Peaks project update: #13

[WarriorGM]

Personally, no, I don’t. I have 2013 as LeBron’s 3rd best overall season, behind 2012 and 2009. His playoffs weren’t as dominant as others years.

I’d have 09 LeBron at #1 tho.

Then I don't see why 2016 should be problematic for you.

Because Curry didn’t perform up to that standard in the postseason that year.

If you combined 2016 RS + 2017 PS for Curry, he’d slingshot quite a few positions for me, but that isn’t how this works.

I’ll cast my vote later too.

My reasoning is simply that Curry pulling off the victory against the Thunder > LeBron losing to Dwight's Magic.

[Mavericksfan]

Then I don't see why 2016 should be problematic for you.

Because Curry didn’t perform up to that standard in the postseason that year.

If you combined 2016 RS + 2017 PS for Curry, he’d slingshot quite a few positions for me, but that isn’t how this works.

I’ll cast my vote later too.

My reasoning is simply that Curry pulling off the victory against the Thunder > LeBron losing to Dwight's Magic.

You mean the Warriors pulled off the victory against the Thunder and the Cavs lost to the Magic.

Not to mention Klay going nuclear is what saved that series for the Warriors in game 6

[Franco]

Then I don't see why 2016 should be problematic for you.

Because Curry didn’t perform up to that standard in the postseason that year.

If you combined 2016 RS + 2017 PS for Curry, he’d slingshot quite a few positions for me, but that isn’t how this works.

I’ll cast my vote later too.

My reasoning is simply that Curry pulling off the victory against the Thunder > LeBron losing to Dwight's Magic.

The Warriors were a better team than the Cavaliers.

If you take our Curry and LeBron, the teams aren’t comparable at all. That’s circular reasoning.

[WarriorGM]

Because Curry didn’t perform up to that standard in the postseason that year.

If you combined 2016 RS + 2017 PS for Curry, he’d slingshot quite a few positions for me, but that isn’t how this works.

I’ll cast my vote later too.

My reasoning is simply that Curry pulling off the victory against the Thunder > LeBron losing to Dwight's Magic.

You mean the Warriors pulled off the victory against the Thunder and the Cavs lost to the Magic.

Not to mention Klay going nuclear is what saved that series for the Warriors in game 6

Curry did his bit and won it in the decider. Dwight outdueled LeBron.

Maybe I've overlooked mitigating circumstances—so do mention if I did—but if there weren't any, could one not say
Dwight 2009 > LeBron 2009?

[E-Balla]

My reasoning is simply that Curry pulling off the victory against the Thunder > LeBron losing to Dwight's Magic.

You mean the Warriors pulled off the victory against the Thunder and the Cavs lost to the Magic.

Not to mention Klay going nuclear is what saved that series for the Warriors in game 6

Curry did his bit and won it in the decider. Dwight outdueled LeBron.

Maybe I've overlooked mitigating circumstances—so do mention if I did—but if there weren't any, could one not say
Dwight 2009 > LeBron 2009?

Lebron averaged 38/8/8 in that series...

[WarriorGM]

You mean the Warriors pulled off the victory against the Thunder and the Cavs lost to the Magic.

Not to mention Klay going nuclear is what saved that series for the Warriors in game 6

Curry did his bit and won it in the decider. Dwight outdueled LeBron.

Maybe I've overlooked mitigating circumstances—so do mention if I did—but if there weren't any, could one not say
Dwight 2009 > LeBron 2009?

Lebron averaged 38/8/8 in that series...

A criticism of LeBron that can be made is that he can crowd out his teammates, that's why for example the Heatles were a bit of a disappointment and were not the juggernaut they would appear on paper. We see this often enough for other players as well that I don't know why it doesn't factor into evaluations more. That's why I cannot just look at the big numbers he produces and say wow he's the best. If a player is maximizing his teammates too, then that player is playing better than one that does not.

[Sublime187]

My reasoning is simply that Curry pulling off the victory against the Thunder > LeBron losing to Dwight's Magic.

You mean the Warriors pulled off the victory against the Thunder and the Cavs lost to the Magic.

Not to mention Klay going nuclear is what saved that series for the Warriors in game 6

Curry did his bit and won it in the decider. Dwight outdueled LeBron.

Maybe I've overlooked mitigating circumstances—so do mention if I did—but if there weren't any, could one not say
Dwight 2009 > LeBron 2009?

It must be difficult to be in a discussion with you IRL. Just admit when you're wrong. 09 Dwight vs 09 LeBron? LMAO. You've already lost the majority of your credibility, just quiet down for a few days and save what is left.

I'll probably get a warning for this but it had to be said.

[Franco]

Curry did his bit and won it in the decider. Dwight outdueled LeBron.

Maybe I've overlooked mitigating circumstances—so do mention if I did—but if there weren't any, could one not say
Dwight 2009 > LeBron 2009?

