Basketball1981 wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Basketball1981 wrote:
I can see your point. I would still insist on Duncan being clearly better. Duncan was not only able to score 20 points a night, he was also a terrific rebounder, good passer and GREAT defender. He impacted a game in sooo many ways and always delivered in the playoffs as well. I firmly believe Duncan could hae EASILY averaged 25points a night if he wanted or needed to. But playing with Parker and Ginobili in a great system he just didn't have to score more than 20points.
Curry in comparision is a scorer and passer but weak on defense. Look at it a different way. Take the currently worst squad in the league...a team like Indiana or Chicago etc. and envision that team with a prime Duncan vs. a prime Curry. You put a prime Duncan on any team in the league and that team is a playoffs team in their respective conference. The same cannot be said about Curry IMO.
And this is coming from a knick fan that loves and respects both players. I loved watching the great Spurs and I love watching this warrior team but IMO there is no comparison between a prime Duncan and a prime Curry. If Durant doesn't join the Warriors, there is a great chance we are talking about how this run and gun style fails ultimately instead of comparing these two. As much as I like the Warriors, I firmly believe that without Durant they lose to the Cavs again.
But that's the old "floor" argument. When we're talking about greatness, it is about who creates the greater ceiling, not floor. I want to know who I can add to a 45 win team and get them to 70, not the guy who gets a 20 win team 50.
I'm about as big a Duncan fan as there is. He's easily been my favorite player since Jordan and Manu is second.
It's funny 07 Duncan was a comically undervalued season of his before the real plus data came out, and now people have gone to the whole other extreme. They now think it was some kind of all time great offensive seasons too? The spurs won 58 games that year. Manu and Parker were both allstar level, heck all nba level players with him. I know neither were properly awarded that year, which is a shame especially for Manu.
As for the KD argument, I'd have to see what the warriors roster would have looked like without KD. It certainly wouldn't have been just the team they had minus KD. Still, given Curry was healthy in the finals, I think as long as they had the team from the year before more or less, I think Curry wins that series in 6.
I still think that even if you want to add someone to a 45win team it should be Duncan. Basketball has changed a whole lot. Everyone that is following the NBA since the mid 90s (like me) knows that the game today is completely different than the game 15 years ago. However I still maintain that if you have the choice between a 7foot guy that has more or less no weakness in his game (Duncan's free throw shooting was not great but it wasn't a real weakness either), can score an defend with the best of them--you go with that guy.
As great as Curry is on offense, he is to weak a defender to be taken ahead of Duncan IMO. As much as I respect Curry , I would take a prime Chris Paul over Curry too. I guess I just value two way player really way higher than strictly offensive players--as great as they may be.
As for the Warriors vs. Cavs. What you say about the Warriors makeup is true and there is no real way to find out how the series would have gone. Maybe Thompson would have been in a greater rhythm, maybe Green would have scored more etc. But something about the way the games went made me very suspicious about the Warriors being able to win it without Durant. Green and Thompson were kinda off their games and Curry was solid. The only Warrior that was truly great throughout the playoffs and finals was Durant. Especially in the finals it seemed like Durant was the guy answering each bell and making all the clutch plays.
When I go back to the 2016 and 2015 finals....there is just something about Curry's and Thompson's game where they are not able to perform as great as during the regular season. I suspect it is a lack of athleticism so that they struggle to get to the rim in the playoffs and have to overrely on their shooting against better defenses. But somehow I always thought that Curry and Thompson don't quite meet my expectations during all their playoff runs and the Warriors always seemed to struggle more than you woul expect during the playoffs. That all changed with Durant. There are two arguments about the 2015 and 2016 finals. You can say the Warriors would have won 2016 if it wasn't for the Green suspension. However looking at the 2015 finals it was extremely odd that a healthy Warrior team would struggle so badly against a Cavs team without Irving and love. It needed some miracle threes by Curry to swing that series in the Warriors favor. Just something about the Warriors playoff runs without Durant, and about the struggles of Curry and Thompson during the playoffs that has made me value their games a little less than all-time greats like Duncan.
We are just discussing 2017. I pretend no other season existed for curry from this and just 07 from duncan. I want that clear as often people try to bring in other years.
As for curry in 15 and 16, his body broke down and failed him. Maybe he just isnt' durable enough, but it isn't athletic ability or skill. He was legit playing hurt both years and you absolutely can hold being injured against him, but remember WHY he was playing poorly. It wasn't that they "found him out". If you contend curry would have been hurt carrying more of a load, then I'm fine with your finals projection. It however shouldn't and can't be used in this comparison between the two players.
As for the ceiling floor argument, why did the spurs win 58 games? That alone tells me that Duncan didn't bring them up because he clearly had a great roster that year around him and couldn't even elevate them to 60 wins?
