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

[70sFan]

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

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

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

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

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

Not really. We saw the Blazers losing in 1978 without Walton. We've seen the #1 seed Bulls in 2012 lose without D Rose in the 1st round.

Or 2000 Spurs that lost in the first round without Duncan. Only the teams that are historically on the highest tier could be competitive in the second round without their best player.

[colts18]

When Stockton is mentioned, people always bring up Malone to downgrade to his numbers. What if it was the other way? No one brings up Malone needing Stockton to create for him. I've never thought of Karl Malone as an all-time offensive force. He was a player who needed others to create for him. He wasn't particularly athletic during his peak years. He wasn't a great finisher because of his short wingspan. His post moves were ok. Malone was one of the best off ball players I've seen for a Big Men. He had a lot of easy baskets from cutting to the basket. His Jumpshot was elite. What Malone wasn't great at was facing up and creating his own shot. He could make jump shots from the faceup, but he couldn't breakdown his man to take it to the basket. That made Malone IMO very reliant on his teammates to get him the ball in the right spots. I checked his stats and they supported my viewpoint. Malone had an absurdly high percentage of his shots assisted. More of his baskets were assisted than any of the best Power Forwards of this generation. I compared Malone's assisted% for 2 point shots compared to the other Power Forwards from 1997 to the present. His numbers were an outlier compared to the best.

Assisted% on 2 point FG:
Malone 79%
Boston KG 76%
Minnesota KG 66%
Heat Bosh 66%
Clippers Griffin 62%
Lakers Gasol 60%
Clippers Brand 59%
Kings Webber 59%
Aldridge 57%
Dirk 57%
Duncan 55%
Raptors Bosh 55%
1997-2000 Barkley 37%
Pistons Griffin 36%

I find it interesting how similar Older Malone's game was to LaMarcus Aldridge yet at the same time Aldridge's assisted% was 20% lower.

[Owly]

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

Not really. We saw the Blazers losing in 1978 without Walton. We've seen the #1 seed Bulls in 2012 lose without D Rose in the 1st round.

Or 2000 Spurs that lost in the first round without Duncan. Only the teams that are historically on the highest tier could be competitive in the second round without their best player.

I mean it also depends on how the team is good, on the era, on seed (and conference, and conference balance), on quality of reserve etc. Detroit '04 could probably weather an absence. For Detroit '89 their notional best player according to many (Thomas) plays awfully through their first five games and Detroit win 3-0 and are up 2-0.

'92 Spurs sans Robinson (due to return circa game 4 second round based on estimate at the time of injury) get swept.

At a lower level '96 Pacers play the Hawks even (2-2, Pacers outscored by 3 points) without Miller in round 1.

In any case though I'd want to see numbers on any assertions of what teams can "typically" survive and to tease out what "sometimes" really means.

[Cavsfansince84]

When Stockton is mentioned, people always bring up Malone to downgrade to his numbers. What if it was the other way? No one brings up Malone needing Stockton to create for him. I've never thought of Karl Malone as an all-time offensive force. He was a player who needed others to create for him. He wasn't particularly athletic during his peak years. He wasn't a great finisher because of his short wingspan. His post moves were ok. Malone was one of the best off ball players I've seen for a Big Men. He had a lot of easy baskets from cutting to the basket. His Jumpshot was elite. What Malone wasn't great at was facing up and creating his own shot. He could make jump shots from the faceup, but he couldn't breakdown his man to take it to the basket. That made Malone IMO very reliant on his teammates to get him the ball in the right spots. I checked his stats and they supported my viewpoint. Malone had an absurdly high percentage of his shots assisted. More of his baskets were assisted than any of the best Power Forwards of this generation. I compared Malone's assisted% for 2 point shots compared to the other Power Forwards from 1997 to the present. His numbers were an outlier compared to the best.

I sort of agree but I think they propped each other up. Malone obviously get assisted a lot but a big part of that has to do with Malone's ability to play the pnr, run the floor and hit jump shots. Plus I think his ability to get position super low and then Stockton's timing with the entry pass and Malone often taking that pass and finishing right away which got Stockton an assist. I think their teamwork evolved to such a level that its pretty hard to separate one from the other while recognizing how well each played their role. If Malone can get voted in at 16 I have no problem voting Stockton in at 24 or 25 though I still have Pettit ahead of him.

[colts18]

I mean it also depends on how the team is good, on the era, on seed (and conference, and conference balance), on quality of reserve etc. Detroit '04 could probably weather an absence. For Detroit '89 their notional best player according to many (Thomas) plays awfully through their first five games and Detroit win 3-0 and are up 2-0.

'92 Spurs sans Robinson (due to return circa game 4 second round based on estimate at the time of injury) get swept.

At a lower level '96 Pacers play the Hawks even (2-2, Pacers outscored by 3 points) without Miller in round 1.

In any case though I'd want to see numbers on any assertions of what teams can "typically" survive and to tease out what "sometimes" really means.