Lebron averaged 38/8/8 in that series...

A criticism of LeBron that can be made is that he can crowd out his teammates, that's why for example the Heatles were a bit of a disappointment and were not the juggernaut they would appear on paper. We see this often enough for other players as well that I don't know why it doesn't factor into evaluations more. That's why I cannot just look at the big numbers he produces and say wow he's the best. If a player is maximizing his teammates too, then that player is playing better than one that does not.

Our offense worked just fine that series, even with other players underperforming (and by that I mean roleplayers missing wide open shots regularly), the problem was our defense, that got shredded and abused by the Magic, who caught a hot streak from the perimeter.

Curry wouldn’t win that series either.

[liamliam1234]

Saying Lebron’s 2009 teammates were basically comparable to Curry’s pre-Durant teammates, and that Lebron lost to the Magic because Howard outplayed him by “trusting his teammates”, is far and away the most dishonest and bad faith frame I have seen on this entire website. At the end of 2016, Draymond was a two-time DPOY runner-up (one year finishing with the most overall first-place votes), and an all-NBA player; Draymond also twice proved himself to be one of the all-time playoff performers and outplayed Curry throughout most of the 2016 playoffs. At the end of 2016, Klay was already recognised as probably a top five shooter ever, and was a two-time all-NBA player. Even Iguodala was a perpetual sixth man of the year contender with a strong defensive reputation (making first-team all-defence the year before winning Finals MVP). And actually, I think I can go one step further: his dreadful Finals performance aside, Harrison Barnes was still on the team USA shortlist and was in-line for a near-maximum contract had he not been replaced with Durant. Was Mo Williams better than any of those guys? Does he even have a real case against any of them other than Barnes? And how would you say Mike Brown compares to Steve Kerr as a coach?

At least the people who argue Garnett as a top five player do not do so out of blind, deaf, and unrepentant homerism. This is absolutely inexcusable and basically serves as a neon sign flashing “no one should engage.” Which you were already bordering before this take.

[euroleague]

Saying Lebron’s 2009 teammates were basically comparable to Curry’s pre-Durant teammates, and that Lebron lost to the Magic because Howard outplayed him by “trusting his teammates”, is far and away the most dishonest and bad faith frame I have seen on this entire website. At the end of 2016, Draymond was a two-time DPOY runner-up (one year finishing with the most overall first-place votes), and an all-NBA player; Draymond also twice proved himself to be one of the all-time playoff performers and outplayed Curry throughout most of the 2016 playoffs. At the end of 2016, Klay was already recognised as probably a top five shooter ever, and was a two-time all-NBA player. Even Iguodala was a perpetual sixth man of the year contender with a strong defensive reputation (making first-team all-defence the year before winning Finals MVP). And actually, I think I can go one step further: his dreadful Finals performance aside, Harrison Barnes was still on the team USA shortlist and was in-line for a near-maximum contract had he not been replaced with Durant. Was Mo Williams better than any of those guys? Does he even have a real case against any of them other than Barnes? And how would you say Mike Brown compares to Steve Kerr as a coach?

At least the people who argue Garnett as a top five player do not do so out of blind, deaf, and unrepentant homerism. This is absolutely inexcusable and basically serves as a neon sign flashing “no one should engage.” Which you were already bordering before this take.

I would say Mo Williams was noticeably better than Harrison Barnes. Barnes was on the Team USA list with a bunch of other young players, who are deemed 'emerging' - he was super talented out of high school, but seems to have hit his ceiling.

I've been told to write a brief summary of my Curry vote to be counted again:
'16 Curry had one of the top 3 greatest regular seasons ever. After that season, offenses copied him and defenses contorted themselves in the ways Popovich came up with towards the end of the season... but during that season? He was considered unstoppable in a way that nobody in history has been. Team just didn't know what to do. There was no defensive scheme that could contain him, and no defender could handle him. When Kawhi tried to take him, Curry turned him into mince meat.

Curry was destroying teams in 30 mins flat. People were debating removing the 3 pointer, because what he was doing seemed so unfair. He led the best regular season team ever... without even pushing himself. The Warriors could probably have won 76 or 77, but Kerr was resting players... the starters would just destroy teams before the 4th even started, and the starters would just rest the 4th or play minor minutes.

Curry was so unstoppable, that every defense in the NBA now has a system JUST TO CONTAIN HIM. The 'switching' defense is built only BECAUSE OF CURRY. Teams don't need it for Lillard, KD, etc. Every team has adapted a special scheme as a major part of their defense, just because of him. Before that, their schemes failed and they just got crushed.

If Curry wasn't injured, and maintained his level of play, that season would be top 3 or better of all time. As it is, #13 is pretty low for him.

