Peaks project update: #8

[Joey Wheeler]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

[Colbinii]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

You could also add in CP3 as well. Heck even Oscar/West deserve mention here.

[Joey Wheeler]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

You could also add in CP3 as well. Heck even Oscar/West deserve mention here.

I think Harden is the better example though, because Curry and Harden are basically having their prime years simultaneously and have very similar strong and weak points in their armor. You can do a direct comparison because they're doing their thing at the same time and playing the same position (I know Harden is nominally a SG, but let's be honest he's the point guard for the Rockets).

I see absolutely no reason to consider Curry and not Harden. The only meaningful difference between them 2015-onwards is Curry has been part of much stronger rosters and therefore had more team success. There's a very strong argument (which is actually believed to be truth by well 50% of basketball fans, including myself btw) that Curry hasn't even been the best player on his own team since Durant joined.

[Joey Wheeler]

1-Magic Johnson 1987
2-Magic Johnson 1990
3-Magic Johnson 1991

Best player left by far, imo should have been in already. Has a great case as the best offensive player of all-time, I have him #2 after Bird but it's close. He was one of the GOAT offensive players even as a rookie but just got better and better as his career went on, by his late years he could control the pace of the game at will, put his teammates in the best possible positions to succeed, dominate the game while not monopolizing the offense and score efficiently when necessary. He was GOAT level in the halfcourt, where he was the best post player ever imo, and the undisputed GOAT transition player.

He, and not Kareem, was the leader and the catalyst of the Showtime Lakers, one of the NBA's greatest dynasties.

As for bolded parts;
- That's just an overrating. Seriously. Bill Russell, Hakeem Olajuwon and Kevin Garnett are still in the pool. How Magic is better than them, by far?..
- I don't mean to be rude or shallow but WTH. If he was such a great post player how the hell he got locked up by Pippen in '91 Finals? The answer can not be Pippen being one of the goat defenders because if the best post player ever gets owned by one of the the greatest defenders, that would make defense more important than offense and you lose your reason to rate Magic so highly.
- Well, the Lakers weren't the showtime Lakers in 1980 and 1982 titles, their playstyle was way different. Also, Kareem was still the leader of the team in early seasons of showtime era. He was the leader in dressing room and he was the leader of halfcourt play/scoring. It was the upset in 1986, against Houston, that caused the change. After it, Riley asked Kareem to give the reign to Magic and Kareem agreed.

Magic and Hakeem were sort of contemporaries and at no point was it believed Hakeem was better or that it was close even after the Rockets eliminated the Lakers in 86, Magic has clearly left a larger imprint on the game. Same for Garnett. Thinking Magic is solidly above them is far from a fringe opinion, I'd say it's closer to consensus. Regarding Russell, I admittedly haven't seen enough of him to give an opinion with full conviction but from what I've seen I don't think he was on Magic's level.

Also, basketball is in constant evolution; I'm not talking about athletes getting better and better (though that is the case too) but people getting smarter and style of play/strategy becoming more and more optimal. It's simply impossible to have a contending team today running their offense through Hakeem like the Rockets did; good luck beating elite teams led by top offensive guards and wings when your offense consists of having Hakeem post up with the ball more or less sticking to him. The ideal offensive big is more someone like Anthony Davis, who can dominate off the ball and get his production by mostly playing off elite guards and wings. You could make an argument for Jokic, but the jury is still out on whether he can run an offense as effective as those run by elite guards/wings even despite his incredible passing and playmaking abilities (GOAT for a big), we'll see in the coming years. What's certain is that running your offense through Hakeem or Garnett is absolutely suboptimal; you can't really blame them since basketball knowledge is far advanced now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, but the fact that their skills and styles of play haven't really aged that well is definitely something to take into account when comparing them to players who had a more robust and resilient skillset (like Magic, whose style would be if anything even more effective today).

You're not being 'rude' or 'shallow', just inaccurate. Pippen locking up Magic is no more than narrative/myth, it didn't happen. Pippen did a good job on him, but Magic still had a great series. The Bulls were simply more talented than the Lakers, who only made the Finals thanks to Magic genius (WCF vs Portland has a good for best offensive series from any player ever) and a weak Western conference.