I made a post in a similar vein a while back. I checked out how Finals team did in the regular season when their star player missed the game. Those teams were average in the games their star missed. They were below .500 over an extended period of time.

I went back to 1974 (last year b-r.com had gamelogs) and looked at the team's results when their star player was out.

Finals winner:
Games missed 78-89 (.467, 38.3 wins per 82)
Games played .724 win%, 59.4 wins per 82
Difference: .257 win%, 21.1 wins per 82 games

Finals loser:
Games missed 74-78 (.487, 39.9 wins per 82)
Games played: .697 win%, 57.1 wins per 82
Difference: .210 win%, 17.2 wins per 82 games

That's a 319 game sample size where these teams play below average basketball (39.1 wins per 82 games). These teams are being propped up from 39 wins to 58 wins. Fairly impressive.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1239282

[WestGOAT]

When Stockton is mentioned, people always bring up Malone to downgrade to his numbers. What if it was the other way? No one brings up Malone needing Stockton to create for him. I've never thought of Karl Malone as an all-time offensive force. He was a player who needed others to create for him. He wasn't particularly athletic during his peak years. He wasn't a great finisher because of his short wingspan. His post moves were ok. Malone was one of the best off ball players I've seen for a Big Men. He had a lot of easy baskets from cutting to the basket. His Jumpshot was elite. What Malone wasn't great at was facing up and creating his own shot. He could make jump shots from the faceup, but he couldn't breakdown his man to take it to the basket. That made Malone IMO very reliant on his teammates to get him the ball in the right spots. I checked his stats and they supported my viewpoint. Malone had an absurdly high percentage of his shots assisted. More of his baskets were assisted than any of the best Power Forwards of this generation. I compared Malone's assisted% for 2 point shots compared to the other Power Forwards from 1997 to the present. His numbers were an outlier compared to the best.

Assisted% on 2 point FG:
Malone 79%
Boston KG 76%
Minnesota KG 66%
Heat Bosh 66%
Clippers Griffin 62%
Lakers Gasol 60%
Clippers Brand 59%
Kings Webber 59%
Aldridge 57%
Dirk 57%
Duncan 55%
Raptors Bosh 55%
1997-2000 Barkley 37%
Pistons Griffin 36%

I find it interesting how similar Older Malone's game was to LaMarcus Aldridge yet at the same time Aldridge's assisted% was 20% lower.

I was curious to see how Malone's numbers looked liked when Stockton had a relatively low number of assists (5 or less), so I ran the numbers:

Code: Select all

Regular Season 44 games Stockton <= 5 assists
Reg.Sea    Points TS% TO Stockton_assists
Average    24.32 57.9 3.1 4.4
Stan.Dev   7.45   9.9 1.7 0.9

Regular Season 881 games Stockton > 5 assists
Reg.Sea    Points TS% TO Stockton_assists
Average    27.6 59.6 3.1 12.6
Stan.Dev   6.9  10.7 1.8 3.7

Code: Select all

Post-Season 11 games Stockton <= 5 assists
Pos.Sea    Points TS% TO Stockton_assists
Average    25.3  49.1 2.8 4.3
Stan.Dev   6.8    9.1 1.3 1.2

Post-Season  128 games Stockton > 5 assists
Pos.Sea    Points TS% TO Stockton_assists
Average    27.1 53.5 2.9 11.5
Stan.Dev   6.4  9.2 1.5 3.9

Malone's infamous drop in TS% in the post-season is obvious here.
To what degree his scoring (efficiency) drops when Stockton has relatively low assists you can decide for yourself.

[sansterre]

I don't think anyone here doesn't think well of Curry's peak. The problem is that if you're doing a CORP-style analysis Curry's case doesn't hold up too well.

I'll be using BBR's VORP (for a lack of a better quick tool):

His first three seasons are +2.0, +2.7 and +1.2. Nothing big here.

Then, from '13 to '19 he puts up: +5.6, +6.7, +7.9, +9.5, +5.9, +4.0 and +5.1 (with good playoffs). Damned amazing.

Let's compare with Stockton:

His first two years are +0.7,, +2.1 and +3.4. I'll cheat and say that those cancel out Steph's first three years.

Then he has: +7.6, +8.3, +8.0, +8.1, +8.1, +6.2, +7.5, +7.9, +6.4, +6.3, +3.6, +2.8, +5.3, +5.3, +4.8 and +4.0. He gets somewhat worse in the playoffs.

Let's be super generous to Curry and say that at the intersection of VORP overrating Stockton and Stockton's getting worse in the postseason, that Stockton needs to put up *2* extra VORP to match a Curry season.

That leaves us comparing Curry's: +6.7, +7.9, +9.5

to Stockton's: +8.3, +8.1, +8.1, +8.0, +6.4, +6.3, +5.3, +5.3, +4.8, +4.0, +3.6 and +2.6.