[euroleague]

Since this rule wasn't enforced until recently, this is another reminder that each season needs to be accompanied by a short sentence of reasoning for the vote to count. If you are voting for the exact same players as in a previous round, either copy and paste the reasoning or link the previous post completely. Anything along the lines of "see previous thread for explanation" will result in an invalid vote.

Spoiler:

.

.

BTW, the deadline has been extended 24 hours because there is currently a tie for first place.

added

[liamliam1234]

I would say Mo Williams was noticeably better than Harrison Barnes. Barnes was on the Team USA list with a bunch of other young players, who are deemed 'emerging' - he was super talented out of high school, but seems to have hit his ceiling.

And Mo Williams was not at his ceiling? Barnes is still receiving invitations and still earning near max money. Again, there is an argument, but the point stands that the second best player on the Cavaliers might have been the fifth best player on the Warriors.

'16 Curry had one of the top 3 greatest regular seasons ever. After that season, offenses copied him and defenses contorted themselves in the ways Popovich came up with towards the end of the season... but during that season? He was considered unstoppable in a way that nobody in history has been. Team just didn't know what to do. There was no defensive scheme that could contain him, and no defender could handle him.

They literally had to change the rules to stop Barkley from just slowing backing his guy down in the post.

The fact we watched the adjustment in the postseason undercuts this immensely. It is not uncommon to dominate in the regular season and then fail to replicate it in the postseason (Robinson), and thus far that has been somewhat disqualifying. Just looking at contemporaries, what about 2017 Westbrook? 30 point triple double, broke a bunch of “advanced” statistics, who was stopping him? What about this year’s Harden? Most efficient scoring season ever at his volume, and set the record for points per possession while adding a lot of passing value. Who was stopping him?

When Kawhi tried to take him, Curry turned him into mince meat.

Cool, in, what, three regular season games, he was not guarded effectively well by a small forward. What about in the postseason where we have watched Dellavadova and Van Vleet give him trouble?

Curry was destroying teams in 30 mins flat. People were debating removing the 3 pointer, because what he was doing seemed so unfair. He led the best regular season team ever... without even pushing himself. The Warriors could probably have won 76 or 77, but Kerr was resting players... the starters would just destroy teams before the 4th even started, and the starters would just rest the 4th or play minor minutes.

This is absolute nonsense. They had nine losses, so which three or four did they lose because of “rest”?

Curry was so unstoppable, that every defense in the NBA now has a system JUST TO CONTAIN HIM. The 'switching' defense is built only BECAUSE OF CURRY. Teams don't need it for Lillard, KD, etc. Every team has adapted a special scheme as a major part of their defense, just because of him. Before that, their schemes failed and they just got crushed.

Except in the postseason.

Also, you are deluded if you think switching is only big now because of the two to four regular season games teams play against Curry.

If Curry wasn't injured, and maintained his level of play, that season would be top 3 or better of all time. As it is, #13 is pretty low for him

Really tired of his poor performance being blamed on injury. Is there a superstar more coddled in this way? Players are banged up after a long season. He had enough time to recover, he was good enough to wreck Portland weeks before the Finals, and his struggle is far from unprecedented. He was somewhat comfortably outplayed by Kyrie Irving, and he was definitely outplayed by Draymond. If he had maintained. If Robinson had maintained, he would be top ten. If Garnett had maintained, he would probably be top five. Barkley would be better if he maintained, 2014 Durant would be better if he maintained, 2019 Giannis would be better if he maintained, Harden would be better if he completely maintained... That is part of the calculus, and you do not get to just dismiss it because it stands in contrast to what happened in the regular season. Kawhi reinjured his leg against Philadelphia and still dominated that series, helped suppressed Giannis, and averaged a reasonably efficient 28 or so points through the rest of the playoffs. He played poorly, stop excusing it.

[ardee]

Same vote as last time.

1. 1977 Bill Walton

Not much needed to be said about this season. I think it's basically equal to peak Russell. Below him defensively but above offensively: I think if I had to pick the second best defensive peak of all time though it would be hard to choose against him here. There was a quarter against the Sixers in the Finals when he took over defensively in a manner comparable to when an offensive player scores 20 in a quarter. Announcers were losing their ****, screaming "the Sixers cannot find a way to score against Bill Walton!!" Unreal awareness on defense, insane rebounder, and one of the top 3 playmaking centers of all time (with Wilt and Jokic). To me his offense is worth more than someone like Alonzo Mourning or most of Patrick Ewing's career outside of his outlier peak. Those guys aren't outlier scorers like Kareem or Shaq, in which case I'd rather have Walton's creation and lower volume than medium volume on not so great efficiency.

2. 2008 Kobe

Lakers have a 7.4 SRS, 57 wins, no.1 seed.

The standard line-up with everyone healthy was Fisher/Kobe/Radmanovic/Odom/Pau. Pau was only healthy 27 games. Bynum was healthy for 35, and they never played together.