For most of the Showtime run Magic was running the offense even if Kareem was the leading scorer. Kareem was great but even back then having your offense led by an elite guard/wing was simply more effective. Kareem was the better player overall during the start of the dynasty for sure, but thinking of it as a whole it definitely feels right to call it Magic's team rather than Kareem's team.

[No-more-rings]

I'm actually surprised Bird got in before Hakeem and Russell. Nothing outlandish of course but still.

Hakeem is getting strangely slept on. I can see the Duncan argument even though i still favor Hakeem myself, and i think outside of the project he’d win slightly if not comfortably over Duncan. Bird, i just can’t see it. The defensive advantage is too much. The lack of Magic votes is also sort of weird.

[Colbinii]

Good lord, so much for objectivity and balance.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, I wasn't involved so I can't judge but this list is tough to respect.

Oh well, it is what it is don't mind me, I''ll contribute another time.

I'm sort of confused by what you are talking about here with context, but I would like to point out the bolded.

How is it difficult to respect?

The best two-way perimeter players (LeBron/MJ) go 1/2.

Then the 3 best offensive centers of alltime in Wilt/Shaq/Kareem go, all of which were good to great defenders as well.

These guys are followed up by Tim Duncan, a man who has proven to be slightly worse offensively than the 3 above but quite clearly better defensively.

And then it is followed up by Bird. I don't think it is a bad list. It is actually rather "consistent".

[E-Balla]

That "biggest upset" ever doesn't happen if his team's best defender isn't suspended and they sustain multiple injuries. Citing one as an example against curry and using the other against curry is woefully disingenuous. Especially because Curry was coming off injuries that affected his play.

"Your examples, while true, are disingenuous for some reason I have not explained."

A grade 1 mcl sprain is a 1-2 week injury. He came back after 3 weeks (he played 1 game 1 week in, then sat 2 weeks). Everyone on earth said they were sitting him in games he could play because they could afford to. Nobody said he didn't look healthy until the Finals came and people were looking for excuses. He didn't have any more wear and tear than the average. And even if he did, the best ability is availability.

Huh? Chris Paul has failed to have an amazing impact on defences multiple times. Ditto for wade who only avoided failure in his prime with shaq and lbj as co stars. Lebron himself has been rendered less effective against zone and struggled mightily for stretches against the spurs in 2013. Jordan, even on his title runs encountered defences which greatly lowered his effiency and was given the giannis treatment against the pistons. Two teams being able to draw blood from an otherwise dominant team doesn't make curry any different from basically any atg ever.

Uhh... What? Did you see the numbers I posted for Curry? Those aren't just down they're barely all star level. Chris Paul, Wade, etc. have not been consistently locked up like that, which is was what the question was since you're trying to shift the goalposts and talk about how Chris Paul has played bad before. We're talking about Curry playing bad against well equipped defenses without KD every time. It makes sense to ask whether or not playing with 2 other top 15ish guys his whole prime makes him look better than other players who didn't have situations that sweet.

You are though?

Yeah I'm being patient with you but quit the bull. I use the same **** stats in each **** post. If you're going to make another low effort post like this again, do me a favor and throw whatever device you're typing from out a window.

The rest of your post was a bunch of things that opened up in his game because of Kerr's system and Dray's development into the PG. Numbers improving doesn't necessarily mean he improved.

[E-Balla]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

I think there's a clear edge to Curry in terms of individual play. Harden's playstyle is conducive to big numbers, but as the people who aren't big on him always say, his impact numbers lag behind his boxscore numbers and aren't close to the top tier. My biggest issue with him is I've never thought he was the best in the game. Curry was better than him in 15 and we saw that head to head in the playoffs. In 2017 all of Westbrook and Kawhi were better and we saw them outplay him head to head in the playoffs. 2018 he had a bad postseason performance. This year I don't think he was better than Giannis or Kawhi but I do think this was a weak year and he has his best argument for best player in the league this year.

[GeorgeMarcus]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

Curry's impact on the game is, and has always been, more positive than Harden's. That's not a knock on Harden- an all-time great player in his own right. But Steph absolutely belongs in the conversation and I will fight to the death on that front.

[Dr Positivity]

This project is hard for me cause all of these seasons are close together.

