to do everything because he was on a sh***y team. but yes if he had better teammates he wouldn't have had to do as much,,,so you're going to crucify him for being on a bad team??!! LMAO - so be dismissive of a legendary player. if you want to denegrate some of lesser talent then do so as they struggle to validate themselves,,,but you if want to besmirch a LEGEND then do so whilst appearing stupid for all to see

you are better off if you simply look at his skillset. he was f*****ing unique and great at it. his accomplishments from high school to college to pros says so. he practically invented the word skillset
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,846
And1: 4,451
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#133 » by Dutchball97 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:43 am

WarriorGM wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
You guys over on the comparison board keep saying this but provide zilch in the form of reasoning. Behind West and Oscar? Why? As far as I can see they don't even have a semblance of an argument.


If you can't see a semblance of an argument for Oscar and West over Curry you're gonna need new glasses or something.

Both Oscar and West have better longevity than Curry, they were significantly more consistent year to year and while I'm aware some people are insanely high on Curry's peak, I don't think he was much better than Oscar and West at his peak, if at all. Outside of rings, Curry doesn't have a lot going for him here.


A whole lot of waffle with vague reference to better longevity and peak backed up by...uh nothing.

West famously has his one win in nine finals appearances which initially sounds really impressive despite the losses until you consider almost half of those runs were in two round playoffs. By my count Curry has already won more playoffs series than West. I don't see much of a longevity advantage if any when you go into the weeds. Playing a more concentrated number of playoffs series consecutively over a shorter span of years is also more taxing than spreading them out over more years.

Oscar has these descriptions of his all-around game epitomized by his triple double year. As much as people may protest though Westbrook has kind of taken the luster off that achievement. Which leaves that really nice championship season with Kareem towards the end of his career in a newly expanded league. MVP for one year. I don't see the peak advantage.


Always funny when someone says someone's arguments are vague and backed up by nothing only to go on a vague tangent based on nothing. You're only talking about team achievements (finals and rings) and media awards like the MVP. Instead of only looking at the results maybe try diving just a little bit deeper and figure out how much of a team's results are because of certain players. If you only look at team results without any context and then give all the credit to the poster boy of the team of course you're going to be unreasonably high on Curry.
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,846
And1: 4,451
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#134 » by Dutchball97 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:49 am

TheLand13 wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
You guys over on the comparison board keep saying this but provide zilch in the form of reasoning. Behind West and Oscar? Why? As far as I can see they don't even have a semblance of an argument.


If you can't see a semblance of an argument for Oscar and West over Curry you're gonna need new glasses or something.

Both Oscar and West have better longevity than Curry, they were significantly more consistent year to year and while I'm aware some people are insanely high on Curry's peak, I don't think he was much better than Oscar and West at his peak, if at all. Outside of rings, Curry doesn't have a lot going for him here.


I can’t believe I’m actually about to side with WarriorGM in a debate (especially given how much of a clown show his posts and arguments are), but I don’t really see an argument for Robertson over Curry at all. West is a different story.

Robertson was a multi skilled player who was the first what I like to call “empty stats player”. He was incredibly skilled in multiple aspects of the game but it never led to team success and there’s a reason for that. Oscar had better longevity than Curry? I don’t think what he was during that time frame is as great as people make it out to be. We’re talking about a guy who missed the playoffs in four different seasons during his prime. That is inexcusable. Curry has been very fortunate in his career with the teams he’s had around him, but he proved in 2022 that he could win a championship even without a good supporting cast. If you were to ask where Oscar is on my all time list… he’d probably be in the 15-20 range if I’m being honest.

A legend in the history of basketball… but Curry is in another tier compared to him.

West there’s an argument for in my opinion. West was a very capable leader just like Curry and was an incredible player on both ends of the floor. His offensive impact doesn’t come close to matching Curry’s but his defense is what closes the gap here. I guess it ultimately just comes down to what you think is more valuable. Me? I personally think Curry is a better leader, better to build around, and his overall impact outweighs the one west had. I feel terrible for West because he just had terrible postseason luck, but in the end I just think that with what Curry has done and what he’s been able to accomplish… the point goes to him here.


Oscar missing the play-offs = inexcusable
Curry missing the play-offs in 2021 = not even worth a mention

Surprising :roll:

Also if you think 2022 wasn't a strong supporting cast I'm starting to doubt whether you ever even look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.
WarriorGM
Head Coach
Posts: 6,518
And1: 2,985
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#135 » by WarriorGM » Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:10 am

Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
If you can't see a semblance of an argument for Oscar and West over Curry you're gonna need new glasses or something.

Both Oscar and West have better longevity than Curry, they were significantly more consistent year to year and while I'm aware some people are insanely high on Curry's peak, I don't think he was much better than Oscar and West at his peak, if at all. Outside of rings, Curry doesn't have a lot going for him here.


