RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #24 (Stephen Curry)

[70sFan]

Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

How can you possibly be surprised? There is a moderator here who bans people for speaking well of Curry. Because of that this group is self-selected to favor certain players over others.

Participation in these projects by people who try to be objective such as yourself simply rewards such behavior and perpetuates the farce. And let's be honest this list is a farce. I have no problem with it though because it makes manifest the entire ludicrous narrative that is being put in play.

So this list is a farce because Curry isn't high enough? How can anyone be this biased?

[WarriorGM]

Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

How can you possibly be surprised? There is a moderator here who bans people for speaking well of Curry. Because of that this group is self-selected to favor certain players over others.

Participation in these projects by people who try to be objective such as yourself simply rewards such behavior and perpetuates the farce. And let's be honest this list is a farce. I have no problem with it though because it makes manifest the entire ludicrous narrative that is being put in play.

So this list is a farce because Curry isn't high enough? How can anyone be this biased?

I am not the one who is "stunned by how low this group is on Curry". It wasn't me who said that.

[Dutchball97]

Some of this can probably be explained by how people view the top 100. There is a seperate peaks list, which causes some people to make a hardline distinction where a player at his best gets his due in the peaks list but this top 100 is all about total career value. For me, and presumably for others who are surprised at Curry being about 10 spots lower than expected, this list is THE top 100 list and not one half of the equation. I'm not saying one approach is more valid than the other but it could explain some cognitive dissonance between groups.

[70sFan]

How can you possibly be surprised? There is a moderator here who bans people for speaking well of Curry. Because of that this group is self-selected to favor certain players over others.

Participation in these projects by people who try to be objective such as yourself simply rewards such behavior and perpetuates the farce. And let's be honest this list is a farce. I have no problem with it though because it makes manifest the entire ludicrous narrative that is being put in play.

So this list is a farce because Curry isn't high enough? How can anyone be this biased?

I am not the one who is "stunned by how low this group is on Curry". It wasn't me who said that.

But Doctor MJ never said that this list is a farce. You can't call other opinions laughable just because not everyone has the same criteria as yours.

[70sFan]

Curry has total of 7 prime seasons. In two of them (2013 and 2014) he arguably wasn't top 5 in the league. That gives us 5 all-time seasons, which include:

1. 2016 when Curry missed one and a half round in playoffs.
2. 2018 when Curry missed 31 games in RS and 6 playoff games.

That gives us 3 complete seasons, one when he missed significant time in playoffs and one when he didn't play large amount of both RS and playoffs. It's completelt fair to have Curry higher when your criteria are more about peak or if you don't care about durability. It's also perfectly fine to have Curry outside of top 25 if you do value these things.

I don't think Curry is that much better than someone like Steve Nash who has 12 such seasons (2001-12) vs Curry's 7. Nash missed total of 46 games in this period (less than 4 games per season), which is less than Curry missed in 2019 alone.

When you add that it's arguable if Curry is better than Nash at all, then what is the reason to call having Curry below Nash a farce? Because Curry won rings, right?

[WarriorGM]

Curry has total of 7 prime seasons. In two of them (2013 and 2014) he arguably wasn't top 5 in the league. That gives us 5 all-time seasons, which include:

1. 2016 when Curry missed one and a half round in playoffs.
2. 2018 when Curry missed 31 games in RS and 6 playoff games.

That gives us 3 complete seasons, one when he missed significant time in playoffs and one when he didn't play large amount of both RS and playoffs. It's completelt fair to have Curry higher when your criteria are more about peak or if you don't care about durability. It's also perfectly fine to have Curry outside of top 25 if you do value these things.

I don't think Curry is that much better than someone like Steve Nash who has 12 such seasons (2001-12) vs Curry's 7. Nash missed total of 46 games in this period (less than 4 games per season), which is less than Curry missed in 2019 alone.

When you add that it's arguable if Curry is better than Nash at all, then what is the reason to call having Curry below Nash a farce? Because Curry won rings, right?

