RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #21 (Charles Barkley)

[Odinn21]

Votes
1. Kevin Durant
2. Steph Curry
3. John Stockton

I'm taking KD here for the reasons I've told.

Superb peak, great scorer, can get his shot over anyone, good longevity, among the best left in accodales.

There is a reason why everyone felt it was cheating with him going to the Warriors - they were a very good team and because he's such an easy fit next to anyone it made em unbeatable.

Longevity over Steph, peak and prime over Stockton. KD has been a top 5 player in the league since 2012 at least with the exception of last year. That is a lot.

Why not Barkley though? He's peak and prime are hardly short of Curry. I mean I'd rate Barkley's peak and prime ahead of Curry and Durant due to his superior postseason resilience, but having Curry and Durant ahead of Stockton for better peak and prime and not having Barkley who was on the same level if not better looks inconsistent.

FWIW;
Durant was a top 5 player in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2018 (7 times). Top 3 in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2016 (4 times).
Curry was a top 5 player in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 (6 times). Top 3 in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (3 times).
Barkley was a top 5 player in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1995 (6 times). Top 3 in 1989, 1990 and 1993 (3 times).

I could argue that individual competition was harder for Barkley. He was 3rd in 1989 and 1990 after Jordan and Magic, and 3rd in 1993 after Jordan and Olajuwon. Would Durant or Curry have done better? Very doubtful.

It's obvious that you'd opt for extreme quality over extreme longevity. So, I'd like to see why you went Durant and Curry over Stockton but not Barkley.

[BigBoss23]

I'm curious as to when Anthony Davis/Kawhi Leonard may start getting traction as AD's prime in particular basically coincided with when Curry's prime began, and Kawhi is one of the few wings in the league that are on the level of Lebron or Durant.

I think Barkley and Durant are the obvious selections at this juncture but I'd argue they would have been justified for being voted in earlier, mainly because they're both offensive powerhouses that have incredible scalability (see 1992/1996/2012 olympic teams) and were arguably the best players on the 1992/2012 teams.

Wade seems to be underrated since Curry/Harden are beginning to gain traction, and of course we have Nash/CP3 for point guards.

[Joey Wheeler]

I'm curious as to when Anthony Davis/Kawhi Leonard may start getting traction as AD's prime in particular basically coincided with when Curry's prime began, and Kawhi is one of the few wings in the league that are on the level of Lebron or Durant.

I think Barkley and Durant are the obvious selections at this juncture but I'd argue they would have been justified for being voted in earlier, mainly because they're both offensive powerhouses that have incredible scalability (see 1992/1996/2012 olympic teams) and were arguably the best players on the 1992/2012 teams.

Wade seems to be underrated since Curry/Harden are beginning to gain traction, and of course we have Nash/CP3 for point guards.

AD's prime began at the same time as Curry and Harden's, and honestly I think he's just a flat out superior player to both, with much higher playoff resilience. If someone was arguing for him here, that'd be ok in my view. For me, however, if we're talking careers, AD needs to be more tested in the playoffs, only 3 playoff runs/34 games, we shouldn't really look at him in a career list before guys with more substantial careers are off the board.

That said, I expect that in the next 2-3 seasons AD will cement his body of work and confirm himself as one of the best players of all-time in the playoffs and by then I'll have him way ahead of Curry, Harden, Durant and in top 10 range...

Kawhi I think could be argued in the Curry/Harden range or even above, he lacks longevity somewhat, but has shown more playoff resilience. But again there's that feeling that Curry/Harden have just done more in the game, for me Kawhi needs one more significant playoff run to get in that range.

[Doctor MJ]

This is all true... in the regular season. Curry's game just isn't resilient against tough playoff defenses, he goes from game-breaking to just a star. For me, it's not even a debate, even in 2016 when Currymania was at its peak, I'd still take Durant that year. Then of course if you care about longevity at all this becomes a non-debate even if you think Curry is better, they're both the same age and Durant's career totals pretty much lap Curry's.

I think Curry vs Harden is a much better debate and honestly without winning bias Harden probably takes that one. As great a RS scorer as Curry is, Harden has surpassed him on that front and is commanding double when he passes half court.

Alright, that gives us a starting point. I'll note and put to the side the stuff about off-ball gravity, evidence of impact statistically, and considerations of locker room effects. And I'll warn you that despite putting that to the side, Imma ramble a bit here.

Okay so, Steph Curry in general is averaging 25+ PPG in the playoffs, so I think it's important to ask what statistically we should be looking at to just Curry as categorically different than Durant. Here's what came to mind to me:

30 point playoff games. Durant's 2017 finals had 5 straight 30 point games. That's the image that's got to be emblazoned in your memory forever. When the big battle came against the team that beat Curry before, Durant was unstoppable.

Alright, so, how many 30 point games do you think Durant & Curry had that year?

Durant had 9, Curry had 7. Doesn't really seem like a huge difference, does it?

I ask this because there's no particular reason to think of the Cavaliers as the ultimate defensive test here, and it certainly doesn't make sense to act like Curry's situation in 2016 was anything remotely analogous to Durant's situation in 2017 given that Durant got to have Curry as his teammate sucking opponents away.

Regardless, here's a bit more data along these lines.

Durant's biggest year by this measure came in 2014 when he had 11 30 point games. His 9 in 2017 was tied with 2012 for his 2nd best ever.

Curry's biggest year by this measure came in 2019 when he had 10 30 point games. He had 9 in 2015, and his 7 in 2017 is his 3rd best showing.

I'm not trying to deny Durant has the edge here, and you can add in that Curry had more games in 2015 or 2016 than Durant did in 2014, but when you look at those numbers, do you really see a categorical difference?

For perspective, Jordan had 8 of these games in the 1991 playoffs. Now he also had 16 the next year so it's not that there isn't evidence of Jordan having a ton of these games, but I think the variance further hammers home the point. There's not a huge difference in the number of big scoring games Durant & Curry have had in the playoffs.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Durant. I'm just really looking to point out that the idea that Durant can just score 30 points every game at will is wrong. He did that in the 2017 Finals against Cleveland. He's never done it in any other series. It came at the perfect time, against an opponent that was literally built to try to stop Durant's teammate, and said teammate was on the floor with him.