Which of those combinations give you more probably championships? Curry's two outstanding years (and one insane year) or Stockton's four outstanding years, five strong years and three good years? It's kind of obviously Stockton's right? You'd like to say that years as good as Curry had guarantee a title, but that obviously isn't true: people throw up amazing years and come up short all the time.

I have much love for Curry's peak. But he really only had two super-seasons, and everything else simply isn't at that level. If he'd had a five-six year peak at the 2016 level, it might be another conversation for me.

Obviously the above method has a ton of flaws, but hopefully it conveys that a) Curry's peak has been narrow and b) he has an uphill battle to equal the career achievements of other greats with only seven strong years.

[DQuinn1575]

I don't think anyone here doesn't think well of Curry's peak. The problem is that if you're doing a CORP-style analysis Curry's case doesn't hold up too well.

I'll be using BBR's VORP (for a lack of a better quick tool):

His first three seasons are +2.0, +2.7 and +1.2. Nothing big here.

Then, from '13 to '19 he puts up: +5.6, +6.7, +7.9, +9.5, +5.9, +4.0 and +5.1 (with good playoffs). Damned amazing.

Let's compare with Stockton:

His first two years are +0.7,, +2.1 and +3.4. I'll cheat and say that those cancel out Steph's first three years.

Then he has: +7.6, +8.3, +8.0, +8.1, +8.1, +6.2, +7.5, +7.9, +6.4, +6.3, +3.6, +2.8, +5.3, +5.3, +4.8 and +4.0. He gets somewhat worse in the playoffs.

Let's be super generous to Curry and say that at the intersection of VORP overrating Stockton and Stockton's getting worse in the postseason, that Stockton needs to put up *2* extra VORP to match a Curry season.

That leaves us comparing Curry's: +6.7, +7.9, +9.5

to Stockton's: +8.3, +8.1, +8.1, +8.0, +6.4, +6.3, +5.3, +5.3, +4.8, +4.0, +3.6 and +2.6.

Which of those combinations give you more probably championships? Curry's two outstanding years (and one insane year) or Stockton's four outstanding years, five strong years and three good years? It's kind of obviously Stockton's right? You'd like to say that years as good as Curry had guarantee a title, but that obviously isn't true: people throw up amazing years and come up short all the time.

I have much love for Curry's peak. But he really only had two super-seasons, and everything else simply isn't at that level. If he'd had a five-six year peak at the 2016 level, it might be another conversation for me.

Obviously the above method has a ton of flaws, but hopefully it conveys that a) Curry's peak has been narrow and b) he has an uphill battle to equal the career achievements of other greats with only seven strong years.

Okay, Im not a Stockton backer but you have Curry's second best year at 7.9 and third at 7.5
You have Stockon with 5 years better than or as good as Curry's second. And if that was the case that Stockton would be in already.
I havent done the math or really looked at it, but between Curry and Stockton's best seasons - 2,3,4,5, tied for 6th belong to Stockton?? I think Curry peaked way higher than Stockton, and Stockton's best season is probably below the next 10 guys; he has more good seasons maybe than anybody left, but less great ones. I havent voted yet, but I just dont see Stockton above Curry, Harden, Wade, I dont know what to do yet beyond that as I struggle with him against Walt Frazier, Pettit, Pippen

[sansterre]

I don't think anyone here doesn't think well of Curry's peak. The problem is that if you're doing a CORP-style analysis Curry's case doesn't hold up too well.

I'll be using BBR's VORP (for a lack of a better quick tool):

His first three seasons are +2.0, +2.7 and +1.2. Nothing big here.

Then, from '13 to '19 he puts up: +5.6, +6.7, +7.9, +9.5, +5.9, +4.0 and +5.1 (with good playoffs). Damned amazing.

Let's compare with Stockton:

His first two years are +0.7,, +2.1 and +3.4. I'll cheat and say that those cancel out Steph's first three years.

Then he has: +7.6, +8.3, +8.0, +8.1, +8.1, +6.2, +7.5, +7.9, +6.4, +6.3, +3.6, +2.8, +5.3, +5.3, +4.8 and +4.0. He gets somewhat worse in the playoffs.

Let's be super generous to Curry and say that at the intersection of VORP overrating Stockton and Stockton's getting worse in the postseason, that Stockton needs to put up *2* extra VORP to match a Curry season.

That leaves us comparing Curry's: +6.7, +7.9, +9.5

to Stockton's: +8.3, +8.1, +8.1, +8.0, +6.4, +6.3, +5.3, +5.3, +4.8, +4.0, +3.6 and +2.6.

Which of those combinations give you more probably championships? Curry's two outstanding years (and one insane year) or Stockton's four outstanding years, five strong years and three good years? It's kind of obviously Stockton's right? You'd like to say that years as good as Curry had guarantee a title, but that obviously isn't true: people throw up amazing years and come up short all the time.

I have much love for Curry's peak. But he really only had two super-seasons, and everything else simply isn't at that level. If he'd had a five-six year peak at the 2016 level, it might be anot
her conversation for me.