A whole lot of waffle with vague reference to better longevity and peak backed up by...uh nothing.

West famously has his one win in nine finals appearances which initially sounds really impressive despite the losses until you consider almost half of those runs were in two round playoffs. By my count Curry has already won more playoffs series than West. I don't see much of a longevity advantage if any when you go into the weeds. Playing a more concentrated number of playoffs series consecutively over a shorter span of years is also more taxing than spreading them out over more years.

Oscar has these descriptions of his all-around game epitomized by his triple double year. As much as people may protest though Westbrook has kind of taken the luster off that achievement. Which leaves that really nice championship season with Kareem towards the end of his career in a newly expanded league. MVP for one year. I don't see the peak advantage.


Always funny when someone says someone's arguments are vague and backed up by nothing only to go on a vague tangent based on nothing. You're only talking about team achievements (finals and rings) and media awards like the MVP. Instead of only looking at the results maybe try diving just a little bit deeper and figure out how much of a team's results are because of certain players. If you only look at team results without any context and then give all the credit to the poster boy of the team of course you're going to be unreasonably high on Curry.


More nothing. What are you suggesting we should look at? Number of points and stats racked up? I see they have more points than Russell. I guess we should consider them better players than Russell because they amass more points and assists? Nah I value winning more.

You know how large the gulf is between Curry and West is? We can give outright West 4 more championships by pretending he won 4 of the finals that he lost so that he has 5 rings instead of 1—and Curry's résumé would still be stronger. The same logic that is currently used to argue Jordan is greater than Russell can be used to argue Curry is greater than West even in that hypothetical case where West has more rings. So this formless argument from you? It's dead in the water.
lambchop
General Manager
Posts: 7,761
And1: 7,597
Joined: May 14, 2014

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#136 » by lambchop » Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:22 am

TheLand13 wrote:
lambchop wrote:Giannis still has to do more to crack that top 10. 1 ring, 1 DPOY and 2 MVPs won't do it. Probably needs another MVP and 1 or 2 awesome playoff runs (not necessarily culminating in rings).

I see Curry as a top 10 player, though I'm not sure who to remove from the top 10.


I really dislike this argument of “Giannis needs another MVP or two and x amount of championships”

No he doesn’t. Everyone’s top ten journey is different and your number of accolades isn’t what defines that.


Yea but if the number accolades, rings etc. is just way less than those of others who are in the conversation, it becomes difficult to have said player firmly in the top 10 OR it opens up the whole Kawhi style GOAT conversation where even a span of 10-30 games is enough to have a player in the top 10 all time or maybe even as the greatest of all time.
So many people who attain the heights of power in this culture—celebrities, for instance—have to make a show of false humility and modesty, as if they got as far as they did by accident and not by ego or ambition.
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,846
And1: 4,451
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#137 » by Dutchball97 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:32 am

WarriorGM wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
A whole lot of waffle with vague reference to better longevity and peak backed up by...uh nothing.

West famously has his one win in nine finals appearances which initially sounds really impressive despite the losses until you consider almost half of those runs were in two round playoffs. By my count Curry has already won more playoffs series than West. I don't see much of a longevity advantage if any when you go into the weeds. Playing a more concentrated number of playoffs series consecutively over a shorter span of years is also more taxing than spreading them out over more years.

Oscar has these descriptions of his all-around game epitomized by his triple double year. As much as people may protest though Westbrook has kind of taken the luster off that achievement. Which leaves that really nice championship season with Kareem towards the end of his career in a newly expanded league. MVP for one year. I don't see the peak advantage.


Always funny when someone says someone's arguments are vague and backed up by nothing only to go on a vague tangent based on nothing. You're only talking about team achievements (finals and rings) and media awards like the MVP. Instead of only looking at the results maybe try diving just a little bit deeper and figure out how much of a team's results are because of certain players. If you only look at team results without any context and then give all the credit to the poster boy of the team of course you're going to be unreasonably high on Curry.


More nothing. What are you suggesting we should look at? Number of points and stats racked up? I see they have more points than Russell. I guess we should consider them better players than Russell because they amass more points and assists? Nah I value winning more.

You know how large the gulf is between Curry and West is? We can give outright West 4 more championships by pretending he won 4 of the finals that he lost so that he has 5 rings instead of 1—and Curry's résumé would still be stronger. The same logic that is currently used to argue Jordan is greater than Russell can be used to argue Curry is greater than West even in that hypothetical case where West has more rings. So this formless argument from you? It's dead in the water.