Last thing I'll note:

It is of course interesting that Curry's best year came in 2019 where Durant and Thompson got injured, and Curry responded by 8 30 point games out of the next 11.

I've said before and I'll say again that I think players tend to hit their value-peak before their bulletproof-peak. I think with Curry the value-peak came in 2016 but the bulletproof-peak was basically on hold as long as Durant was there. If Curry's healthy I expect more of this.

And of course, I do understand a perspective of "And when I see that, I'll bump Curry up", but I suppose what I'm really getting here is that I don't think there's really much basis for assuming Curry won't improve his bulletproof armor over time like basically any other savvy scorer, and I think our perspective on him and Durant got skewed by an unusual set of circumstances that doesn't really reflect a clear difference between them as players like people tend to think it does.

That's a strange route to go, points per game. Surely I didn't claim Curry can't score 30 in playoff games. That said, if you want to go ppg, his best season is still below Durant's career average, Durant is clearly a more consistent volume scorer in the playoff. He's just clearly superior as a scorer and this holds up on the biggest stage, the 3 most efficient high scoring Finals series in history are Durant's 3 appearances.

But even if you think, Curry is a better player (which I couldn't disagree with more):

Points:

RS:

Durant - 22940
Curry - 16419

PS:

Durant - 4043
Curry - 2968

Other stats tell the same stories. All-NBA teams if you care about that, Durant has 9 (6 first team), Curry has 5 (3 first team).

Durant has a very clear longevity advantage, also more accolades with his scoring titles and 2 FMVPs. You'd have to either completely ignore longevity or think Curry is better by a really large margin (which strikes me as a very out there position to hold) to have Curry ahead.

Hold up here, just so we're clear:

I'm focusing on points per game in the playoffs because you said "This is all true... in the regular season. Curry's game just isn't resilient against tough playoff defenses, he goes from game-breaking to just a star."

You were obviously talking about his ability to volume score, and essentially asserting that despite the fact that all of my reasons for picking Curry were all true for the regular season, you saw something in the playoffs that overwhelmed all of that.

And so what I pointed out is that the gap between these players in terms of demonstrated playoff scoring volume is a lot smaller than people think and drastically inflated by perceptions of the 2017 finals (along with the 2016 finals) in particular.

I asked you for clarification on why you picked Durant, you gave it to me, I responded by pointing out that you probably overrated that aspect of things, and now you're making a slew of arguments that don't pertain to either the arguments I've made or the previous focus you gave.

Can we talk about why Curry is even ahead of Harden btw? Same draft, Harden is clearly ahead by most cumulative numbers and has had clearly more MVP-level seasons. No titles, but let's be real the reason the Warriors beat the Rockets was not Curry being superior to Harden, if they switched teams the results would most likely remain the same.

If you'd like to know my reasons for Curry over Harden, you could just look at my original reasons for Curry over Durant.

But look for me, I feel like it's pretty simple:

1. I've always known that if someone were good enough at shooting, a guy who is otherwise less talented all-around could in theory rise up above everyone else.

2. With Curry we very clearly have a guy who is that kind of next-level shooter.

3. He's taking to new levels the dark art of off-ball movement now known as "gravity". It's a bigger deal than many still realize.

4. When we look at the +/-, Curry's pretty clearly had the edge all through his prime.

5. Intangibles matter, and Durant's taken a significant hit in my eyes as a result of his behavior since the last Top 100. I also continue to hold Curry exceptionally highly in all of these leadership-related domains.

I do see Durant as fairly easily above Harden so there's more about Harden's issues relative to Curry I could go into, but seeing as how no one is actually arguing for Harden and I don't expect Harden to gain any traction for a good while, I'll leave it at that.

[70sFan]

I think that in light of modern stars like AD, Harden and Kawhi people often forget about superstars from earlier eras like Walt Frazier, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Paul Arizin and John Havlicek.

By the way, I think than Hondo should get more recognition at this point. I wouldn't have him nearly this high but I think he should be already in discussion. I mean, what makes him worse candidate than Stockton? His longevity is absurd (especially relative to era) with 11 all-nba selections and 13 all-star selections. He has 7 top 10 seasons by POTY including 2 top 5 seasons.

Sure, Hondo wasn't MVP-level player but neither was Stockton and I do think that Havlicek was overall a bit better player at their peaks. John's game is underrated by boxscore composites, his game is all about movement, passing and defense.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm curious as to when Anthony Davis/Kawhi Leonard may start getting traction as AD's prime in particular basically coincided with when Curry's prime began, and Kawhi is one of the few wings in the league that are on the level of Lebron or Durant.

I think Barkley and Durant are the obvious selections at this juncture but I'd argue they would have been justified for being voted in earlier, mainly because they're both offensive powerhouses that have incredible scalability (see 1992/1996/2012 olympic teams) and were arguably the best players on the 1992/2012 teams.

Wade seems to be underrated since Curry/Harden are beginning to gain traction, and of course we have Nash/CP3 for point guards.

So for the record, I expect that my next vote for a current player after the Paul/Durant/Curry group will not happen for quite a while, and it will likely be Kawhi, then Harden, then AD, then Giannis.

Is Harden getting traction? People are talking about Curry/Harden because it's been mentioned, but has anyone voted for Harden? I'll look after I post, but I'll say I think it's way too early for him.

[Doctor MJ]

I think that in light of modern stars like AD, Harden and Kawhi people often forget about superstars from earlier eras like Walt Frazier, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Paul Arizin and John Havlicek.

By the way, I think than Hondo should get more recognition at this point. I wouldn't have him nearly this high but I think he should be already in discussion. I mean, what makes him worse candidate than Stockton? His longevity is absurd (especially relative to era) with 11 all-nba selections and 13 all-star selections. He has 7 top 10 seasons by POTY including 2 top 5 seasons.