Obviously the above method has a ton of flaws, but hopefully it conveys that a) Curry's peak has been narrow and b) he has an uphill battle to equal the career achievements of other greats with only seven strong years.

Okay, Im not a Stockton backer but you have Curry's second best year at 7.9 and third at 7.5
You have Stockon with 5 years better than or as good as Curry's second. And if that was the case that Stockton would be in already.
I havent done the math or really looked at it, but between Curry and Stockton's best seasons - 2,3,4,5, tied for 6th belong to Stockton?? I think Curry peaked way higher than Stockton, and Stockton's best season is probably below the next 10 guys; he has more good seasons maybe than anybody left, but less great ones. I havent voted yet, but I just dont see Stockton above Curry, Harden, Wade, I dont know what to do yet beyond that as I struggle with him against Walt Frazier, Pettit, Pippen

I'm not saying that VORP should be taken as gospel. Stockton is everything VORP loves. It loves shooting efficiency, it loves spacing, it loves assists, it hates turnovers, it loves steals, it loves playing lots of minutes and it loves being a centerpiece on an outstanding offense. And Stockton was all of those things in spades. If I was designing a player to be overrated by VORP, I'd basically build Stockton.

That's why I acted like Curry's were 2 higher than Stockton's, because I think VORP likes Stockton too much. My point wasn't that Stockton's best five seasons were better than Curry's best five, it's that Curry's best seven seasons probably don't give you more value than Stockton's best *sixteen*. And that's the CORP/longevity argument.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #89:

Stephen Curry - 4 (Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva, Magic Is Magic, penbeast0)
Bob Pettit - 1 (Dr Positivity)
Steve Nash - 1 (Whopper_Sr)
John Stockton - 1 (trex_8063)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)


Should be almost exactly 24 hours until we wrap this one up. If your handle isn’t listed above, then I didn’t see a vote from you in this thread.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

You can't call other opinions laughable just because not everyone has the same criteria as yours.

I agree. But then in response to this....

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

....you said this:

The idea that 2014 Curry is on peak Nash level is laughable.

I wish you wouldn't call anyone's opinion "laughable" (even when it is), which this actually isn't. I don't know that I agree, but it's too close to call laughable. Nash is one of my all-time fav players, and obviously I've not been in the Curry camp here, but Curry was a pretty damn legit superstar by '14, so it's not an absurd comparison.

freethedevil called you out on this already itt......and he's kinda got a point [at least based on the exchanges I've seen here]. You gotta practice what you preach.

[MyUniBroDavis]

You can't call other opinions laughable just because not everyone has the same criteria as yours.

I agree. But then in response to this....

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

....you said this:

The idea that 2014 Curry is on peak Nash level is laughable.

I wish you wouldn't call anyone's opinion "laughable" (even when it is), which this actually isn't. I don't know that I agree, but it's too close to call laughable. Nash is one of my all-time fav players, and obviously I've not been in the Curry camp here, but Curry was a pretty damn legit superstar by '14, so it's not an absurd comparison.

freethedevil called you out on this already itt......and he's kinda got a point [at least based on the exchanges I've seen here]. You gotta practice what you preach.

Tbf 2014 curry was definately before his breakout breakout year, he was still elite but the typical arguemtns for curry are his other worldly impact numbers and that year they were still elite but bot as other worldly as other years

Otoh, 2014 curry could have done what 2015 curry did im pretty sure so i think thats more on mark jackson

[Cavsfansince84]

1. Bob Pettit
-10 time all nba 1st team
-what stands out to me as near prototypical size with very good length, athleticism and fluid movement for a pf
-very good shooter which he could do off the dribble
-excellent rebounder
-very good metrics/efficiency for his era(led league in per 4 times, has total ts add of 1757 for his career)
-25.5/15.8 career playoff averages
-won ring and top 4 in mvp voting 8 times

2. John Stockton
-very good prime where he is consistently running offenses that rate very highly in ORtg(top 11 every year from 1990-2003 and top 7 every year from 92-01)
-top 6 in vorp for 10 straight years
-obviously extremely durable and still a very good player until he retired at the age of 40
-career ts add of 2466 and consistently in the 140-200 range for 15 straight years
-led league in assists 9 straight years
-made 5 all defensive 2nd teams
-top 15 in mvp voting 13 times despite being sort of overshadowed by the Mailman
-I think somewhat underrated in terms of how dominant the Jazz were in those playoff runs in the 97/98 seasons until the finals. The Jazz were 22-6 vs the west in those years while going against 4 teams that won 56+ games including a sweep of a 61 win Laker team.

3. Steve Nash
-12 year prime where his teams were top 6 in ORtg 10x and top 4 8x
-led league in apg 5x and ast% 5x
-top 10 in mvp voting 6x, 2x winner
-very durable on top of having a long prime, averaging 76g per year during 12 year prime
-fair amount of playoff success(4x wcf) with Nash playing very well in those runs. Efficiency tended to hold up well.
-very efficient scorer with career ts add of 2127 and 3 straight years over 200 during peak years
-have him over a couple guys which may change

[Jordan Syndrome]

You can't call other opinions laughable just because not everyone has the same criteria as yours.