Player by player: Fisher had a good year. 12/23, 44% from the field and 41% from 3. He was still all right on defense. I want you to note his jump in efficiency going from the Jazz to playing with Kobe. This is something that has been seen when many players play with and then without Kobe. He draws so much attention that they see their percentages rank.

Radmanovic was also basically a shooter. He shot 41% from 3, and 44% for the first half of the '09 season. This dipped to 36% when he was traded in the second half, and further to 28 the next season. So elite shooter with Kobe, average to bad without.

Odom was phenomenal that year, no doubts about it, great player all around. The main reason was because we first had Bynum and then Pau to be the second option to Kobe, while Odom was more comfortable as no. 3. His TS% jumped 3.5% from 55 '05-'07, when he was no. 2, to 58.5 in '08, when he was no. 3. In the stretch between Bynum's injury and the Gasol trade when he had to be the no. 2 option again, he shot 42% TS.

Pau was the perfect no. 2 option for Kobe, of course he was, we won 2 titles with him. Remember 2 things though:

1. He played 27 games.
2. As the no. 1 in Memphis, his team was 13-32 before he got traded. They ended up 22-60, so they went from a .280 win pace with him to a .244 win pace without him.

Bynum was also good, however, he wasn't as good as Pau, the numbers spell it out. He played 35 games, and would likely get injured quicker if he

Kobe took this cast to a 7.4 SRS and 57 wins.

I want you to imagine this team with no Kobe.

You'd be starting Fisher/Vujacic/Radmanovic/Odom/27 games of Pau + 35 games of Bynum + 16 games of Turiaf.

The best team would be the one with Pau. Consider, however, like I said, how Pau did on a Memphis team that was poorly built but still had some talent. Their lead scorer was Rudy Gay, who is a flawed player but can at least provide some kind of offense when needed. They had a lights out shooter at the 2 in Mike Miller.

This hypothetical Lakers team built around Pau would have Odom as their second option. Scoring wise, he is worse than Gay for this role. I have already shown he struggles to be consistent in that role. He struggles like that with KOBE as his first option. Pau is a far inferior first option to Kobe and that would put a ton more pressure on Odom. Fisher and Radmanovic can't create, neither can Sasha, and their efficiency dropped heavily when not playing with Kobe.

You can make the argument that this efficiency was due to the triangle partially, and not all Kobe, but the triangle only WORKS when you have an elite perimeter creator like Kobe. So therefore, you can rest assured their efficiency would drop a good bit, if not all the way down to what it was when they didn't play for the Lakers.

So, Pau, inconsistent in the 2nd option role Odom now with the added pressure of playing with a worse no. 1 option than Kobe, and Sasha, Fisher and Radmanovic offering little. I honestly don't see more than .500 in those 27 games and that's being VERY optimstic. In fact, it's more likely to be like 10-11 wins out of 27. The Blazers were a .500 team and they had 2 legit scoring options in Roy and Aldridge surrounded by fitting role players. The Lakers without Kobe are worse then that, even with Pau. Let's call it a push at 12-13 wins in those 27 games.

Bynum's 35 games. Bynum was worse than Pau at everything. He doesn't offer Pau's high-post playmaking. He can still be the main scorer but now Odom has to be the primary creator. More pressure on him. Bynum might get injured from the extra strain. I don't see more than 12-14 wins out of 35. Again, optimstically.

16 games of Turiaf. Odom in the no. 1 role. The team completely falls apart. Maybe 1-2 wins in 16 games.

So essentially, that team in a full season without Kobe wins 25-29 games. They won 57. Kobe was providing roughly ~30 wins of lift.

With this knowledge, it is hard for me to rank Kobe lower than 12 on the all-time peaks. I have Walton at 11, and this is equivalent to the kind of lift we know him to provide.

This was not a good supporting cast. If he had a full season of Pau it would be different, I think the '09 Lakers were great, but 27 games means he was working with a lot less for the rest of the season. It was a good-fitting supporting cast but aside from Pau all the players were supremely dependant on Kobe to do well in their roles.

He took an otherwise lottery team to elite status and put up a historical ORtg for the team when he had Pau.

Through the first 3 rounds of the Playoffs, the Lakers played 3 50 win teams and Kobe averaged 32-6-6 on 60% TS. That is peak Jordan level production against elite opposition. People forget the Jazz were a 7 SRS team and Kobe averaged 33-7-7 against them. People forget he dropped 30 ppg on 53% from the field against the defending champ Spurs while no other star in the series got anything going on that end.

On the weight of the RS and his stunning Playoff performances, Kobe absolutely should not be ranked any lower.

3. 2006 Kobe

Very similar lift to 2008 Kobe. Led a putrid cast to 48 Pythogorean wins, the 7th best SRS and the 8th best ORtg in the league. For reference, the 2006 Lakers performed as well as the 2019 Nuggets relative to the league and the 2019 Sixers offensively. Look at those rosters and then look at the roster Kobe was surrounded with. Tell me he doesn't deserve this spot.