Sure, Hondo wasn't MVP-level player but neither was Stockton and I do think that Havlicek was overall a bit better player at their peaks. John's game is underrated by boxscore composites, his game is all about movement, passing and defense.

For the record I think Frazier, Barry, and Havlicek are all clearly ahead of AD, Harden & Kawhi.

[Dutchball97]

I think that in light of modern stars like AD, Harden and Kawhi people often forget about superstars from earlier eras like Walt Frazier, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Paul Arizin and John Havlicek.

By the way, I think than Hondo should get more recognition at this point. I wouldn't have him nearly this high but I think he should be already in discussion. I mean, what makes him worse candidate than Stockton? His longevity is absurd (especially relative to era) with 11 all-nba selections and 13 all-star selections. He has 7 top 10 seasons by POTY including 2 top 5 seasons.

Sure, Hondo wasn't MVP-level player but neither was Stockton and I do think that Havlicek was overall a bit better player at their peaks. John's game is underrated by boxscore composites, his game is all about movement, passing and defense.

I think the discussion about AD, Harden and Kawhi is a feeling out thing for when they should enter the discussion. At least that was my intention when I brought up Kawhi. People seem to be pretty set on who the candidates for the next few spots are but after that I don't see how AD, Harden and Kawhi shouldn't be in the discussion. In the same vein Frazier, Baylor, Barry, Havlicek and a whole lot of others will probably similarly be discussed soon but the difference is that people are more set on their rankings of older stars than newer stars. I think most people have Hondo around a general 25-35 range but the consensus is less clear for newer stars who have incomplete careers and who have added major value in the last three years.

[The-Power]

Upfront: this post once again will focus on boxscore metrics/scoring but I want to emphasize again that a thorough evaluation of those two players would have to look at a lot of other aspects to really be valuable and comprehensive.

2.1 points per 100 possessions is not such a small difference + yes Durant started his playoff career much earlier, which is tied into his longevity advantage of course. If we compare the 3 years they played together, this advantage is clear as well. Of course Curry himself is an all-time scorer so the gap isn't going to be colossal, but Durant is ahead.

You focus on the 2.1 points but disregard efficiency. I don't think it'd be defensible to argue that Curry couldn't have scored 2.1 per 100 more especially when he could lose 1.2% in overall efficiency in the process (I haven't calculated it, but the additional points might not even have to be scored at league average efficiency).

Curry has been the better regular season scorer than Durant overall in their combined years, but Durant scores better in the postseason on average. That's true. Yet it bears mentioning that Durant has improved dramatically from his OKC days, whereas Curry has been a lot more consistent if we compare performances pre-KD to performances with him on the team. Curry's not the only reason as many things changed for KD, but it should give us some pause to think about who benefitted more from the team-up and why. This also leads me to your next point:

Plus, Durant is super efficient on shots that teams can't really take away, the value of making tough contested shots increases the deeper you go into the playoffs; Curry's primary mode of scoring is open 3s, which become harder and harder to come by as you progress into the playoffs.

See, I'm not sure that's actually what the numbers tell us. Just look at Durant's three playoff runs with OKC prior to joining GS.

2013: 57.4% TS (36.1 PP100) (11 Games)
2014: 57.0% TS (35.9 PP100) (19 Games)
2016: 54.2% TS (35.5 PP100) (18 Games)

That's not the numbers of a player who is ‘super efficient on shots that teams can't really take away’. How do you explain three extended postseason runs in a row where Durant really struggled with efficiency, not least in comparison to the respective regular seasons, if he can't really be bothered in the postseason? Because I can't, and the only conclusion I can draw from that is that Durant cannot just give you 60+% TS in the PS no matter what.

Now compare that to Curry's three playoff runs prior to KD arriving.

2014: 59.9% TS (27.0 PP100) (7 Games)
2015: 60.7% TS (36.9 PP100) (21 Games)
2016: 60.3% TS (36.4 PP100) (18 Games)

So with the exception of the single-series in 2014 where Curry was trailing far behind in terms of scoring volume, the two postseason runs prior to KD were ahead of every one of Durant's three prior postseasons runs both in terms of efficiency AND volume. That's pretty striking to me and something to be considered when comparing Curry and KD as scorers (especially when one's opinion is that Durant has a much easier time scoring in volume and high efficiency compared to Curry in the postseason).

That said, the reason why this comparison should be a non-starter is the gap in longevity; you'd have to think Curry is better by a large margin to have him ahead and I don't see that as remotely arguable. They were closeish whatever way you look at it from 2016 to 2019; before that it was Durant by a large margin overall. If we're going to ignore longevity, we might as well bring up Anthony Davis, who's just had a more dominant playoff run than either Durant or Curry are capable of considering two-way dominance, or Kawhi Leonard, who's shown a higher level in the playoffs than Curry as well.

I think ‘non-starter’ is too harsh here depending on one's criteria and evaluation. I definitely believe that you can make a good argument that 2015-19 Curry is quite clearly ahead of 2014/2016-19 Durant. Curry's influence in building a legitimate dynasty; Durant's postseason ‘struggles’ prior to joining the Warriors; Curry still clearly being the system even with the KD on the Warriors – I personally believe that weighs more heavily than comparative scoring performances in the playoffs during the three years they played together where KD has Curry beat.

That being said, I can certainly understand that people who value longevity highly are very comfortable with ranking Durant ahead of Curry. That's completely understandable. I just wanted to emphasize that I see the narrative that Curry struggles in the postseason to a worrying degree – and clearly more so than Durant – as something that is just that, a narrative, and not really something that holds up under scrutiny. If you rank Durant clearly ahead of Curry for what he did between 2008 to 2013* compared to Curry between 2009 and 2014* then I think that's completely fine.

*Curry's superstar-years are 2015 to 2019 and would, in this instance, be compared to Durant's 2014 plus 2016 to 2019 seasons to have an equal number of superstar-years; hence the different cut-off.