It could be distilled to just Curry having rings and Nash having none. That alone is sufficient.

But we're talking about Curry! That's far from his only argument.

Led a team to a regular season wins record? Check. Led a team to a playoffs wins record? Check. Revolutionized basketball even more than Nash did? Check. Created a dynastic team? Check.

As for 2014, arguably already as good as MVP Nash.

As for 2016, had arguably the greatest statistical season of all-time.

As for 2018, led the league in +/- at the end of the entire season despite missing 37 games.

You guys can stick to your silly longevity arguments. I'll marvel at the perversity of celebrating players who accomplished less in more time over those who accomplished more in less time.

[70sFan]

I'm not going to ruin this thread with another pointless discussion with you. The idea that 2014 Curry is on peak Nash level is laughable.

If you don't view different opinions as valuable, then why do you even use basketball forum? You know better than anyone else after all.

[70sFan]

By the way, Curry arguably doesn't have tge best peak left here. We still have Bill Walton available - if you don't care about longevity then why not him? Some are really high on Anthony Davis or Kawhi Leonard as well (I'm not).

It's not Curry hate, it's called different criteria. Curry isn't hurt by these criteria more than those I mentioned. Bill Walton won't make top 70 even though he's better player than a lot of players already in peak-wise (and he's arguably better than Curry as well).

[Dutchball97]

By the way, Curry arguably doesn't have tge best peak left here. We still have Bill Walton available - if you don't care about longevity then why not him? Some are really high on Anthony Davis or Kawhi Leonard as well (I'm not).

It's not Curry hate, it's called different criteria. Curry isn't hurt by these criteria more than those I mentioned. Bill Walton won't make top 70 even though he's better player than a lot of players already in peak-wise (and he's arguably better than Curry as well).

Not caring about longevity is not the same as not having longevity as one of your main criteria. Bill Walton was a high level player for about 1.5 seasons, Curry has about 7 high level seasons. Let's not act like there isn't a big difference. Curry's longevity is much more similar to the likes of Bird, Magic, KD and Wade to name a few than he is to the likes of Walton and Rose.

[Joey Wheeler]

Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

I'll counter this by saying I think he's going too high (assuming he goes here).

He has 6 seasons that can argued he was a top 5ish level player, and these seasons included missed time (even entire series) in the playoffs and some bad series. Curry has been in a unique situation where his team is good enough to not only beat but dominate playoff opposition without him; in a normal situation, his 2016 and 2018 playoff injuries would have ended the season for his team and some of his poor performances would have been punished with defeat.

Even if we're focusing almost exclusively on peak, I'd look at Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard, Dywane Wade before looking at Curry, who imo proved capable of clearly greater 2-way dominance at the highest levels in the playoffs. Wade also has a clearly stronger/more complete overall body of work, with greater longevity at a high level.

I think the reason Curry is going this high is still residual hype from the 2016 RS where he looked game-breaking; the problem is that just never translated to the highest levels of playoff basketball. Odds are without the Durant move the Warriors never return to the Finals again.

[freethedevil]

Curry's career isn't even close to done yet so I think its sort of disingenuous for people to be amazed that he's being voted behind players who have that advantage over him.

Disingenuous? Uh, nope.

Y'all, when they made a best player list 50 years into basketball's existence, Hank Luisetti ranked 2nd despite never having played pro ball. In the NBA's Top 50 list they had Shaq after only a few years in the NBA and I'm quite sure Walton was seen as a given despite having a pittance of the longevity that Curry already has.

Listen, I'm not here to tell other people how to weight longevity broadly, but I'm going to say 3 things:

1. If you're voting for Paul over Curry by longevity, you're weighing longevity abnormally compared to folks traditionally have.

2. If you're voting for Paul over Curry by longevity, you're specifically considering a longevity beyond what NBA decision makers focus on.

3. Do expect that as the years go by for this vote to look stranger and stranger to people, because Curry's legacy is written in cement where Paul's a rolling stone gathering no moss.

If you can see all of that and say "Yes, I understand and I'm fine with that", good. I'm still floored by you though.