[Joey Wheeler]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

I think there's a clear edge to Curry in terms of individual play. Harden's playstyle is conducive to big numbers, but as the people who aren't big on him always say, his impact numbers lag behind his boxscore numbers and aren't close to the top tier. My biggest issue with him is I've never thought he was the best in the game. Curry was better than him in 15 and we saw that head to head in the playoffs. In 2017 all of Westbrook and Kawhi were better and we saw them outplay him head to head in the playoffs. 2018 he had a bad postseason performance. This year I don't think he was better than Giannis or Kawhi but I do think this was a weak year and he has his best argument for best player in the league this year.

This doesn't seem to really jive with reality though. Say what you want about Harden but he has consistently led teams to strong regular season records (aside from 2016) even without other star players around him. You mention the 2015 series, where Curry was indeed a bit better, but compare who they had around them, it was hardly an even fight. A lot of the players on the Houston team couldn't even stay in the league for much longer. It's not like Curry outplaying Harden was the deciding factor in that series.

As for being the best player in the league, I don't think either Curry or Harden were ever that outside of "best regular season performer". In the playoffs it was consistently shown that the elite 2-way wings were just more valuable, namely guys like Lebron and Durant, and Kawhi this year.

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

Curry's impact on the game is, and has always been, more positive than Harden's. That's not a knock on Harden- an all-time great player in his own right. But Steph absolutely belongs in the conversation and I will fight to the death on that front.

How are you quantifying that? An analysis of what has happened in the last 5 seasons seems to suggest Harden is at least a clearly superior "floor raiser", I really don't see the Rockets having as much success or a team like the 2017 Rockets being a historically great offense if the two switch places. And does anyone think Harden couldn't win titles or look great playing with Durant and co. around him?

Also let's look at the last two series between the Warriors and the Rockets. Both were won by the Warriors by razor thin margins despite a huge gap in talent in favor of them. Those series probably both go to the Rockets without Durant (who imo is clearly above both Curry and Harden, but that's a different discussion) in what would be a fairer battle in terms of supporting casts (still edge to Curry).

I don't see how we can conclude that Curry has been meaningfully more impactful than Harden unless we just reduce everything to 3 > 0 or 5 > 0 and strip it of all context. Harden's raw numbers are obviously better, but that aside his team offense results in both RS and PS have been just about as impressive as Curry's without Durant added into the mix.

I'm not really seeing where the meaningful separation is between Curry and Harden is that one should be mentioned in this project at #8 and the other ignored. If their situations over the past 5 years were swapped odds are it's Harden who's thought of as superior due to winning bias.

[GeorgeMarcus]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

Curry's impact on the game is, and has always been, more positive than Harden's. That's not a knock on Harden- an all-time great player in his own right. But Steph absolutely belongs in the conversation and I will fight to the death on that front.

How are you quantifying that? An analysis of what has happened in the last 5 seasons seems to suggest Harden is at least a clearly superior "floor raiser", I really don't see the Rockets having as much success or a team like the 2017 Rockets being a historically great offense if the two switch places. And does anyone think Harden couldn't win titles or look great playing with Durant and co. around him?

Also let's look at the last two series between the Warriors and the Rockets. Both were won by the Warriors by razor thin margins despite a huge gap in talent in favor of them. Those series probably both go to the Rockets without Durant (who imo is clearly above both Curry and Harden, but that's a different discussion) in what would be a fairer battle in terms of supporting casts (still edge to Curry).

I don't see how we can conclude that Curry has been meaningfully more impactful than Harden unless we just reduce everything to 3 > 0 or 5 > 0 and strip it of all context. Harden's raw numbers are obviously better, but that aside his team offense results in both RS and PS have been just about as impressive as Curry's without Durant added into the mix.

I'm not really seeing where the meaningful separation is between Curry and Harden is that one should be mentioned in this project at #8 and the other ignored. If their situations over the past 5 years were swapped odds are it's Harden who's thought of as superior due to winning bias.

This response is exactly why Durant was the worst thing to happen to Curry's legacy. Not only did it force Steph into a somewhat reduced role, but people discredit his subsequent accomplishments due to having better teammates. The Rockets lost to the Warriors in the 1 1/2 games without Durant, so I really see no reason to believe they suddenly have the edge over the KD-less Golden State. The same team that swept the Blazers, who had knocked off formidable opponents in OKC and Denver.

It's no coincidence Curry has been in the top 3 RAPM (gitlab) every year since 2015. No other player cracked the top 3 more than once during that span! When it comes to volume scoring Harden/Curry are comparable, but Curry is much more effective off-ball and much better at knowing when to defer to his teammates (ala Tim Duncan).