[Joey Wheeler]

Alright, that gives us a starting point. I'll note and put to the side the stuff about off-ball gravity, evidence of impact statistically, and considerations of locker room effects. And I'll warn you that despite putting that to the side, Imma ramble a bit here.

Okay so, Steph Curry in general is averaging 25+ PPG in the playoffs, so I think it's important to ask what statistically we should be looking at to just Curry as categorically different than Durant. Here's what came to mind to me:

30 point playoff games. Durant's 2017 finals had 5 straight 30 point games. That's the image that's got to be emblazoned in your memory forever. When the big battle came against the team that beat Curry before, Durant was unstoppable.

Alright, so, how many 30 point games do you think Durant & Curry had that year?

Durant had 9, Curry had 7. Doesn't really seem like a huge difference, does it?

I ask this because there's no particular reason to think of the Cavaliers as the ultimate defensive test here, and it certainly doesn't make sense to act like Curry's situation in 2016 was anything remotely analogous to Durant's situation in 2017 given that Durant got to have Curry as his teammate sucking opponents away.

Regardless, here's a bit more data along these lines.

Durant's biggest year by this measure came in 2014 when he had 11 30 point games. His 9 in 2017 was tied with 2012 for his 2nd best ever.

Curry's biggest year by this measure came in 2019 when he had 10 30 point games. He had 9 in 2015, and his 7 in 2017 is his 3rd best showing.

I'm not trying to deny Durant has the edge here, and you can add in that Curry had more games in 2015 or 2016 than Durant did in 2014, but when you look at those numbers, do you really see a categorical difference?

For perspective, Jordan had 8 of these games in the 1991 playoffs. Now he also had 16 the next year so it's not that there isn't evidence of Jordan having a ton of these games, but I think the variance further hammers home the point. There's not a huge difference in the number of big scoring games Durant & Curry have had in the playoffs.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Durant. I'm just really looking to point out that the idea that Durant can just score 30 points every game at will is wrong. He did that in the 2017 Finals against Cleveland. He's never done it in any other series. It came at the perfect time, against an opponent that was literally built to try to stop Durant's teammate, and said teammate was on the floor with him.

Last thing I'll note:

It is of course interesting that Curry's best year came in 2019 where Durant and Thompson got injured, and Curry responded by 8 30 point games out of the next 11.

I've said before and I'll say again that I think players tend to hit their value-peak before their bulletproof-peak. I think with Curry the value-peak came in 2016 but the bulletproof-peak was basically on hold as long as Durant was there. If Curry's healthy I expect more of this.

And of course, I do understand a perspective of "And when I see that, I'll bump Curry up", but I suppose what I'm really getting here is that I don't think there's really much basis for assuming Curry won't improve his bulletproof armor over time like basically any other savvy scorer, and I think our perspective on him and Durant got skewed by an unusual set of circumstances that doesn't really reflect a clear difference between them as players like people tend to think it does.

That's a strange route to go, points per game. Surely I didn't claim Curry can't score 30 in playoff games. That said, if you want to go ppg, his best season is still below Durant's career average, Durant is clearly a more consistent volume scorer in the playoff. He's just clearly superior as a scorer and this holds up on the biggest stage, the 3 most efficient high scoring Finals series in history are Durant's 3 appearances.

But even if you think, Curry is a better player (which I couldn't disagree with more):

Points:

RS:

Durant - 22940
Curry - 16419

PS:

Durant - 4043
Curry - 2968

Other stats tell the same stories. All-NBA teams if you care about that, Durant has 9 (6 first team), Curry has 5 (3 first team).

Durant has a very clear longevity advantage, also more accolades with his scoring titles and 2 FMVPs. You'd have to either completely ignore longevity or think Curry is better by a really large margin (which strikes me as a very out there position to hold) to have Curry ahead.

Hold up here, just so we're clear:

I'm focusing on points per game in the playoffs because you said "This is all true... in the regular season. Curry's game just isn't resilient against tough playoff defenses, he goes from game-breaking to just a star."

You were obviously talking about his ability to volume score, and essentially asserting that despite the fact that all of my reasons for picking Curry were all true for the regular season, you saw something in the playoffs that overwhelmed all of that.

And so what I pointed out is that the gap between these players in terms of demonstrated playoff scoring volume is a lot smaller than people think and drastically inflated by perceptions of the 2017 finals (along with the 2016 finals) in particular.

I asked you for clarification on why you picked Durant, you gave it to me, I responded by pointing out that you probably overrated that aspect of things, and now you're making a slew of arguments that don't pertain to either the arguments I've made or the previous focus you gave.

Can we talk about why Curry is even ahead of Harden btw? Same draft, Harden is clearly ahead by most cumulative numbers and has had clearly more MVP-level seasons. No titles, but let's be real the reason the Warriors beat the Rockets was not Curry being superior to Harden, if they switched teams the results would most likely remain the same.

If you'd like to know my reasons for Curry over Harden, you could just look at my original reasons for Curry over Durant.

But look for me, I feel like it's pretty simple:

1. I've always known that if someone were good enough at shooting, a guy who is otherwise less talented all-around could in theory rise up above everyone else.

2. With Curry we very clearly have a guy who is that kind of next-level shooter.

3. He's taking to new levels the dark art of off-ball movement now known as "gravity". It's a bigger deal than many still realize.

4. When we look at the +/-, Curry's pretty clearly had the edge all through his prime.

5. Intangibles matter, and Durant's taken a significant hit in my eyes as a result of his behavior since the last Top 100. I also continue to hold Curry exceptionally highly in all of these leadership-related domains.

I do see Durant as fairly easily above Harden so there's more about Harden's issues relative to Curry I could go into, but seeing as how no one is actually arguing for Harden and I don't expect Harden to gain any traction for a good while, I'll leave it at that.

Not really. His ability to volume scorer goes down and is soundly below Durant's, but there's more. On offense, the gravitational effect of his shooting also goes down when defenses can key in on him, the Warriors playoff offenses in the non-Durant years were nothing special. They were actually worse than Durant's with OKC in general. Curry is also far more exploitable on defense due to his lack of size/physicality, while Durant can be a positive contributor on that end.