[euroleague]

I would say Mo Williams was noticeably better than Harrison Barnes. Barnes was on the Team USA list with a bunch of other young players, who are deemed 'emerging' - he was super talented out of high school, but seems to have hit his ceiling.

And Mo Williams was not at his ceiling? Barnes is still receiving invitations and still earning near max money. Again, there is an argument, but the point stands that the second best player on the Cavaliers might have been the fifth best player on the Warriors.

'16 Curry had one of the top 3 greatest regular seasons ever. After that season, offenses copied him and defenses contorted themselves in the ways Popovich came up with towards the end of the season... but during that season? He was considered unstoppable in a way that nobody in history has been. Team just didn't know what to do. There was no defensive scheme that could contain him, and no defender could handle him.

They literally had to change the rules to stop Barkley from just slowing backing his guy down in the post.

The fact we watched the adjustment in the postseason undercuts this immensely. It is not uncommon to dominate in the regular season and then fail to replicate it in the postseason (Robinson), and thus far that has been somewhat disqualifying. Just looking at contemporaries, what about 2017 Westbrook? 30 point triple double, broke a bunch of “advanced” statistics, who was stopping him? What about this year’s Harden? Most efficient scoring season ever at his volume, and set the record for points per possession while adding a lot of passing value. Who was stopping him?

When Kawhi tried to take him, Curry turned him into mince meat.

Cool, in, what, three regular season games, he was not guarded effectively well by a small forward. What about in the postseason where we have watched Dellavadova and Van Vleet give him trouble?

Curry was destroying teams in 30 mins flat. People were debating removing the 3 pointer, because what he was doing seemed so unfair. He led the best regular season team ever... without even pushing himself. The Warriors could probably have won 76 or 77, but Kerr was resting players... the starters would just destroy teams before the 4th even started, and the starters would just rest the 4th or play minor minutes.

This is absolute nonsense. They had nine losses, so which three or four did they lose because of “rest”?

Curry was so unstoppable, that every defense in the NBA now has a system JUST TO CONTAIN HIM. The 'switching' defense is built only BECAUSE OF CURRY. Teams don't need it for Lillard, KD, etc. Every team has adapted a special scheme as a major part of their defense, just because of him. Before that, their schemes failed and they just got crushed.

Except in the postseason.

Also, you are deluded if you think switching is only big now because of the two to four regular season games teams play against Curry.

If Curry wasn't injured, and maintained his level of play, that season would be top 3 or better of all time. As it is, #13 is pretty low for him

Really tired of his poor performance being blamed on injury. Is there a superstar more coddled in this way? Players are banged up after a long season. He had enough time to recover, he was good enough to wreck Portland weeks before the Finals, and his struggle is far from unprecedented. He was somewhat comfortably outplayed by Kyrie Irving, and he was definitely outplayed by Draymond. If he had maintained. If Robinson had maintained, he would be top ten. If Garnett had maintained, he would probably be top five. Barkley would be better if he maintained, 2014 Durant would be better if he maintained, 2019 Giannis would be better if he maintained, Harden would be better if he completely maintained... That is part of the calculus, and you do not get to just dismiss it because it stands in contrast to what happened in the regular season. Kawhi reinjured his leg against Philadelphia and still dominated that series, helped suppressed Giannis, and averaged a reasonably efficient 28 or so points through the rest of the playoffs. He played poorly, stop excusing it.

Literally all of your arguments are just ‘when he was injured he didn’t dominate like that’ - duh....

Kawhi played poorly as well. Everyone is talking up Kawhi so much, but he didn’t play exceptionally on either side of the ball. Without Gasol, they get swept in the second round.

Curry dominated everyone in the RS - Kawhi was the last hope of the league, reigning DPOY and GOAT level m2m defender - and Curry effortlessly played with him.

For the record: Curry struggled against Portland as well. He had like one good OT period. Curry wasn’t the same after his injury, and it was obvious.

[Mavericksfan]

Literally all of your arguments are just ‘when he was injured he didn’t dominate like that’ - duh....

Kawhi played poorly as well. Everyone is talking up Kawhi so much, but he didn’t play exceptionally on either side of the ball. Without Gasol, they get swept in the second round.

Curry dominated everyone in the RS - Kawhi was the last hope of the league, reigning DPOY and GOAT level m2m defender - and Curry effortlessly played with him.

For the record: Curry struggled against Portland as well. He had like one good OT period. Curry wasn’t the same after his injury, and it was obvious.

I’m in the Curry was injured camp but I don’t see how that disputes anything he said. Curry’s durability or inability to play through injury doesn’t excuse his overall poor play. He was caught off guard by the Cavs aggressive defense and some of his flaws were exposed. It was more than just the injury.