I agree. But then in response to this....

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

....you said this:

The idea that 2014 Curry is on peak Nash level is laughable.

I wish you wouldn't call anyone's opinion "laughable" (even when it is), which this actually isn't. I don't know that I agree, but it's too close to call laughable. Nash is one of my all-time fav players, and obviously I've not been in the Curry camp here, but Curry was a pretty damn legit superstar by '14, so it's not an absurd comparison.

freethedevil called you out on this already itt......and he's kinda got a point [at least based on the exchanges I've seen here]. You gotta practice what you preach.

Tbf 2014 curry was definately before his breakout breakout year, he was still elite but the typical arguemtns for curry are his other worldly impact numbers and that year they were still elite but bot as other worldly as other years

Otoh, 2014 curry could have done what 2015 curry did im pretty sure so i think thats more on mark jackson

2014 Curry was basically "otherworldly".

TS Add: 211.3
OBPM: 6.3
OWS: 9.3
Ortg On/Off: +16.1 per 100

2008 Kobe Bryant
TS Add: 144.2
OBPM: 5.2
OWS: 9.4
Ortg On/Off: +6.2 per 100

1987 Magic Johnson
TS Add: 203.2
OBPM: 7.5
OWS: 12.1

07 Steve Nash
TS Add: 242.8
OBPM: 6.7
OWS: 10.8
Ortg On/Off: +13.0 per 100

2013 Curry
TS Add: 165.0
OBPM: 5.3
OWS: 8.4
Ortg On/Off: +8.1

Statistically speaking, 2014 Curry is in the Magic/Nash tier of all-time greats as an ultra-efficient scorer, yet Curry scored on higher volume than Magic and Nash. Curry's gravity and impact offensively was certainly popping out at an all-time level as early as 2013 and by 2014 it was definitely a case of "This is the best offensive guard since Peak Nash", which I would categorize as "Otherworldly" myself.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm not saying that VORP should be taken as gospel. Stockton is everything VORP loves. It loves shooting efficiency, it loves spacing, it loves assists, it hates turnovers, it loves steals, it loves playing lots of minutes and it loves being a centerpiece on an outstanding offense. And Stockton was all of those things in spades. If I was designing a player to be overrated by VORP, I'd basically build Stockton.

That's why I acted like Curry's were 2 higher than Stockton's, because I think VORP likes Stockton too much. My point wasn't that Stockton's best five seasons were better than Curry's best five, it's that Curry's best seven seasons probably don't give you more value than Stockton's best *sixteen*. And that's the CORP/longevity argument.

The one thing I wonder though is why it seems to love Stockton as you put it(which I wouldn't really argue) but doesn't seem to like Nash so well when everything you pointed out about Stockton holds true about Nash. Its not that I am saying you are wrong here so much as there seems to be a discrepancy here that I'd like to see explained. As a comparison, Stockton had 10 seasons better than Nash's career best in vorp.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I'm not saying that VORP should be taken as gospel. Stockton is everything VORP loves. It loves shooting efficiency, it loves spacing, it loves assists, it hates turnovers, it loves steals, it loves playing lots of minutes and it loves being a centerpiece on an outstanding offense. And Stockton was all of those things in spades. If I was designing a player to be overrated by VORP, I'd basically build Stockton.

That's why I acted like Curry's were 2 higher than Stockton's, because I think VORP likes Stockton too much. My point wasn't that Stockton's best five seasons were better than Curry's best five, it's that Curry's best seven seasons probably don't give you more value than Stockton's best *sixteen*. And that's the CORP/longevity argument.

The one thing I wonder though is why it seems to love Stockton as you put it(which I wouldn't really argue) but doesn't seem to like Nash so well when everything you pointed out about Stockton holds true about Nash. Its not that I am saying you are wrong here so much as there seems to be a discrepancy here that I'd like to see explained. As a comparison, Stockton had 10 seasons better than Nash's career best in vorp.

Steals and Turnovers.

[sansterre]

1. John Stockton - I realize he's not a sexy pick, but he actually really good at his peak. Super efficient shooting, high assists, low turnovers, didn't make mistakes . . . I mean, he's just a really good point guard. Stockton's drawbacks? I see two. One, he never scored in volume (and for whatever reason, everybody loves volume scoring). And two, that he played with terminator-like consistency for so long with the same team that kept coming up short corrupts his narrative. Because Utah never won it's easy to dismiss Stockton with "just wasn't good enough, and that he played for so long just makes him not good enough for longer". Was he ever a Top 5 player? I don't think so. But he was almost certainly a Top 10 player for more than a decade. If he'd been the point guard in Chicago for the duration of his career he'd be ranked in the top 20 easy. But he played in Utah with Malone and not a whole lot else to work with. He was really good for really long. And that's enough for me.