Your arguments for Curry over Durant seem based on hypotheticals of what a game-breaking shooter could do. Yes, a guy with game-breaking shooting ability could theoretically rise above everyone else. But in the playoffs, especially in the biggest/toughest series, Curry did not rise above everyone else. I don't see how this can be ignored.

Aside from ignoring Curry's playoff struggles, you also seem to be ignoring his relatively poor longevity. To argue for Curry here, I think you have to put a huge premium on RS peak.

That said, although I believe Durant is the superior player, I agree with you on intangibles, Curry seems to bring more off-court in ways that actively help you win a title, but it's hard to really quantify that.

I think Curry's superiority over Harden needs to be established and not just assumed. Yes, Curry is getting traction already and Harden likely won't for a while. But looking at the numbers and what they did since they both started their prime more or less at the same time, you really have to ask why that is the case...

[colts18]

4 of these players have been mentioned in this thread. Notice who is #5 but never gets credit for being a good offensive player.

Read on Twitter

[trex_8063]

I think that in light of modern stars like AD, Harden and Kawhi people often forget about superstars from earlier eras like Walt Frazier, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Paul Arizin and John Havlicek.

By the way, I think than Hondo should get more recognition at this point. I wouldn't have him nearly this high but I think he should be already in discussion. I mean, what makes him worse candidate than Stockton? His longevity is absurd (especially relative to era) with 11 all-nba selections and 13 all-star selections. He has 7 top 10 seasons by POTY including 2 top 5 seasons.

Sure, Hondo wasn't MVP-level player but neither was Stockton and I do think that Havlicek was overall a bit better player at their peaks. John's game is underrated by boxscore composites, his game is all about movement, passing and defense.

I don't think Harden is near as far off from serious consideration as Doc seems to believe. I must admit, I'm likely to favour Harden over all the old stars mentioned with the probable exception of Havlicek (maybe Baylor, too).

AD and Kawhi are another matter though. Again: I'm a total career value guy. Kawhi's got just 9 seasons [8, really], and AD's got just 8. I would say Paul Arizin is the ONLY old player of those you mentioned above who I'll have behind Kawhi/AD.
btw---you forgot to mention Dolph Schayes: he'll be ahead of AD for me, and possibly/probably still ahead of Kawhi as well. He's behind Harden for me, though.

Regarding Stockton vs Havlicek, I probably disagree on who peaked higher; I may go with Stockton by a hair, even if his "league rank" wasn't [probably] quite as high as Hondo's.....but he played in a tougher league than Hondo. Pinch of a longevity edge too.

[Cavsfansince84]

That seems like a really high bar for relevancy (and arguably Curry even met it in '13, finishing 4th in our RPOY voting that season). A simple average of MVP/RPOY shares as a proxy, for guys I've seen with some support in the last few threads.

Pettit 3.57
Durant 3.08
Harden 2.87
Curry 2.58
Barkley 2.23
CP3 2.11
Baylor 1.92
Nash 1.87
Wade 1.70
Stockton 0.14

Is relevancy and all time level season really the same thing? I mean, that's two completely different things. All time means literally standing out among all nba seasons ever played or else why even make the distinction? Relevancy is more just whatever you want it to mean.

[Joey Wheeler]

Upfront: this post once again will focus on boxscore metrics/scoring but I want to emphasize again that a thorough evaluation of those two players would have to look at a lot of other aspects to really be valuable and comprehensive.

2.1 points per 100 possessions is not such a small difference + yes Durant started his playoff career much earlier, which is tied into his longevity advantage of course. If we compare the 3 years they played together, this advantage is clear as well. Of course Curry himself is an all-time scorer so the gap isn't going to be colossal, but Durant is ahead.

You focus on the 2.1 points but disregard efficiency. I don't think it'd be defensible to argue that Curry couldn't have scored 2.1 per 100 more especially when he could lose 1.2% in overall efficiency in the process (I haven't calculated it, but the additional points might not even have to be scored at league average efficiency).

Curry has been the better regular season scorer than Durant overall in their combined years, but Durant scores better in the postseason on average. That's true. Yet it bears mentioning that Durant has improved dramatically from his OKC days, whereas Curry has been a lot more consistent if we compare performances pre-KD to performances with him on the team. Curry's not the only reason as many things changed for KD, but it should give us some pause to think about who benefitted more from the team-up and why. This also leads me to your next point:

Plus, Durant is super efficient on shots that teams can't really take away, the value of making tough contested shots increases the deeper you go into the playoffs; Curry's primary mode of scoring is open 3s, which become harder and harder to come by as you progress into the playoffs.

See, I'm not sure that's actually what the numbers tell us. Just look at Durant's three playoff runs with OKC prior to joining GS.

2013: 57.4% TS (36.1 PP100) (11 Games)
2014: 57.0% TS (35.9 PP100) (19 Games)
2016: 54.2% TS (35.5 PP100) (18 Games)

That's not the numbers of a player who is ‘super efficient on shots that teams can't really take away’. How do you explain three extended postseason runs in a row where Durant really struggled with efficiency, not least in comparison to the respective regular seasons, if he can't really be bothered in the postseason? Because I can't, and the only conclusion I can draw from that is that Durant cannot just give you 60+% TS in the PS no matter what.

Now compare that to Curry's three playoff runs prior to KD arriving.

2014: 59.9% TS (27.0 PP100) (7 Games)
2015: 60.7% TS (36.9 PP100) (21 Games)
2016: 60.3% TS (36.4 PP100) (18 Games)

So with the exception of the single-series in 2014 where Curry was trailing far behind in terms of scoring volume, the two postseason runs prior to KD were ahead of every one of Durant's three prior postseasons runs both in terms of efficiency AND volume. That's pretty striking to me and something to be considered when comparing Curry and KD as scorers (especially when one's opinion is that Durant has a much easier time scoring in volume and high efficiency compared to Curry in the postseason).

