Kevin Durant vs Stephen Curry: better career so far?

[Jaivl]

for my view durant has been a superstar since 2010 until 2021, minus 15 and 19 (10 seasons)

curry has been one since 2013 until 2021, minus 2019 (8 seasons)

normally 2 more prime years wouldnt be a huge Gap either, but when curry has only had 8 prime years is very significative

Minus 2020 for KD too, right? It's 9 vs 8 then (and also you MUST mean 2020 for Curry I guess). And 2010 KD's superstardom... eeeeh.

i write 2019 where i wanted to write 2020, so still 2 seasons , durant injuries in 2019 playoffs are "neutralized" by curry missing the 2021 playoffs as both are incomplete seasons

Then does KG actually have bad longevity? That's not how it works.

Curry was healthy and able to play in the 2021 playoffs, period, and it is unreasonable to assume he would get gravely injured because the chance of that happening is just so low. Maybe you could penalize him a bit by uncertainty? (but we are dealing with what, a 10-something% chance of him being catastrophically injured, at the absolute most?)

In a similar vein, it may seem unfair to "penalize" KD for 2019 as he was healthy before the playoffs too (and before the first round, even, that's further than Curry)... but we have more information in his case. We *know* he actually got injured, and that he was not able to add more than ~2 out of 4 series of value in a title hunt. We actually have the posterior probability of catastrophic injury for Durant, and it's 100%.

Now, each one may weigh that as they wish - I personally still have him around an all-star level even considering the injury, but that's never a superstar year IMO.

TL;DR - it's 9 years to 8 still because I say so

Re: Durant's 2010 - I agree it's a top 10ish year, but that's not superstardom either for me.

[The Master]

Durant was 2nd in 2010 in MVP voting. Yeah, he wasn't that good that year, and he had bad playoffs against Artest, but it's still pretty valuable season to the career value considering his age that year, it's really hard not to consider 2nd best player of regular season as a superstar.

They're pretty much the same tier for now career-wise, Durant has a better longevity with Curry having a better peak. The more interesting question is whether one of them is able to surpass the other one in the latter part of both players' careers.

[No-more-rings]

Durant was 2nd in 2010 in MVP voting. Yeah, he wasn't that good that year, and he had bad playoffs against Artest, but it's still pretty valuable season to the career value considering his age that year, it's really hard not to consider 2nd best player of regular season as a superstar.

Being 2nd in mvp voting doesn’t neccesarily mean you’re the 2nd best regular season player. I’d argue Wade as clearly better for one, then some others like Dwight, Dirk, and Nash have reasonable cases. Not to nitpick, but he wasn’t the clear 2nd best and that was in a somewhat weak year for the top 10. Whether he was a superstar depends on one’s definition. I do agree it counts towards meaningful longevity without a doubt but definitely not a year that should move the needle in any way.

They're pretty much the same tier for now career-wise, Durant has a better longevity with Curry having a better peak. The more interesting question is whether one of them is able to surpass the other one in the latter part of both players' careers.

I’m surprised to find out that Curry is actually 6 months older, but his mileage is definitely lower and I trust Curry to age a bit better as the 2 head for post prime. KD has always liked playing like a guard, but i sort of wonder how that holds up given he was never a great ball handler.

[Stalwart]

I have to go with Curry. Not only does he have a higher peak and more accomplishments but he's also had several historical achievements.

-Best regular season record of all time
-Best playoff record of all time
-Unanimous MVP
-5 straight NBA finals
-"Greatest shooter of all time"

Not only that but Steph gets big marks for his influence and impact on the game. He can be credited with revolutionizing the sport with he and the Warriors style of play. The game is played differently today in large part because of Steph Curry.

Longevity and the lack of Finals MVPs will probably keep him out of the top 10 but he's top 15 easily.

[jalengreen]

I think Steph Curry's impact (on how basketball is played) is overrated honestly. The 3PT revolution was happening regardless

[falcolombardi]

Durant was 2nd in 2010 in MVP voting. Yeah, he wasn't that good that year, and he had bad playoffs against Artest, but it's still pretty valuable season to the career value considering his age that year, it's really hard not to consider 2nd best player of regular season as a superstar.

Being 2nd in mvp voting doesn’t neccesarily mean you’re the 2nd best regular season player. I’d argue Wade as clearly better for one, then some others like Dwight, Dirk, and Nash have reasonable cases. Not to nitpick, but he wasn’t the clear 2nd best and that was in a somewhat weak year for the top 10. Whether he was a superstar depends on one’s definition. I do agree it counts towards meaningful longevity without a doubt but definitely not a year that should move the needle in any way.