Look at what Curry has meant to his team's success over the years (in terms of on/off):
2014: +15.1
2015: +18.1
2016: +22.6
2017: +17.2
2018: +12.1
2019: +16.2

Compared to Harden:
2014: +7.6
2015: +8.6
2016: +7.1
2017: +3.3
2018: +5.3
2019: +4.8

In theory, Harden should demonstrate more pronounced impact on his teams given his role as the clear-cut #1 guy. That is, if he were as good/impactful as Steph, which just isn't true.

[freethedevil]

"Your examples, while true, are disingenuous for some reason I have not explained."

Reread then. The warriors would have won 2016 if it wasn't for multiple injuries and suspensions. Either you give him 2015, or 2016, either way, your opening is silly.

Nobody said he didn't look healthy until the Finals came and people were looking for excuses. He didn't have any more wear and tear than the average. And even if he did, the best ability is availability.

Even first take was saying curry looked like he had a bad knee after the conference final win. Curry was factually injured and even if he wasn't him losing was reliant on multiple suspensions/injuries to his teammates. I also have no idea what you're brining up availablity for. The argument is that curry while injured isn't a good representation of his play post 2015. Try to keep up.

Huh? Chris Paul has failed to have an amazing impact on defences multiple times. Ditto for wade who only avoided failure in his prime with shaq and lbj as co stars. Lebron himself has been rendered less effective against zone and struggled mightily for stretches against the spurs in 2013. Jordan, even on his title runs encountered defences which greatly lowered his effiency and was given the giannis treatment against the pistons. Two teams being able to draw blood from an otherwise dominant team doesn't make curry any different from basically any atg ever.

Uhh... What? Did you see the numbers I posted for Curry? Those aren't just down they're barely all star level. Chris Paul, Wade, etc. have not been consistently locked up like that,

Yes and I've already addressed why they're silly to use. That aside, cherrypicking what two defences have been able to do and call that "consistency" is beyond laughable. Especially when both only managed to do that with curry's teammates being injured/suspended

which is was what the question was since you're trying to shift the goalposts and talk about how Chris Paul has played bad before. We're talking about Curry playing bad against well equipped defenses without KD every time. It makes sense to ask whether or not playing with 2 other top 15ish guys his whole prime makes him look better than other players who didn't have situations that sweet.

Oh gee, it's almost like we have new metrics that account for the teammates player play with? It's hilarious though you're complaining about the numbers i'm brining up being "circumstantial" while you insist on using data is vastly more dependent on team circumstance:


His box stats are relevant, but his impact #'s aren't?

Why do you keep trying to argue his teammates overrate him and then back it up with data that is more circumstance dependent than the evidence that says otherwise?

Yeah I'm being patient with you but quit the bull. I use the same **** stats in each **** post. If you're going to make another low effort post like this again, do me a favor and throw whatever device you're typing from out a window.

The rest of your post was a bunch of things that opened up in his game because of Kerr's system and Dray's development into the PG. Numbers improving doesn't necessarily mean he improved.

Consistently using weak arguments on badly supported claims isn't going to make me throw anything. Thanks for the patience though.

[Joey Wheeler]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

Curry's impact on the game is, and has always been, more positive than Harden's. That's not a knock on Harden- an all-time great player in his own right. But Steph absolutely belongs in the conversation and I will fight to the death on that front.

How are you quantifying that? An analysis of what has happened in the last 5 seasons seems to suggest Harden is at least a clearly superior "floor raiser", I really don't see the Rockets having as much success or a team like the 2017 Rockets being a historically great offense if the two switch places. And does anyone think Harden couldn't win titles or look great playing with Durant and co. around him?

Also let's look at the last two series between the Warriors and the Rockets. Both were won by the Warriors by razor thin margins despite a huge gap in talent in favor of them. Those series probably both go to the Rockets without Durant (who imo is clearly above both Curry and Harden, but that's a different discussion) in what would be a fairer battle in terms of supporting casts (still edge to Curry).

I don't see how we can conclude that Curry has been meaningfully more impactful than Harden unless we just reduce everything to 3 > 0 or 5 > 0 and strip it of all context. Harden's raw numbers are obviously better, but that aside his team offense results in both RS and PS have been just about as impressive as Curry's without Durant added into the mix.