You’re just making it harder to take any arguments for ‘16 Curry seriously. Especially when trying to downplay what Kawhi just accomplished.

[Bel]

My apologies, thanks for the notification LA Bird.

Ardee made a strong case for Kobe that I am liking - which is not something I ever expected to say lol. However, I'm still skeptical on Kobe's leadership ability in 2008 vs 2009, given he personally says in a later interview that he improved a lot in doing what it took to get his team to win after the 2008 finals (can't find the interview atm).

One tertiary note on the Curry debate: the 73 wins is not exactly a strong argument at all, considering the Warriors only got an SRS 0.1 higher than the Spurs that year, and the Thunder and Cavs both had record-high SRS's for the 3rd and 4th best teams in the league. That does not look at all like the best Spurs team, but it has the highest SRS of any Duncan team by about +2 despite it being his last season. Given the extremely high top end ratings and the amount that the Warriors and Spurs both struggled in the playoffs, it seems more prudent to assume that there was considerable inflation at the top end that season (tanking, bad teams playing their young players more than normal) than that this was some all time unbelievable season. The Warriors getting high 60's wins and SRS's 3 years in a row is impressive for sure, far more so than some bs 73 number.

After how blatant it was in the past season, do you guys think the NBA was applying two very different standards of reffing in 2016 RS vs PS? The league avg ORTG dropped from 106.4 in the RS to 104.2 in the PS (-2.2) for 2016, compared to 110.4 to 106.9 (-3.5) this past year. Given Curry's struggles at times the finals vs guys like Delly, especially when the NBA lets the opposing team play more physical, this seems relevant if we are assessing his RS.

And FWIW, I also hold Lebron responsible for 2009, just as I hold Jordan responsible for g7 of the 1990 ECF, among others.
----Old post with reasoning
1. 63 Oscar (changed due to his better series vs the Celtics that year, even if they were a bit weaker)
2. 77 Walton
3. 90 Barkley

To be frank my natural inclination here is to put Barkley as my first ballet vote but I think that would be biased so I am moving him to 3. I put my reasoning previously, but in brief: Oscar was always the gold standard for perimeter players to be compared to. His team was, to put it mildly, in the bottom tier of the league, and he was not a center, and he legitly challenged Russell and Wilt for the best in the game. For Walton, I don't see much separation between 77 Walton and Kareem, and Walton was perceived as completely exceptional by his contemporaries, a potentially top 10 all time career derailed by injuries. Frankly I'm surprised he's not already in.

As for Barkley, since I seem to be the one who has to defend him since apparently nobody watches him: Charles was perceived at the same level as prime Magic and Jordan. How many players do we have remaining can be said that if they played in the same season as 1990 Jordan or Magic, that they would be seen at their level? That is a very, very high bar to cross. Barkley was even perceived as greater in the regular season, despite the fact that many media members despised his loudmouth, no-words-barred brash attitude (obviously Jordan proved himself the best player in the playoffs). The Sixers did lose 1-4 against the Bulls, but the Bulls also were the 2nd best team in the league that season, going in a very close 3-4 to champions Detroit (who stomped the Blazers). Yet look at how much Chuck had to carry his team to get anything done: the one game the Sixers won was on the back of Chuck going 34/20; even his 30/20 in game 1 wasn't enough. Chuck went 24/17/5 for the series, averaging 7 offensive rebounds, despite attracting all of the defensive attention of the Bulls. He was getting constantly doubled and tripled and throwing the ball to multiple wide open perimeter players, and netted a large number of 'hockey assists' in this fashion.

In terms of specific on court traits, Chuck gives you the best basket to basket game, utterly unstoppable on the fast break, and many free points off of putbacks or by drawing triples and passing it to the wide open man outside. Chuck's offensive rebounds are very high value since he either scores right after or gets the ball moving to the open man when all the defense converges on him. This was an underrated attribute of his, since so many people tried to fight him for the rebounds due to size. Hershey Hawkins gets so many wide open shots thanks to the attention Chuck draws in an average game I couldn't even count. It's no coincidence that he saw his best years with Chuck in 90/91, despite being only 23 and 24 at the time. Does a team with the supporting cast of Hershey Hawkins (a good player), Johnny Dawkins (solid role player), (a bad fit) Mike Gminski, and Rick Mahorn (very reliable defensive player, poor on offense) really look like the 2nd best offense in the league? With Barkley on top, they were right there with the Lakers. Barkley was a plus defender at this point in his career: his help defense was trash, but his post defense was very good and he did not concede ground to anyone. And all of that before saying a word about his unrivaled shooting percentage, where he led the league at .66 TS.