They're pretty much the same tier for now career-wise, Durant has a better longevity with Curry having a better peak. The more interesting question is whether one of them is able to surpass the other one in the latter part of both players' careers.

I’m surprised to find out that Curry is actually 6 months older, but his mileage is definitely lower and I trust Curry to age a bit better as the 2 head for post prime. KD has always liked playing like a guard, but i sort of wonder how that holds up given he was never a great ball handler.

a top 10 kind of year should definitely matter

look at kareem after like 1982, he won 3 rings and was a key contributor as a "mere" top 10 or below kind of player

[Stalwart]

I think Steph Curry's impact (on how basketball is played) is overrated honestly. The 3PT revolution was happening regardless

Not true. There is an entire generation of basketball players pulling up from the logo because of Stephen Curry.

[jalengreen]

I think Steph Curry's impact (on how basketball is played) is overrated honestly. The 3PT revolution was happening regardless

Not true. There is an entire generation of basketball players pulling up from the logo because of Stephen Curry.

(a) I do not think there is an entire generation of basketball players pulling up from the logo.

(b) Shots from the logo are not that common. Dame probably does it the most and it still doesn't take a huge part of his shot selection IMO. Even if Steph motivated these players (definitely not Dame but whatever) to do that, I do not think the impact is large even in that case.

The team that's chucked the most threes over Steph's prime is not even the Warriors - it's the Rockets. Yeah kids on the playground are emulating Curry but I don't really care about that. IMO guys like Morey & the analytics movement in general had the biggest impact on how NBA basketball has been played.

[Stalwart]

I think Steph Curry's impact (on how basketball is played) is overrated honestly. The 3PT revolution was happening regardless

Not true. There is an entire generation of basketball players pulling up from the logo because of Stephen Curry.

(a) I do not think there is an entire generation of basketball players pulling up from the logo.

(b) Shots from the logo are not that common. Dame probably does it the most and it still doesn't take a huge part of his shot selection IMO. Even if Steph motivated these players (definitely not Dame but whatever) to do that, I do not think the impact is large even in that case.

The team that's chucked the most threes over Steph's prime is not even the Warriors - it's the Rockets. Yeah kids on the playground are emulating Curry but I don't really care about that. IMO guys like Morey & the analytics movement in general had the biggest impact on how NBA basketball has been played.

And Steph Curry is the reason so many young players can shoot off the dribble from distance. Its silly to try and downplay Steph's impact on the game.

[jalengreen]

Not true. There is an entire generation of basketball players pulling up from the logo because of Stephen Curry.

(a) I do not think there is an entire generation of basketball players pulling up from the logo.

(b) Shots from the logo are not that common. Dame probably does it the most and it still doesn't take a huge part of his shot selection IMO. Even if Steph motivated these players (definitely not Dame but whatever) to do that, I do not think the impact is large even in that case.

The team that's chucked the most threes over Steph's prime is not even the Warriors - it's the Rockets. Yeah kids on the playground are emulating Curry but I don't really care about that. IMO guys like Morey & the analytics movement in general had the biggest impact on how NBA basketball has been played.

And Steph Curry is the reason so many young players can shoot off the dribble from distance. Its silly to try and downplay Steph's impact on the game.

I mean feel free to back up that claim lol. I just don't buy it. He's the poster boy of the revolution, sure. He didn't cause it.

[RoyceDa59]

I think Curry had a bigger impact on the game, and may leave behind a bigger legacy.

But there’s no doubt in my mind that Durant is the better player. I’d choose him 10/10 times over Curry to start a franchise.

[HeartBreakKid]

I have them right next to each other, with the benefit of the doubt going to Curry. But I do think the last year or so Durant played with Curry he seemed better.

[feyki]

I have Durant in almost my top 20 and Curry's somewhere between 35-45. Not a debate, to me.

[HeartBreakKid]

Let's see...

As a rookie, Durant was better than Curry. Not huge but not small either.

I know Steph Curry's rookie season is not something people think of (it's very underrated and he should have been ROY), but Durant was not even a positive player.

Durant was playing SG when he's a front court player and was terrible on defense. He was also significantly less efficient than Curry, and averaged way less assist - and generally speaking wasn't much of a team basketball player. He was just a tall guy doing cool looking moves in his rookie year. Durant also had no 3 point shot at the time, Curry was already the best 3 point shooter in the league.