2. Scottie Pippen - Basically, name anything that isn't "1st option scoring" and Pippen was amazing at it. Passing? Great. Rebounding? Really great. Defense? Pippen may be the best defensive non-big *ever*. Could he be the first option on an offense? He could, but it wasn't what he was built for. He was built for secondary playmaking, off-ball cutting, board crashing and murderous defense. If Pippen is your first option, you'd better have an amazing team around him to make it work. But if he's your second option . . . you're in a really good position. Pippen could fit on almost any roster ever. '74 Celtics instead of Havlicek? Sure! '90 Pistons instead of Rodman? Sure! He brings everything you could possibly want to the table and then some; Pippen was crazy scalable. He's prone to being underrated because he's not a first option scorer (at a championship level) but he was great at everything else and has a history of excellent postseason play. Do you realize how many roster combinations his skillset unlocks? Scottie Pippen may not be a flashy championship piece, but that doesn't make him less valuable.

3. Clyde Drexler - I know, I know, Drexler above Curry? But seriously. Drexler. He's got a Prime WOWYR comparable to Garnett, Kareem and Russell. He's got a career WOWYR comparable to Larry Bird and Steve Nash. He's a solid high usage scorer with decent efficiency, he's a good rebounder (and one of the best offensive rebounding 2s ever), he's a good passer who doesn't turn it over much and he was a very good defender, posting high steals and blocks totals consistently. Was he a dominant first option? No. But he was good at everything. And he carried the Blazers *hard*. I've looked at that roster: I'm not saying that it was garbage, but that team won the Western Conference twice only because of Drexler. When he was traded the Blazers went from averaging 107 points per game to 101 points per game for the rest of the year; losing him knocked them from being a +6.1 team to a +1.2 team (not adjusted for opposition). He carried a huge load, posting Heliocentrism ratings of 37% and 42% for two Conference Winners (43% and 38% in the playoffs for those years). Did he fall off in the playoffs? Yeah, a little. His volume shrank slightly and his efficiency dropped a bit, but not more than you'd expect against playoff opposition. And his rebounding, passing and defense retained value just fine. It's easy to point to the player with a narrow peak who had one insane skill (if that skill is scoring). Drexler was really good for a long peak (probably an 11-year peak from '87-'97) and he was good at *everything* which means that he'd be a quality addition to most rosters.

Here's Drexler's eleven year peak compared to Curry's eleven year peak (kidding, this is his whole career) (this is per game):

Curry: 23.5 / 4.5 / 6.6, 0.7 offensive rebounds, 1.7 steals, 3.1 turnovers, 62.3% TS, over 699 games
Drexler: 22.5 / 6.7 / 5.8, 2.6 offensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, 2.8 turnovers, 55.2% TS, over 779 games

Curry: 103.2 Win Shares, 0.207 WS/48, +6.4 BPM, 50.7 VORP
Drexler: 112.2 Win Shares, 0.189 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 57.9 VORP

Curry's the better scorer, no doubt. He's a slightly better passer. But Drexler's a much better rebounder and much better defender. And he's played in more games, which gives him more aggregate value (even if all the metrics think that Curry was slightly better per game).

But what about the playoffs?

Curry: 26.5 / 5.4 / 6.3, 0.8 offensive rebounds, 1.6 steals, 3.5 turnovers, 60.9% TS (112 games)
Drexler: 21.6 / 7.2 / 6.2, 2.5 offensive rebounds, 1.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers, 53.9% TS (122 games)

Curry: 17.1 Win Shares, 0.194 WS/48, +6.9 BPM, 9.5 VORP
Drexler: 14.7 Win Shares, 0.146 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 9.9 VORP

So at this point Curry's lead in scoring has expanded (the gap in efficiency is the same, but the volume gap has increased), but now Drexler's a comparable distributer with fewer turnovers, while being the better rebounder (especially offensive), and defender. The aggregate stats think that Curry was better in the playoffs, but not by much.

And let's not forget that Drexler has four more seasons that we're not even considering.

I'm just saying. Clyde Drexler was really good.

[Cavsfansince84]

The one thing I wonder though is why it seems to love Stockton as you put it(which I wouldn't really argue) but doesn't seem to like Nash so well when everything you pointed out about Stockton holds true about Nash. Its not that I am saying you are wrong here so much as there seems to be a discrepancy here that I'd like to see explained. As a comparison, Stockton had 10 seasons better than Nash's career best in vorp.

Steals and Turnovers.

That must be it though they have very close career tov%'s. 18.9% for Stockton to 19.5% for Nash. The big difference is steal % where it's 3.5% for Stockton to only 1.2% for Nash.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I agree. But then in response to this....


....you said this:



I wish you wouldn't call anyone's opinion "laughable" (even when it is), which this actually isn't. I don't know that I agree, but it's too close to call laughable. Nash is one of my all-time fav players, and obviously I've not been in the Curry camp here, but Curry was a pretty damn legit superstar by '14, so it's not an absurd comparison.

freethedevil called you out on this already itt......and he's kinda got a point [at least based on the exchanges I've seen here]. You gotta practice what you preach.