I'm not really seeing where the meaningful separation is between Curry and Harden is that one should be mentioned in this project at #8 and the other ignored. If their situations over the past 5 years were swapped odds are it's Harden who's thought of as superior due to winning bias.

This response is exactly why Durant was the worst thing to happen to Curry's legacy. Not only did it force Steph into a somewhat reduced role, but people discredit his subsequent accomplishments due to having better teammates. The Rockets lost to the Warriors in the 1 1/2 games without Durant, so I really see no reason to believe they suddenly have the edge over the KD-less Golden State. The same team that swept the Blazers, who had knocked off formidable opponents in OKC and Denver.

It's no coincidence Curry has been in the top 3 RAPM (gitlab) every year since 2015. No other player cracked the top 3 more than once during that span! When it comes to volume scoring Harden/Curry are comparable, but Curry is much more effective off-ball and much better at knowing when to defer to his teammates (ala Tim Duncan).

Look at what Curry has meant to his team's success over the years (in terms of on/off):
2014: +15.1
2015: +18.1
2016: +22.6
2017: +17.2
2018: +12.1
2019: +16.2

Compared to Harden:
2014: +7.6
2015: +8.6
2016: +7.1
2017: +3.3
2018: +5.3
2019: +4.8

In theory, Harden should demonstrate more pronounced impact on his teams given his role as the clear-cut #1 guy. That is, if he were as good/impactful as Steph, which just isn't true.

Without Durant, there'd probably be no more titles after 2015 though, which would reduce the winning bias in his evaluation as a player. It goes both ways, people wouldn't be able to discredit his success based on stacked teams, but would that success even be there outside of gaudy individual numbers? We'll never know for sure.

Also, it's one thing to play 1,5 games without Durant, another thing entirely to do so for an entire series. For instance, Spurs closed out Rockets in 2017 without Kawhi, Lakers closed out Sixers in 1980 finals without Kareem, does that mean they'd have won the series without those players over 7 games? Not really. Without Durant, there's no lead to close out in all likelihood. And the 2018 series was a 7-gamer, with the Warriors one road win prior to game 7 having been obtained basically thanks to Durant's midrange ISO scoring, odds they win that series without him are very low.

Finally, on/off isn't really a measure of goodness or impact, it is heavily reliant on rotations and even something like Harden playing more minutes hurts him in that comparison. Also I don't think that's an argument you want to bring to prop up Curry anyway since in every year people are arguing as potentially his peak he didn't have the best on/off numbers on his own team, except 2017 and even then his lead over Draymond wasn't that substantial:

2015:

Curry - +18,1 RS, +7,5 PS
Draymond - +14,5 RS, +19,4 PS

2016:

Curry - +22,6 RS, -3,6 PS (yes, negative)
Draymond - +26,3 RS, +13,9 PS

2017:

Curry - +17,2 RS, +20,6 PS
Draymond - +11,3 RS, +18,9 PS

If you're deciding who's most impactful based on these stats, then Draymond Green should be getting some traction here as well. Of course it'd also mean Green is superior to Harden, which is basically indefensible nonsense.

Can you in good conscience really say Curry means more to the Warriors than Harden to the Rockets? Let's take the last 2 seasons, the series between those two teams were close enough to say we're talking about 2 teams that are relatively close in quality, with the Warriors a bit better. If we subtract Curry and Harden from those teams, do you genuinely believe the Rockets are now better?

[E-Balla]

Reread then. The warriors would have won 2016 if it wasn't for multiple injuries and suspensions. Either you give him 2015, or 2016, either way, your opening is silly.

Maybe you don't get this but he's not being criticized for losing. He's being criticized for not playing well. Losing is the icing on the cake.

Even first take was saying curry looked like he had a bad knee after the conference final win. Curry was factually injured and even if he wasn't him losing was reliant on multiple suspensions/injuries to his teammates. I also have no idea what you're brining up availablity for. The argument is that curry while injured isn't a good representation of his play post 2015. Try to keep up.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/was-curry-hurt-during-finals-myers-uses-two-different-words

"I don't know if 'hurt' is the right word. It was probably 'fatigued' or 'drained,' something to that measure more than hurt. Hurt implies he had some part of him that was injured and couldn't play," Myers said.