That said, the reason why this comparison should be a non-starter is the gap in longevity; you'd have to think Curry is better by a large margin to have him ahead and I don't see that as remotely arguable. They were closeish whatever way you look at it from 2016 to 2019; before that it was Durant by a large margin overall. If we're going to ignore longevity, we might as well bring up Anthony Davis, who's just had a more dominant playoff run than either Durant or Curry are capable of considering two-way dominance, or Kawhi Leonard, who's shown a higher level in the playoffs than Curry as well.

I think ‘non-starter’ is too harsh here depending on one's criteria and evaluation. I definitely believe that you can make a good argument that 2015-19 Curry is quite clearly ahead of 2014/2016-19 Durant. Curry's influence in building a legitimate dynasty; Durant's postseason ‘struggles’ prior to joining the Warriors; Curry still clearly being the system even with the KD on the Warriors – I personally believe that weighs more heavily than comparative scoring performances in the playoffs during the three years they played together where KD has Curry beat.

That being said, I can certainly understand that people who value longevity highly are very comfortable with ranking Durant ahead of Curry. That's completely understandable. I just wanted to emphasize that I see the narrative that Curry struggles in the postseason to a worrying degree – and clearly more so than Durant – as something that is just that, a narrative, and not really something that holds up under scrutiny. If you rank Durant clearly ahead of Curry for what he did between 2008 to 2013* compared to Curry between 2009 and 2014* then I think that's completely fine.

*Curry's superstar-years are 2015 to 2019 and would, in this instance, be compared to Durant's 2014 plus 2016 to 2019 seasons to have an equal number of superstar-years; hence the different cut-off.

I think when we're talking about efficiency we have to take into account Durant takes a lot of contested midrange shots, which is a shot profile not very conductive to efficiency, but being able to make them is very valuable in tough playoff series. If you take TS at face value, Curry's playoff TS is higher by 1,2%, how relevant this difference is is up for discussion but it doesn't factor in Durant's ability to create and score tough contested shots. Curry's game is based primarily on his great 3-point shooting, which is great for efficiency but deep in the playoffs sometimes it's hard to generate those shots, look no further than how the Warriors offense completely stagnated down the stretch against the Cavs in 2016... they could sure have used a guy like Durant scoring at 57% TS primarily from midrange.

And of course Durant's efficiency improved in GS with better spacing and not having to carry the same load. OKC had a lot of talent, but they had poor spacing, Durant was their only elite shooter. Westbrook, great player, can't shoot; Robertson was a non-presence offensively... of course Durant got more efficient in a better offensive team with much better spacing; Curry's playoff efficiency and performances also improved massively with Durant around of course. I'm sure we can at least agree Durant is clearly better as an isolation scorer/scoring when the team offense breaks down.

Also, I'm not saying per 100 numbers are useless, but when there's a significant difference in minutes played that has to be factored in.

Also something that rarely gets mentioned is that the Warriors had relative struggles offensively in the playoffs before Durant arrived, their 2015 and 2016 playoff runs were mostly predicated on defense and Curry certainly wasn't making a relevant impact there. OKC with Durant were a better offensive team in the playoffs than the pre-KD Warriors, though of course Westbrook gets a big part of the credit for that too. In 2016 especially you can make a great argument Draymond was the best Warrior; in fact the only thing that casts doubt over that is the OKC series, where Durant pretty much erased him (showing in that series an ability to make a defensive impact in a playoff setting that Curry isn't capable of btw).

[eminence]

That seems like a really high bar for relevancy (and arguably Curry even met it in '13, finishing 4th in our RPOY voting that season). A simple average of MVP/RPOY shares as a proxy, for guys I've seen with some support in the last few threads.

Pettit 3.57
Durant 3.08
Harden 2.87
Curry 2.58
Barkley 2.23
CP3 2.11
Baylor 1.92
Nash 1.87
Wade 1.70
Stockton 0.14

Is relevancy and all time level season really the same thing? I mean, that's two completely different things. All time means literally standing out among all nba seasons ever played or else why even make the distinction? Relevancy is more just whatever you want it to mean.

That's fair, and for me the answer is no, I would consider relevant seasons at this level to start around low level all-star seasons.

But I posted that for two reasons:
1) To show that some people (at the time) at least, would disagree with your assessment of Curry in '13
2) It's an odd criticism of him, nobody remaining has notably (I'm sure someone could argue someone has 1-2 more and others would argue the other way) more all-time level seasons than Curry

[Cavsfansince84]

That's fair, and for me the answer is no, I would consider relevant seasons at this level to start around low level all-star seasons.

But I posted that for two reasons:
1) To show that some people (at the time) at least, would disagree with your assessment of Curry in '13
2) It's an odd criticism of him, nobody remaining has notably (I'm sure someone could argue someone has 1-2 more and others would argue the other way) more all-time level seasons than Curry

I think that depends entirely on what criteria you would use to define that and no I don't think agree with that statement but again that would require a whole discussion to figure out. I do not think Curry's average prime season had much more impact than someone like Barkley to the extent that his 7 year prime could overshadow his 11 year prime and I would say that on average Barkley was more of a force in the playoffs.

[eminence]

That's fair, and for me the answer is no, I would consider relevant seasons at this level to start around low level all-star seasons.

But I posted that for two reasons:
1) To show that some people (at the time) at least, would disagree with your assessment of Curry in '13
2) It's an odd criticism of him, nobody remaining has notably (I'm sure someone could argue someone has 1-2 more and others would argue the other way) more all-time level seasons than Curry

I think that depends entirely on what criteria you would use to define that and no I don't think agree with that statement but again that would require a whole discussion to figure out. I do not think Curry's average prime season had much more impact than someone like Barkley to the extent that his 7 year prime could overshadow his 11 year prime and I would say that on average Barkley was more of a force in the playoffs.

Are you arguing for Barkley having 8+ top 3 level seasons (roughly) here or am I misreading this? Cause that strikes me as being very very high on Barkley (he finished top 3 in MVP voting twice, RPOY 3 times). If you're that high on Barkley you should present the case, cause I don't think I've seen anyone argue him as that level.