Tbf 2014 curry was definately before his breakout breakout year, he was still elite but the typical arguemtns for curry are his other worldly impact numbers and that year they were still elite but bot as other worldly as other years

Otoh, 2014 curry could have done what 2015 curry did im pretty sure so i think thats more on mark jackson

2014 Curry was basically "otherworldly".

TS Add: 211.3
OBPM: 6.3
OWS: 9.3
Ortg On/Off: +16.1 per 100

2008 Kobe Bryant
TS Add: 144.2
OBPM: 5.2
OWS: 9.4
Ortg On/Off: +6.2 per 100

1987 Magic Johnson
TS Add: 203.2
OBPM: 7.5
OWS: 12.1

07 Steve Nash
TS Add: 242.8
OBPM: 6.7
OWS: 10.8
Ortg On/Off: +13.0 per 100

2013 Curry
TS Add: 165.0
OBPM: 5.3
OWS: 8.4
Ortg On/Off: +8.1

Statistically speaking, 2014 Curry is in the Magic/Nash tier of all-time greats as an ultra-efficient scorer, yet Curry scored on higher volume than Magic and Nash. Curry's gravity and impact offensively was certainly popping out at an all-time level as early as 2013 and by 2014 it was definitely a case of "This is the best offensive guard since Peak Nash", which I would categorize as "Otherworldly" myself.

This idea of comparing players TS sounds really good in theory, theres alot it ignores. Your scoring effeciency should be measured through points above expectation not points above average.

Curry naturally is gonna take more high effeciency shots because a large part of his role in the offense is as a shooter beyond his in ball duties, thats naturally gonna be more effecient but it doesnt mean his scoring effeciency is higher neccessarily than someone doing a greater job at a less effecient role, and he wasnt used in a way where his off ball prowess was creating that many looks for his teammates like now. Id be curious what his POE is.
Of course theres value to him being able to get these oppertunities in the furst place but poe is a far better indicator of "scoring impact" than comparing their ts, there are alot of things wrong with comparing two guys who play similar yet different roles in the offence through raw effeciency

Im a fan of using raw on off contextually but you cant really raw compare players like that because of lineup variance and things like that, i like it more to compare trends and maybe their on court rating. Its mostly high from his off court rtg being so low, and while alot of people are gonna call it a lack of help, they basically didnt have a guy that could break down a defense or create other than curry, so its unsuprising how bad they werw with him off the court. When you think about offenses built around a star the "on court" rating is about what youd expect from the on court rating of a star in a league average offense, that the team and mark jackson couldnt run a stable offense without their only "off the dribble creator" off the floor isnt reallt indicative of curry having an absurd in court impact more so than the team lackkng in an area curry provides

Its also worth noting neither currys npi or pi rapm are near the outlier levels rhat they hit 2015-2020. I think rapm gets a but overhyped in that people forget its a measurement of impact with a fairly large level of noise at an individual level and tend to use it as a definitive ranking, but that, coupled with the fact that it should be crazy high based off of the type of roster he was in, makes me think curry in 2014 being the best offensive guard since peak nash is kinda odd

I get what people are trying to do with TS add to compare players and in general it kind of works for players in very similar roles, but 2 guys being the lead scorers isnt really close enough to being similar roles to use it

[MyUniBroDavis]

1. John Stockton - I realize he's not a sexy pick, but he actually really good at his peak. Super efficient shooting, high assists, low turnovers, didn't make mistakes . . . I mean, he's just a really good point guard. Stockton's drawbacks? I see two. One, he never scored in volume (and for whatever reason, everybody loves volume scoring). And two, that he played with terminator-like consistency for so long with the same team that kept coming up short corrupts his narrative. Because Utah never won it's easy to dismiss Stockton with "just wasn't good enough, and that he played for so long just makes him not good enough for longer". Was he ever a Top 5 player? I don't think so. But he was almost certainly a Top 10 player for more than a decade. If he'd been the point guard in Chicago for the duration of his career he'd be ranked in the top 20 easy. But he played in Utah with Malone and not a whole lot else to work with. He was really good for really long. And that's enough for me.

2. Scottie Pippen - Basically, name anything that isn't "1st option scoring" and Pippen was amazing at it. Passing? Great. Rebounding? Really great. Defense? Pippen may be the best defensive non-big *ever*. Could he be the first option on an offense? He could, but it wasn't what he was built for. He was built for secondary playmaking, off-ball cutting, board crashing and murderous defense. If Pippen is your first option, you'd better have an amazing team around him to make it work. But if he's your second option . . . you're in a really good position. Pippen could fit on almost any roster ever. '74 Celtics instead of Havlicek? Sure! '90 Pistons instead of Rodman? Sure! He brings everything you could possibly want to the table and then some; Pippen was crazy scalable. He's prone to being underrated because he's not a first option scorer (at a championship level) but he was great at everything else and has a history of excellent postseason play. Do you realize how many roster combinations his skillset unlocks? Scottie Pippen may not be a flashy championship piece, but that doesn't make him less valuable.