Not that it matters in the long term, but other than being a much more hyped prospect, why do you feel KD was better than Curry as rookies? Was this just an oversight or misremembering?

[Stalwart]

I have Durant in almost my top 20 and Curry's somewhere between 35-45. Not a debate, to me.

Indefensiblr

[feyki]

:roll:

I have Durant in almost my top 20 and Curry's somewhere between 35-45. Not a debate, to me.

Indefensiblr

Pfff rllyyy

[DCasey91]

I think Steph Curry's impact (on how basketball is played) is overrated honestly. The 3PT revolution was happening regardless

There is some truth to that, I believe the SSOL squad was the modern progenitor but Curry’s GSW was the back breaker that changed the meta today for good.

Curry has the longer lasting impact on the game philosophy forever something that KD won’t be able to do. Dirk was before KD but there’s really no one like Curry. KD should get kudos though for the way long wings are playing today. But a player like TMAC was before KD.

It’s close either way depending on what you value most.

[DCasey91]

I think Curry had a bigger impact on the game, and may leave behind a bigger legacy.

But there’s no doubt in my mind that Durant is the better player. I’d choose him 10/10 times over Curry to start a franchise.

I used to be that way but KD is a GOAT level hired gun/mercenary.

As a hypothetical GM it’s something that you must take under consideration.

Whereas Curry has been on the one team.

KD has never really had to struggle for long. And has never gone to a weak team to put it lightly.

[No-more-rings]

Durant was 2nd in 2010 in MVP voting. Yeah, he wasn't that good that year, and he had bad playoffs against Artest, but it's still pretty valuable season to the career value considering his age that year, it's really hard not to consider 2nd best player of regular season as a superstar.

Being 2nd in mvp voting doesn’t neccesarily mean you’re the 2nd best regular season player. I’d argue Wade as clearly better for one, then some others like Dwight, Dirk, and Nash have reasonable cases. Not to nitpick, but he wasn’t the clear 2nd best and that was in a somewhat weak year for the top 10. Whether he was a superstar depends on one’s definition. I do agree it counts towards meaningful longevity without a doubt but definitely not a year that should move the needle in any way.

They're pretty much the same tier for now career-wise, Durant has a better longevity with Curry having a better peak. The more interesting question is whether one of them is able to surpass the other one in the latter part of both players' careers.

I’m surprised to find out that Curry is actually 6 months older, but his mileage is definitely lower and I trust Curry to age a bit better as the 2 head for post prime. KD has always liked playing like a guard, but i sort of wonder how that holds up given he was never a great ball handler.

a top 10 kind of year should definitely matter

look at kareem after like 1982, he won 3 rings and was a key contributor as a "mere" top 10 or below kind of player

Where did I say it shouldn't matter? I'm saying we can't be looking at this like a season or 2 like that should swing the comparison. Unless you think they're about equal for peak and prime, in which case goes against pretty much all impact data.

People like KD more because he's a 6'10 scoring machine, and can play good defense when he chooses to. Realistically Curry's a better offensive player, and while it's not a big gap it's pretty clear.

[feyki]

Being 2nd in mvp voting doesn’t neccesarily mean you’re the 2nd best regular season player. I’d argue Wade as clearly better for one, then some others like Dwight, Dirk, and Nash have reasonable cases. Not to nitpick, but he wasn’t the clear 2nd best and that was in a somewhat weak year for the top 10. Whether he was a superstar depends on one’s definition. I do agree it counts towards meaningful longevity without a doubt but definitely not a year that should move the needle in any way.


I’m surprised to find out that Curry is actually 6 months older, but his mileage is definitely lower and I trust Curry to age a bit better as the 2 head for post prime. KD has always liked playing like a guard, but i sort of wonder how that holds up given he was never a great ball handler.

a top 10 kind of year should definitely matter

look at kareem after like 1982, he won 3 rings and was a key contributor as a "mere" top 10 or below kind of player

Where did I say it shouldn't matter? I'm saying we can't be looking at this like a season or 2 like that should swing the comparison. Unless you think they're about equal for peak and prime, in which case goes against pretty much all impact data.

People like KD more because he's a 6'10 scoring machine, and can play good defense when he chooses to. Realistically Curry's a better offensive player, and while it's not a big gap it's pretty clear.

It's big gap, to me. Even could say huge, cause there are two tiers between the two offensive impact. Durant was/is on the OPOY level, offensively. But comparing that level to top 5 GOAT offensive impact level is one-sided. Durant has no case for being even close to Curry, offensively.