[Cavsfansince84]

Are you arguing for Barkley having 8+ top 3 level seasons (roughly) here or am I misreading this? Cause that strikes me as being very very high on Barkley (he finished top 3 in MVP voting twice, RPOY 3 times). If you're that high on Barkley you should present the case, cause I don't think I've seen anyone argue him as that level.

?? Curry has only been top 6 in mvp voting 5 times so why should the bar for Barkley be top 3 in mvp voting? Barkley was top 6 8 times. Look I know some people are very high on Curry and will argue this stuff till the day they die but imo its a bit irrational in how its applied. I have no dog in any of this. Just 30+ years of watching bb and also being a fan of statistics. Prime and in a sense career value(not counting so much seasons where a guy is just having little impact) along with ps play is what matters to me. I don't see much of any case for Steph over Charles in that regard.

[Doctor MJ]

That's a strange route to go, points per game. Surely I didn't claim Curry can't score 30 in playoff games. That said, if you want to go ppg, his best season is still below Durant's career average, Durant is clearly a more consistent volume scorer in the playoff. He's just clearly superior as a scorer and this holds up on the biggest stage, the 3 most efficient high scoring Finals series in history are Durant's 3 appearances.

But even if you think, Curry is a better player (which I couldn't disagree with more):

Points:

RS:

Durant - 22940
Curry - 16419

PS:

Durant - 4043
Curry - 2968

Other stats tell the same stories. All-NBA teams if you care about that, Durant has 9 (6 first team), Curry has 5 (3 first team).

Durant has a very clear longevity advantage, also more accolades with his scoring titles and 2 FMVPs. You'd have to either completely ignore longevity or think Curry is better by a really large margin (which strikes me as a very out there position to hold) to have Curry ahead.

Hold up here, just so we're clear:

I'm focusing on points per game in the playoffs because you said "This is all true... in the regular season. Curry's game just isn't resilient against tough playoff defenses, he goes from game-breaking to just a star."

You were obviously talking about his ability to volume score, and essentially asserting that despite the fact that all of my reasons for picking Curry were all true for the regular season, you saw something in the playoffs that overwhelmed all of that.

And so what I pointed out is that the gap between these players in terms of demonstrated playoff scoring volume is a lot smaller than people think and drastically inflated by perceptions of the 2017 finals (along with the 2016 finals) in particular.

I asked you for clarification on why you picked Durant, you gave it to me, I responded by pointing out that you probably overrated that aspect of things, and now you're making a slew of arguments that don't pertain to either the arguments I've made or the previous focus you gave.

Can we talk about why Curry is even ahead of Harden btw? Same draft, Harden is clearly ahead by most cumulative numbers and has had clearly more MVP-level seasons. No titles, but let's be real the reason the Warriors beat the Rockets was not Curry being superior to Harden, if they switched teams the results would most likely remain the same.

If you'd like to know my reasons for Curry over Harden, you could just look at my original reasons for Curry over Durant.

But look for me, I feel like it's pretty simple:

1. I've always known that if someone were good enough at shooting, a guy who is otherwise less talented all-around could in theory rise up above everyone else.

2. With Curry we very clearly have a guy who is that kind of next-level shooter.

3. He's taking to new levels the dark art of off-ball movement now known as "gravity". It's a bigger deal than many still realize.

4. When we look at the +/-, Curry's pretty clearly had the edge all through his prime.

5. Intangibles matter, and Durant's taken a significant hit in my eyes as a result of his behavior since the last Top 100. I also continue to hold Curry exceptionally highly in all of these leadership-related domains.

I do see Durant as fairly easily above Harden so there's more about Harden's issues relative to Curry I could go into, but seeing as how no one is actually arguing for Harden and I don't expect Harden to gain any traction for a good while, I'll leave it at that.

Not really. His ability to volume scorer goes down and is soundly below Durant's

Okay, so I think we're approaching an impasse. You're basically throwing out a bunch of stuff do to "Durant scores better in the playoffs" and when I point out how small the difference is between them by your chosen metric, you're not coming back with anything that indicates you're chewing on this. You just keep coming back with versions of "But Durant still has an edge in that one area, so end of argument there". I'm working on the assumption that you understand that there's more to the game than this one facet, and merely having a small edge here does not render the rest of basketball moot.

, but there's more. On offense, the gravitational effect of his shooting also goes down when defenses can key in on him, the Warriors playoff offenses in the non-Durant years were nothing special. They were actually worse than Durant's with OKC in general.

Okay so first: It really feels like you're trying to not credit Curry at all for the gravitational effect his shooting had which enabled Durant's 2017 finals performance that you see as basically proof that Durant was better than Curry. Just remember: You don't get a performance like that from Durant without Curry.

Re: Actually worse than Durant's in OKC. Hmm, let's look at it year by year, which player had the higher on-court playoff ORtg:

'12-13: Curry
'13-14: Curry
'14-15: Curry by default, Durant wasn't in the playoffs.
'15-16: Durant

So in terms of years you can hope to compare them by a metric like this, Curry had the edge in each year except for '15-16 when Curry's team beat Durant's team and Durant decided to abandon ship to join Curry's afterward.

Curry is also far more exploitable on defense due to his lack of size/physicality, while Durant can be a positive contributor on that end.

I keep trying to address the single point you said was the main point and you keep on throwing in whatever other argument comes to your mind.

If you decide to give Durant the nod based on defense, I get that. I'd point out - as I've already done - that overall impact metrics give Curry the nod, but I do understand your perspective there.

But you said your main focus was on Durant's volume scoring edge in the playoffs, so that's what I'm trying to concentrate on trying to make you see that that your perception of that gap is likely overblown compared to reality.

Your arguments for Curry over Durant seem based on hypotheticals of what a game-breaking shooter could do. Yes, a guy with game-breaking shooting ability could theoretically rise above everyone else. But in the playoffs, especially in the biggest/toughest series, Curry did not rise above everyone else. I don't see how this can be ignored.