Are you simply not aware that there are much more detailed stats than points and assists or do you go out of your way to dismiss anything substantial? It's not even necessary to bring KD into the mix either because Curry wouldn't have a single ring if not for Draymond. Take Dray out of the picture and suddenly Curry is just another Reggie Miller. Your "Curry won this Curry won that" talk doesn't mean anything since the Warriors won all those series, not Curry on his own.
DB23
Junior
Posts: 350
And1: 311
Joined: Jun 10, 2018

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#138 » by DB23 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:42 am

Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
Always funny when someone says someone's arguments are vague and backed up by nothing only to go on a vague tangent based on nothing. You're only talking about team achievements (finals and rings) and media awards like the MVP. Instead of only looking at the results maybe try diving just a little bit deeper and figure out how much of a team's results are because of certain players. If you only look at team results without any context and then give all the credit to the poster boy of the team of course you're going to be unreasonably high on Curry.


More nothing. What are you suggesting we should look at? Number of points and stats racked up? I see they have more points than Russell. I guess we should consider them better players than Russell because they amass more points and assists? Nah I value winning more.

You know how large the gulf is between Curry and West is? We can give outright West 4 more championships by pretending he won 4 of the finals that he lost so that he has 5 rings instead of 1—and Curry's résumé would still be stronger. The same logic that is currently used to argue Jordan is greater than Russell can be used to argue Curry is greater than West even in that hypothetical case where West has more rings. So this formless argument from you? It's dead in the water.


Are you simply not aware that there are much more detailed stats than points and assists or do you go out of your way to dismiss anything substantial? It's not even necessary to bring KD into the mix either because Curry wouldn't have a single ring if not for Draymond. Take Dray out of the picture and suddenly Curry is just another Reggie Miller. Your "Curry won this Curry won that" talk doesn't mean anything since the Warriors won all those series, not Curry on his own.


The classic curry double standard.

Magic gets to play with Kareem and stacked teams.
Lebron with wade and stacked teams.
Shaq with Kobe and stacked teams.

But draymond green is too much smh…
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,846
And1: 4,451
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#139 » by Dutchball97 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:50 am

DB23 wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
WarriorGM wrote:
More nothing. What are you suggesting we should look at? Number of points and stats racked up? I see they have more points than Russell. I guess we should consider them better players than Russell because they amass more points and assists? Nah I value winning more.

You know how large the gulf is between Curry and West is? We can give outright West 4 more championships by pretending he won 4 of the finals that he lost so that he has 5 rings instead of 1—and Curry's résumé would still be stronger. The same logic that is currently used to argue Jordan is greater than Russell can be used to argue Curry is greater than West even in that hypothetical case where West has more rings. So this formless argument from you? It's dead in the water.


Are you simply not aware that there are much more detailed stats than points and assists or do you go out of your way to dismiss anything substantial? It's not even necessary to bring KD into the mix either because Curry wouldn't have a single ring if not for Draymond. Take Dray out of the picture and suddenly Curry is just another Reggie Miller. Your "Curry won this Curry won that" talk doesn't mean anything since the Warriors won all those series, not Curry on his own.


The classic curry double standard.

Magic gets to play with Kareem and stacked teams.
Lebron with wade and stacked teams.
Shaq with Kobe and stacked teams.

But draymond green is too much smh…


What double standard? You're putting words in my mouth when I've never mentioned Magic, LeBron or Shaq. Is this really the best arguments Curry fans have to offer? Make believe?

I don't put any of them over West and Oscar because they have more rings, rings are never a good argument for anyone. There's arguments for Curry over Oscar and West but "he has 4 rings, which is more than 1" is the most infantile twitter level argument you could come up with.
DB23
Junior
Posts: 350
And1: 311
Joined: Jun 10, 2018

Re: The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10 

Post#140 » by DB23 » Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:59 am

Dutchball97 wrote:
DB23 wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
Are you simply not aware that there are much more detailed stats than points and assists or do you go out of your way to dismiss anything substantial? It's not even necessary to bring KD into the mix either because Curry wouldn't have a single ring if not for Draymond. Take Dray out of the picture and suddenly Curry is just another Reggie Miller. Your "Curry won this Curry won that" talk doesn't mean anything since the Warriors won all those series, not Curry on his own.


The classic curry double standard.

Magic gets to play with Kareem and stacked teams.
Lebron with wade and stacked teams.
Shaq with Kobe and stacked teams.

But draymond green is too much smh…


What double standard? You're putting words in my mouth when I've never mentioned Magic, LeBron or Shaq. Is this really the best arguments Curry fans have to offer? Make believe?

I don't put any of them over West and Oscar because they have more rings, rings are never a good argument for anyone. There's arguments for Curry over Oscar and West but "he has 4 rings, which is more than 1" is the most infantile twitter level argument you could come up with.


I’ve only ever see old highlights of Oscar, how much did you watch him play back in the day?

What is the argument for Oscar over him? Because it certainly isn’t achievements.

Return to The General Board