Yes and I've already addressed why they're silly to use. That aside, cherrypicking what two defences have been able to do and call that "consistency" is beyond laughable. Especially when both only managed to do that with curry's teammates being injured/suspended

It's not my fault he's played only 10 series without KD and only 3 against good defenses (all teams in the 2015 WCP missing their starting PG, 16 Blazers ranked 20th, 16 Thunder ranked 13th). All the flaws I see in his game in the regular season are amplified in the playoffs.

Oh gee, it's almost like we have new metrics that account for the teammates player play with? It's hilarious though you're complaining about the numbers i'm brining up being "circumstantial" while you insist on using data is vastly more dependent on team circumstance:


His box stats are relevant, but his impact #'s aren't?

Why do you keep trying to argue his teammates overrate him and then back it up with data that is more circumstance dependent than the evidence that says otherwise?

Umm... I'm not at all sure the relevance of this as it pertains to anything I've said. Like you just presented a chart with no context whatsoever outside of emoticons.

[Mavericksfan]

I'm actually surprised Bird got in before Hakeem and Russell. Nothing outlandish of course but still.

Hakeem is getting strangely slept on. I can see the Duncan argument even though i still favor Hakeem myself, and i think outside of the project he’d win slightly if not comfortably over Duncan. Bird, i just can’t see it. The defensive advantage is too much. The lack of Magic votes is also sort of weird.

Bird’s offensive advantage is just as good if not greater tbh

Plus Bird’s defense was still pretty good and he clearly has ridiculous impact as both a floor and ceiling raiser.

[Sublime187]

Whose peaks do you consider 2017 Curry to be comparable to then? Is there anything more Curry could have done that season for you to rank it above 2015 as his peak or was the Warriors being super stacked simply a dealbreaker?

If Curry had a clearly better regular season or improved his game tangibly I'd rank 2017 over 2015 but he actually had what's his worst regular season of the last 5 years (when ignoring injuries).

As for comparable peaks it's not that much worse than Curry's peak so it's like McAdoo, Barkley level IMO.

I don't think you are giving 2017 Curry enough credit by just waving it off because of how stacked the team was. Durant missed a sizeable chunk of the season and the team marched on with a 10+ SRS without him.

They had a 10+ SRS without him in 2015 and 16 too, I'm not seeing that as a compelling argument for 2017 when his numbers were worse.

The 2017 Warriors with Curry minus Durant (+14.7 in RS, +23.4 in PO) was far better than with Durant minus Curry (+2.7 in RS, -5.4 in PO). Curry was not only selfless enough to accommodate Durant, he maintained his impact in the new team to show that he was still the engine behind their offensive success, not just somebody who benefited from it. He had the luxury of playing on a stacked team but we have seen teams with a lot of talent underperform and not realize their full potential due to personality clashes and poor fit in playing style.

This is an argument for Curry over KD, not really a good argument for why it's his best season.

McAdoo and Barkley on the same level? I don't know about that...

[LA Bird]

So you don't rank 2016 Curry highly mainly because of postseason performances but the only one time when he did have an all time level postseason performance, it is the regular season that matters? How valuable is the RS advantage of 2015 over 2017 when Curry couldn't sustain that level of performance in the playoffs as we have seen time and time throughout his career? Ignoring injury, I would rank 15~17 Curry as RS: 16 >> 15 > 17 and PO: 17 >> 15 > 16. If the regular season performance is so important that you would rank 2015 over 2017, I think you would also have to rank 2016 over 2015.

McAdoo is an interesting mention. I would personally rank 15 Curry around Barkley level but 17 Curry even higher.

So when you notice Curry playing way outside of his usual in 2017, the thought should be why. To me when looking at it, and especially when looking for a why it's obvious Curry performs well against teams that are overwhelmed by that offense and his game. Once a team with enough defenders to cover Curry and the rest of the team comes along he struggles similar to how Dirk had his fatal flaw against smaller guys but less exploitable considering the team Steph was on. The Cavs weren't amazing on D but they had Tristan Thompson who can reasonably switch on Curry and allows them to defend all the Warriors at once. The other teams Golden State have played without KD (excluding the Raptors) haven't had that, how'd he perform in those situations? Well take out Curry's Finals series and the first 2 games he played in 2016 where he was injured and he's averaged:

30.4/5.9/6.5 on 62.4 TS% with a 120 ORTG and 28.6 PER in 29 games.