In short, Chuck had the KG and Kareem problem of being stuck on the wrong team in his best years. When he was put on a great team (though wrecked with injuries), despite being 3 years after his peak, he totally dominated and took the Bulls to their closest finals. Given the former two are already in with that reasoning, I see no reason why Chuck can't be as well. Though this was 2 years later, when Barkley left the Sixers in a trade, despite the Sixers getting only active players and no picks (and thus a better short term trade instead of a better long term rebuilding one), the Sixers fell apart worse than the Timberwolves did after KG left. The situation was so bad that Jeff Hornacek demanded a trade off the team immediately. That's the kind of environment Barkley had to endure ever since the 1983 team's vets got too old.

Put simply, he's a consensus top 20 player of all time, but his prime was shorter than almost everyone else in that spot (just 86-91, 93) due to his injuries in 91 and 94, and him getting fatter in 92 and in the later years. Thus by definition his prime/peak has to be considerably higher than his long-time placement, since he is getting dinged hard on longevity.

[WarriorGM]

You mean the Warriors pulled off the victory against the Thunder and the Cavs lost to the Magic.

Not to mention Klay going nuclear is what saved that series for the Warriors in game 6

Curry did his bit and won it in the decider. Dwight outdueled LeBron.

Maybe I've overlooked mitigating circumstances—so do mention if I did—but if there weren't any, could one not say
Dwight 2009 > LeBron 2009?

It must be difficult to be in a discussion with you IRL. Just admit when you're wrong. 09 Dwight vs 09 LeBron? LMAO. You've already lost the majority of your credibility, just quiet down for a few days and save what is left.

I'll probably get a warning for this but it had to be said.

Making too much sense annoys people. Atkins came up with his diet that challenged conventional wisdom. He was vilified. He has since been proven to be right. Doesn't stop detractors from refusing to give him credit.

At least the people who argue Garnett as a top five player do not do so out of blind, deaf, and unrepentant homerism. This is absolutely inexcusable and basically serves as a neon sign flashing “no one should engage.” Which you were already bordering before this take.

Another example of if you cannot attack the argument, attack the person making it.

Saying Lebron’s 2009 teammates were basically comparable to Curry’s pre-Durant teammates, and that Lebron lost to the Magic because Howard outplayed him by “trusting his teammates”, is far and away the most dishonest and bad faith frame I have seen on this entire website. At the end of 2016, Draymond was a two-time DPOY runner-up (one year finishing with the most overall first-place votes), and an all-NBA player; Draymond also twice proved himself to be one of the all-time playoff performers and outplayed Curry throughout most of the 2016 playoffs. At the end of 2016, Klay was already recognised as probably a top five shooter ever, and was a two-time all-NBA player. Even Iguodala was a perpetual sixth man of the year contender with a strong defensive reputation (making first-team all-defence the year before winning Finals MVP). And actually, I think I can go one step further: his dreadful Finals performance aside, Harrison Barnes was still on the team USA shortlist and was in-line for a near-maximum contract had he not been replaced with Durant. Was Mo Williams better than any of those guys? Does he even have a real case against any of them other than Barnes? And how would you say Mike Brown compares to Steve Kerr as a coach?

My intention in regards to teammates was to compare LeBron 2009 to Dwight 2009 not Curry 2016 although I guess Curry 2015 could fit the bill too. All three cases had the lead guy paired with one all-star teammate and a largely green cast. Only Curry 2015 won the championship. My comparison of LeBron 2009 to Curry 2016 was saying that, given the circumstances, beating the Thunder was a more notable accomplishment in my book.

We've seen blame for LeBron's failures falling on his teammates repeatedly. Maybe if it was only the first go around with the Cavaliers it could be readily accepted but when even playing with Wade, Bosh, and Love brings up the same refrain it deserves much closer scrutiny. They all looked pedestrian playing with LeBron despite stellar reputations beforehand while Iguodala went from solid veteran exiting his prime years to possible Hall of Fame candidate playing with Curry.

Mike Brown has a better record as acting head coach of the Warriors than Kerr does. Indeed there are some Warriors fans who prefer his inclination to use the best plays possible during playoffs.

Which is why I specified 2016, which has received the bulk of his votes thus far.

If you vote for 2017 Curry, I have no strong objection. But if you vote for 2016 Curry I think that you may as well say postseason performance barely factors at all (and again, that is why I understand the Robinson voters lending their support).

If you wish to compartmentalize the idea of peak into discrete years that's your choice but that the bulk of Curry voters still choose 2016 I think shows many consider the constraints being used by others are artificial. The project has not specified "peak season" or "peak playoffs" or even that peak be solely defined by statistics. The question of this project may well be interpreted as when did Curry peak? That 2016 is such an automatic answer for many even in the face of 2017 shouldn't be surprising. That you find it so is, as is your contention that being 5 points away in a game 7 from what could well be described as possibly the greatest single season of all-time makes for a post-season performance that should barely factor at all.

[euroleague]

Literally all of your arguments are just ‘when he was injured he didn’t dominate like that’ - duh....