3. Clyde Drexler - I know, I know, Drexler above Curry? But seriously. Drexler. He's got a Prime WOWYR comparable to Garnett, Kareem and Russell. He's got a career WOWYR comparable to Larry Bird and Steve Nash. He's a solid high usage scorer with decent efficiency, he's a good rebounder (and one of the best offensive rebounding 2s ever), he's a good passer who doesn't turn it over much and he was a very good defender, posting high steals and blocks totals consistently. Was he a dominant first option? No. But he was good at everything. And he carried the Blazers *hard*. I've looked at that roster: I'm not saying that it was garbage, but that team won the Western Conference twice only because of Drexler. When he was traded the Blazers went from averaging 107 points per game to 101 points per game for the rest of the year; losing him knocked them from being a +6.1 team to a +1.2 team (not adjusted for opposition). He carried a huge load, posting Heliocentrism ratings of 37% and 42% for two Conference Winners (43% and 38% in the playoffs for those years). Did he fall off in the playoffs? Yeah, a little. His volume shrank slightly and his efficiency dropped a bit, but not more than you'd expect against playoff opposition. And his rebounding, passing and defense retained value just fine. It's easy to point to the player with a narrow peak who had one insane skill (if that skill is scoring). Drexler was really good for a long peak (probably an 11-year peak from '87-'97) and he was good at *everything* which means that he'd be a quality addition to most rosters.

Here's Drexler's eleven year peak compared to Curry's eleven year peak (kidding, this is his whole career) (this is per game):

Curry: 23.5 / 4.5 / 6.6, 0.7 offensive rebounds, 1.7 steals, 3.1 turnovers, 62.3% TS, over 699 games
Drexler: 22.5 / 6.7 / 5.8, 2.6 offensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, 2.8 turnovers, 55.2% TS, over 779 games

Curry: 103.2 Win Shares, 0.207 WS/48, +6.4 BPM, 50.7 VORP
Drexler: 112.2 Win Shares, 0.189 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 57.9 VORP

Curry's the better scorer, no doubt. He's a slightly better passer. But Drexler's a much better rebounder and much better defender. And he's played in more games, which gives him more aggregate value (even if all the metrics think that Curry was slightly better per game).

But what about the playoffs?

Curry: 26.5 / 5.4 / 6.3, 0.8 offensive rebounds, 1.6 steals, 3.5 turnovers, 60.9% TS (112 games)
Drexler: 21.6 / 7.2 / 6.2, 2.5 offensive rebounds, 1.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers, 53.9% TS (122 games)

Curry: 17.1 Win Shares, 0.194 WS/48, +6.9 BPM, 9.5 VORP
Drexler: 14.7 Win Shares, 0.146 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 9.9 VORP

So at this point Curry's lead in scoring has expanded (the gap in efficiency is the same, but the volume gap has increased), but now Drexler's a comparable distributer with fewer turnovers, while being the better rebounder (especially offensive), and defender. The aggregate stats think that Curry was better in the playoffs, but not by much.

And let's not forget that Drexler has four more seasons that we're not even considering.

I'm just saying. Clyde Drexler was really good.

I get what youre saying for clyde but comparing their box score metrics ignore their roles, currys the engine but not neccesssarily their lead scorer

The idea is more so currys 5 year peak is so much higher than alot of the other candidates right now, which is fair. Hes not gonna be more important to his team, at least 17-19, because they were stacked as hell.

But given that he was playing with a top 3, maybe top 1 scorer in the league in KD, over his prime he was a good deal better at scoring and raw effeciency than drexler, and while i made the argument about POE for his 2014 year hes utilized in such a way off ball post kerr that theres alot more intrinsic impaxt in those off ball oppertunities over the rs

Also, keep in mind curry sits games early because how much they lead by as well. Its also a stupidly small sample but they were 2-3 without curry pre durant, for what its worth, 138-21 with

Per 36:
Dresler 24.2/6.7/5.9 on 55.9TS
Curry 28.7/5.3/7.1 on 64.8TS

His effeciency didnt go up much with durant either, volume just for obvious reasons isnt gonna be as high

I think that with curry the argument is that his career value isnt gonna be as high because his prime so far is only 5 seasons long.

Otoh though, i do think peak curry is more than a tier higher than the guys that are still on the board and have arguments at this spot

Like ive mentioned his dropoff in the playoffs, but the thing is, that dropoff is still a good deal higher than everyone elses peak, and even though his offensive style lacks consistency in playoff situations i feel, theres gonna be a ton of value in being so good that if you have a short roll big and the team is utilizing you correctly, you will instantly have a top 1-3 offense.

While i get the argument for career value km gonna pick 5 years of curry over alot of guys careers to win me a title