That's in line with his numbers in 2017 (slightly less efficient, slightly lower PER, more ppg). His Finals numbers in those 3 years against opponents that weren't overwhelmed?

26.2/5.1/5.3 on 58.8 TS% with a 109 ORTG and 20.8 PER in 19 games.

And I'm confident saying it's a trend now after 3 Finals series without KD against tough defenses that could key in on him. He might've avoided that weakness in 2017, but I don't think it makes his postseason performance actually better, it just means he got favorable matchups (I will acknowledge that yes, every matchup ever would be favorable with that squad).

Curry played way outside of his usual in the 2017 playoffs because that was his peak year. There doesn't have to be another reason why, just like we don't really question why 03 TMac as his peak was an outlier season. If it was as simple as 2017 Curry's stats being inflated by playing on an overwhelmingly stacked team, how do you explain his 2018 playoffs being nothing close to his 2017 playoffs when the Warriors with Durant were still just as stacked? And Curry was the key reason why his team could so easily overwhelm their opponents in the first place (as shown in the +/- numbers later in this post).

You talk about how Curry can be stopped by tough defenses keying in on him and that 2017 Curry was lucky to avoid that problem but the 2015 Cavs weren't even an average defense. 2019 Curry went up against a much better defensive team in the Finals and scored more on higher efficiency, while turning over the ball far less frequently than 2015. What is there to say that 2017 Curry without Durant wouldn't have a Finals performance closer to 2019 than 2015? And outside of the box score stats, the +/- is still strongly in favor of 2017 Curry for the postseason.

The 15/16 Warriors were 10+ SRS too but more of that margin is coming from Draymond than in 17. Per 48 minutes,
In 2015, Curry minus Dray was +8.1 while Dray minus Curry was +5.1.
In 2017, Curry minus Dray was +15.9 while Dray minus Curry was +2.7.
Weighing the playoffs more heavily, one could easily argue Draymond was more valuable than Curry in 15/16. You can't make that case in 17 because Curry was the clear +/- leader of the team from start to end. In 2017, Curry was decidely the most impactful player on the team (over either Draymond or Durant), the team was at its peak, and he had the only playoff run of his career where he improved from RS to PO. I would take that over the RS box score advantage 2015 Curry has over 2017.

That's ignoring the overlap between KD and Dray and what it did to Draymond's impact. There's not many meaningful minutes Curry played without Dray and KD or Dray played without Curry and KD anyway, IIRC KD was the one playing alone of the trio most often but I would be interested in seeing those numbers.

A 3-way impact chart still points to Curry being by far the most valuable player.



Adding Curry is
+13.9 to Draymond alone
+16.8 to Draymond + Durant
+16.7 to Durant alone

Adding Draymond is
+3.1 to Curry alone
+4.6 to Curry + Durant
+4.5 to Durant alone

Adding Durant is
+4.7 to Curry alone
+6.2 to Curry + Draymond
+3.3 to Draymond alone

[JordansBulls]

Never understood Hakeem 1993 over 1994 as he went the distance against a team that was .500. Then went to game 7 in the semifinals to a team with the same record as him and lost. While in 1994 he won league mvp, finals mvp and DPOY.

[Timmyyy]

If Curry is being discussed this early, why not James Harden? They're from the same generation and there's basically no relevant difference in terms of what they've achieved/done aside from Curry winning titles on a clearly superior team. Both are historically great in the RS on offense and have struggled in the playoffs when the deck isn't stacked in their favor to absurd degrees; Harden's RS achievements are arguably more impressive too, both in terms of raw numbers and leading a historically great offense with only role players around him in 2017.

I see no reason to believe Curry is meaningfully superior, or even superior at all, to Harden aside from winning bias. It's true the Warriors won 3 titles and reached 5 finals and eliminated the Rockets 4 times, but honestly on the balance of those 4 head to head series I see no edge for Curry in terms of individual play. I see no meaningful separation tbh, though it'd be easier to make a case for Harden having outperformed Curry than the other way round.

You could also add in CP3 as well. Heck even Oscar/West deserve mention here.

'Heck' sounds a little like you have these guys lower than the cp3, harden crew. Am I right? Just curious since I have them higher.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using RealGM mobile app