Here's what I'll also say:

To me this smacks of being not that impressed with Steph Curry. I detect a lot of "I guess Curry's prime is a bit better but..." going on. And I think if that's you, then you're sleeping on what an achievement GS' 5 year run was. Quite simply, if you're not old enough to have lived through Jordan's prime, it's the most impressive thing you've ever witnessed in team NBA basketball period. And it's built around Curry because Curry has a specific skill set that is not in any way, shape, or form approximated by Paul, or really anyone else.

I hope as the years go by, after all these players are retired legends, you can look back and have a greater appreciation for how astonishingly rare stuff like this is, and what it says about the power of Curry's game that you could make something like that around him. I say this, with all sincerity.

If you're voting chris paul over curry on the basis of longetvity well first off why, because curry has better longetvity.

[70sFan]

By the way, Curry arguably doesn't have tge best peak left here. We still have Bill Walton available - if you don't care about longevity then why not him? Some are really high on Anthony Davis or Kawhi Leonard as well (I'm not).

It's not Curry hate, it's called different criteria. Curry isn't hurt by these criteria more than those I mentioned. Bill Walton won't make top 70 even though he's better player than a lot of players already in peak-wise (and he's arguably better than Curry as well).

Not caring about longevity is not the same as not having longevity as one of your main criteria. Bill Walton was a high level player for about 1.5 seasons, Curry has about 7 high level seasons. Let's not act like there isn't a big difference. Curry's longevity is much more similar to the likes of Bird, Magic, KD and Wade to name a few than he is to the likes of Walton and Rose.

Bird, Magic and KD has clearly better longevities. Wade is comparable and we don't have him voted yet.

[freethedevil]

Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

How can you possibly be surprised? There is a moderator here who bans people for speaking well of Curry. Because of that this group is self-selected to favor certain players over others.

Participation in these projects by people who try to be objective such as yourself simply rewards such behavior and perpetuates the farce. And let's be honest this list is a farce. I have no problem with it though because it makes manifest the entire ludicrous narrative that is being put in play.

So this list is a farce because Curry isn't high enough? How can anyone be this biased?

I mean, one pretty locked on curry vote was a half-step short of perma-banned on the basis of excess sarcasm, and one other locked on curry vote was disqualified on the basis of word count...

[Dutchball97]

By the way, Curry arguably doesn't have tge best peak left here. We still have Bill Walton available - if you don't care about longevity then why not him? Some are really high on Anthony Davis or Kawhi Leonard as well (I'm not).

It's not Curry hate, it's called different criteria. Curry isn't hurt by these criteria more than those I mentioned. Bill Walton won't make top 70 even though he's better player than a lot of players already in peak-wise (and he's arguably better than Curry as well).

Not caring about longevity is not the same as not having longevity as one of your main criteria. Bill Walton was a high level player for about 1.5 seasons, Curry has about 7 high level seasons. Let's not act like there isn't a big difference. Curry's longevity is much more similar to the likes of Bird, Magic, KD and Wade to name a few than he is to the likes of Walton and Rose.

Bird, Magic and KD has clearly better longevities. Wade is comparable and we don't have him voted yet.

Right, because there are a lot of people that put a premium on longevity. What I was talking about was that for someone like me, Curry's longevity isn't a problem to vote him in the top 15 while Bill Walton is a completely different story.

[freethedevil]

Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

I'll counter this by saying I think he's going too high (assuming he goes here).

He has 6 seasons that can argued he was a top 5ish level player, and these seasons included missed time (even entire series) in the playoffs and some bad series. Curry has been in a unique situation where his team is good enough to not only beat but dominate playoff opposition without him; in a normal situation, his 2016 and 2018 playoff injuries would have ended the season for his team and some of his poor performances would have been punished with defeat.

Even if we're focusing almost exclusively on peak, I'd look at Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard, Dywane Wade before looking at Curry, who imo proved capable of clearly greater 2-way dominance at the highest levels in the playoffs. Wade also has a clearly stronger/more complete overall body of work, with greater longevity at a high level.