That was literally just the first of 6 statements I made and it was about the nature of basketball not Curry. The rest of the points that followed are the ones that pertain specifically to what we've seen from Curry, which includes his gravitational impact.

Re: Curry did not rise above everyone else. By raw volume scoring numbers he's barely behind Durant, and Curry's gravitational impact is an additional boost that goes beyond that.

I'll put it to you this way, compare these two scenarios:

It's the summer of 2016 and rather than Durant going to GS, GS clones Curry and and OKC clones Durant. Which team improves more offensively?

I'm arguing GS. I'm arguing that the reason why Curry + Durant was so effective had everything to do with the fact that Curry remains extremely valuable even when he's off-ball and thus he's a more scalable. By contrast, I don't think adding another Durant onto OKC helps your offense all that much.

And I'll go further and say that adding Curry to OKC would have been huge. Would have really made life easier for Durant & Westbrook. That's what off-ball impact does.

I'm saying that I think you take Durant's volume scoring particularly at an opportune moment, along with the fact that the team became the playoff GOAT with Durant's arrival, and trying to say Durant was the cause of things far more than Curry, and I think you've got that backwards.

Aside from ignoring Curry's playoff struggles, you also seem to be ignoring his relatively poor longevity.

Curry's playoff struggles where he nearly won 5 championships in a row, only lost two series total, and lost the 2nd of those on a crippled team that he was carrying heroically? Let's not blow things out of proportion. You're putting a ton of focus on one specific series (2016 finals) to judge Curry's entire run.

Re: ignoring relatively poor longevity. Please stop trying to turn this back around at me. You want to specifically address my 6 bullet points one by one? Go for it. I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation based on what you said the most important thing was to you, and you keep trying to take us on tangents.

Focusing the conversation on a key point of disagreement is not "ignoring" everything else, it's the process by which intellectuals actually get anywhere in a complex space. We can shift to talk about whatever you want, but when you try to paint me as if I'm manipulating things when I'm just doing what people have done for thousands of years in the intellectual space, you come off like someone who is just trying to win however you can think to win.

To argue for Curry here, I think you have to put a huge premium on RS peak.

I mean, let's not act like Curry doesn't have more playoff success than Durant does. Is it so hard to believe that someone might conclude that the guy with more team playoff success who also has the more portable/scalable skillset is the guy more likely to help you get to a chip?

But there is a thing here relating to how we see the '15-16 regular season. If you see that as something utterly divorced from what Curry can do in the playoffs, then it's quite understandable why you'd pick Durant.

As I've said, I don't think the qualitative difference in your mind between Durant's volume scoring ability and Curry's volume scoring ability is accurate. It's a considerably smaller gap than that, there's more to scoring impact than direct points scored, and it's not like we have seen runs where Curry is dominant in the playoffs given that literally the last time we saw Curry without Durant, he was busy scoring tons of 30 point games.

That said, although I believe Durant is the superior player, I agree with you on intangibles, Curry seems to bring more off-court in ways that actively help you win a title, but it's hard to really quantify that..

I think you have every right to ignore these intangibles when you rank players, but when you do so, you're essentially trying to be the dumbest GM in the world.

I'm sorry if that's super-inflammatory. I'm not saying you're dumb, and there's lots of other really smart posters here who do the same thing, but to me it just makes sense to try to emulate the process by which GMs and their staff earn their keep.

Does it matter that you're talking about one guy here who is mature and secure in himself and allow others to shine without jealousy while the other guy takes the most joyful culture in the NBA and after a year there during which they win the championship and he gets Finals MVP, he comes back sour and effectively covers the locker room with broken glass until he decides to leave?

Yes. It would matter to every single GM & coach a great deal, and thus despite the difficulties in quantification, my philosophy is that we've got to try our best, just like the GMs and coaches do.

If I want a guy to build my franchise and its culture around, it's Curry over Durant and it's not close.

But as I say, I'm not saying you can't ignore all of this stuff. It's your right to do so.

I think Curry's superiority over Harden needs to be established and not just assumed. Yes, Curry is getting traction already and Harden likely won't for a while. But looking at the numbers and what they did since they both started their prime more or less at the same time, you really have to ask why that is the case...

Hmm. My first thought is:

Y'know both of these guys played with Durant on teams that should be looked at as superteams. How did those teams compare?

'11-12 Thunder playoff ORtg: 111.8
'16-17 Warriors playoff ORtg: 119.0

You seem to be saying a lot of "I understand the theory of Curry's value, but in practice, isn't this all turning out about the same?", and I just don't think it is.

Now, you may find it unfair that I used '11-12 or other stuff, and you're free to point that out, but the fact of the matter is that Durant, Westbrook, and Harden were 3 guys who would soon prove to be MVPs based on offense, and together they didn't show any ability to create an offense like what the Warriors did.

Last note on primes:

I consider Steph Curry's prime to begin in '12-13, and I think most people are clear as to why given that Curry's '11-12 was lost to injury. But I think also that if you just hand the offense to Curry earlier (and kick Monta "miss'em all" Ellis to the curb), you're talking about a guy who basically could have been an all-star by his 2nd season if not earlier. Regardless of that, an area where I diverge from most is that I rated Curry as the 4th best player in the NBA in '12-13.

I consider James Harden's prime to begin in '11-12. Despite the fact that Harden missed a chunk of the season, based on what I saw in the playoffs I rated Harden as a Top 10 player at that time, and through 2012 I rated Harden as having had the superior career.

Curry took the lead for me in '12-13 and never looked back. The only times where I've ranked Harden above Curry for the year since '11-12 were '17-18 and '19-20 when Curry had significant injuries. If you'd like to drill down on a particular year, we could.

[Doctor MJ]

4 of these players have been mentioned in this thread. Notice who is #5 but never gets credit for being a good offensive player.

I'm not someone who typically quibbles with a little bit of hyperbole, but claiming that Stockton "never gets credit for being a good offensive player" is a bit absurd.