Kawhi played poorly as well. Everyone is talking up Kawhi so much, but he didn’t play exceptionally on either side of the ball. Without Gasol, they get swept in the second round.

Curry dominated everyone in the RS - Kawhi was the last hope of the league, reigning DPOY and GOAT level m2m defender - and Curry effortlessly played with him.

For the record: Curry struggled against Portland as well. He had like one good OT period. Curry wasn’t the same after his injury, and it was obvious.

I’m in the Curry was injured camp but I don’t see how that disputes anything he said. Curry’s durability or inability to play through injury doesn’t excuse his overall poor play. He was caught off guard by the Cavs aggressive defense and some of his flaws were exposed. It was more than just the injury.

You’re just making it harder to take any arguments for ‘16 Curry seriously. Especially when trying to downplay what Kawhi just accomplished.

He said, explicitly, "Why couldn't Curry shake Matthew Delavadova or Fred VanVleet in the postseason, if he was so dominant?"
1. Delavadova was in 2015.
2. FVV was in 2019.

In 2016, Popovich came up with the switching scheme to stop Curry in April. Other teams copied that. Literally all of his refutations of my points completely ignore the points I'm making. And they mostly use either injured games, or different years with different teams, to try to challenge his dominance in 16. It's just not relevant.

Curry wasn't caught off guard by the Cavs aggressive defense. He absolutely stomped on them during the regular season, and it's not like they forgot how he plays. He couldn't score on Kevin Love, and that was no accident. He didn't have the quickness, and had to be careful no to reinjure himself.

Lastly, Kawhi in 2019 wasn't bad but he wasn't this legendary world-beater people are talking him up as. He certainly didn't stop Giannis anymore than Siakam did. everyone looks at basic stats like "points per 100 possessions with XXX guarding him", but they don't look at defensive schemes as a whole, and it gives completely misleading impressions. if you look at PP100 using ISO defense, Siakam was better than Kawhi as far as I recall (or very, very close). The main difference was Toronto changed their scheme to create "the wall", not putting Kawhi on him.

Furthermore, Kawhi's offense took a nose dive once Ben Simmons started defending him. His efficiency dropped, and he was shooting like 30 FGA to get 30 points. Why would anyone say that's better than any of Kob'es runs?

[liamliam1234]

I attacked both the argument and the person filling this thread with bad faith fanboying. This is the modern equivalent of the casuals who stanned Kobe over Lebron. Mike Brown over Steve Kerr, get lost.

Pointing to Popovich is nonsensical both as a concept and as an argument for Curry; if Popovich “figured out” Curry during the regular season, that supports the idea of his domination being something of a regular season gimmick.

Pointing to how he struggled in “healthy” series against guards who should have been hopelessly outmatched speaks to him generally not handling physical defence well. Those are his last three years without Durant, but oh, we should assume he would have been amazing in the 2016 Finals if he had not been injured two months earlier?

[euroleague]

1. Pointing to Popovich is just history... the fact that some naysaying poster can have no idea of what happened and try to use hypotheticals to argue implies that not only did they not watch regular season games (and therefor didn't watch Curry in the RS I am discussing), they are also incredibly biased - so much so they are arguing about a player's season they didn't even see.

2. Team composition and practice with teammates matters. When the primary scorer in any offense goes down, expecting the transition from second option to first option (especially after Klay was injured) to seamlessly show a player's maximum level of game is ridiculous. Not only that, he's playing with new starters in offensive sets many other starters have never played, as they came in after Durant. To finalize this point, many of the players from 16 were either gone or no longer the same player (Bogut, Barnes, Ezeli, Speights, Barbosa). In '15, it was his first time ever in the Finals and - as is quite common - he didn't come in with the experience and confidence of a multi time champion. To assume that he will always be shaky, because he was once, is faulty logic.

3. Assuming that players completely recover from injury in 2 months is absurd. Furthermore, he got injured in the first round of the playoffs - April 20th to June is about 6 weeks. That's only slightly longer than KD sat out - and I would bet money that posters criticizing Curry's play, also criticize GS for letting KD come back in from a mild calf strain after only a month. If Curry had pushed himself hard, and not been careful of his injury, he would've risked far more than a bad playoffs.

Overall, it's ridiculous to respond to such empty criticisms...

on Bill Walton: He was one of the greatest defensive centers ever, and what sets him apart from many defensive greats was his GOAT level passing from the position. He could run point center, push the offense, and dictate offensive sets from the post. When Bill Walton was injured and got replaced by Mychal Thompson, the first overall pick, the offense and defense both suffered greatly. The team went -5 in overall RTG after adding the best NBA prospect available in the position that Walton plays. That impact was despite Walton playing only 58 games the season before.

Walton is often compared to Russell in defensive impact - but, he was one of the best offensive players in his generation because of his passing. He wasn't a bad scorer either.