I think the reason Curry is going this high is still residual hype from the 2016 RS where he looked game-breaking; the problem is that just never translated to the highest levels of playoff basketball. Odds are without the Durant move the Warriors never return to the Finals again.

Title teams typically can survive the first round without their best player,a dn sometimes can survive the second round. This is why missing the conference and finals round is penalized much more heavily.

[70sFan]

Not caring about longevity is not the same as not having longevity as one of your main criteria. Bill Walton was a high level player for about 1.5 seasons, Curry has about 7 high level seasons. Let's not act like there isn't a big difference. Curry's longevity is much more similar to the likes of Bird, Magic, KD and Wade to name a few than he is to the likes of Walton and Rose.

Bird, Magic and KD has clearly better longevities. Wade is comparable and we don't have him voted yet.

Right, because there are a lot of people that put a premium on longevity. What I was talking about was that for someone like me, Curry's longevity isn't a problem to vote him in the top 15 while Bill Walton is a completely different story.

Fair enough, but to some it's not enough and I don't understand how some people can't get that.

[70sFan]

If you're voting chris paul over curry on the basis of longetvity well first off why, because curry has better longetvity.

No he doesn't.

[freethedevil]

By the way, Curry arguably doesn't have tge best peak left here. We still have Bill Walton available - if you don't care about longevity then why not him? Some are really high on Anthony Davis or Kawhi Leonard as well (I'm not).

It's not Curry hate, it's called different criteria. Curry isn't hurt by these criteria more than those I mentioned. Bill Walton won't make top 70 even though he's better player than a lot of players already in peak-wise (and he's arguably better than Curry as well).

Not caring about longevity is not the same as not having longevity as one of your main criteria. Bill Walton was a high level player for about 1.5 seasons, Curry has about 7 high level seasons. Let's not act like there isn't a big difference. Curry's longevity is much more similar to the likes of Bird, Magic, KD and Wade to name a few than he is to the likes of Walton and Rose.

Bird, Magic and KD has clearly better longevities. Wade is comparable and we don't have him voted yet.

KD does not have clearly better longetvity, why do people keep saying this? Injuries nuked two of his prime seasons, and curry murks durant looking at the accumulative championship equity calcs be it corp OR even the '2way wing fetishers' down at RAPTOR.

KD's only "longetvity" edge is regular seaosn scoring titles. KD's longetivty is a smudgen better than james harden's

[70sFan]

Not caring about longevity is not the same as not having longevity as one of your main criteria. Bill Walton was a high level player for about 1.5 seasons, Curry has about 7 high level seasons. Let's not act like there isn't a big difference. Curry's longevity is much more similar to the likes of Bird, Magic, KD and Wade to name a few than he is to the likes of Walton and Rose.

Bird, Magic and KD has clearly better longevities. Wade is comparable and we don't have him voted yet.

KD does not have clearly better longetvity, why do people keep saying this? Injuries nuked two of his prime seasons, and curry murks durant looking at the accumulative championship equity calcs be it corp OR even the '2way wing fetishers' down at RAPTOR.

KD's only "longetvity" edge is regular seaosn scoring titles. KD's longetivty is a smudgen better than james harden's

Yeah, cause Curry didn't miss any season in his prime... I already criticized Durant's longevity, but he's been a superstar for full 9 seasons - which is more than Curry. It's another debate that Curry is better than Durant (and I'd have him higher than Durant on my list) but it's not because of longevity.

[freethedevil]

By the way, Curry arguably doesn't have tge best peak left here. We still have Bill Walton available - if you don't care about longevity then why not him? Some are really high on Anthony Davis or Kawhi Leonard as well (I'm not).

It's not Curry hate, it's called different criteria. Curry isn't hurt by these criteria more than those I mentioned. Bill Walton won't make top 70 even though he's better player than a lot of players already in peak-wise (and he's arguably better than Curry as well).

Because Curry's accumulative valu e murks everyone here. You understang lonetvity isn'y just how long u played right?