Rank their peak impact today: Curry vs MJ vs Shaq vs Lebron vs Hakeem?

[mischievous]

Lebron was better than Curry the past 2 postseaons, arguably the past 3 and there’s still people picking Curry, it doesn’t make any damn sense.

[Red Skies]

Lebron was better than Curry the past 2 postseaons, arguably the past 3 and there’s still people picking Curry, it doesn’t make any damn sense.

If we thought James was better during the past few postseasons, we probably wouldn't be picking Curry. We obviously don't.

[Joey Wheeler]

Jordan
Lebron
Shaq
Hakeem
Curry

The Curry hype is completely out of control on this board, he's the worst player defensively out of these 5 by a very large margin plus he's most definitely not as good offensively as Jordan and Lebron in the playoffs. Even if the question was just offensive impact, there's no good argument to have him higher than #3 on this list, let alone when you factor in defense.

[clyde21]

Jordan
Lebron
Shaq
Hakeem
Curry

The Curry hype is completely out of control on this board, he's the worst player defensively out of these 5 by a very large margin plus he's most definitely not as good offensively as Jordan and Lebron in the playoffs. Even if the question was just offensive impact, there's no good argument to have him higher than #3 on this list, let alone when you factor in defense.

And yet, he's the only one out of the the group to lead his team to 73 wins. Did Jordan do it? Nope. LeBron? Nope. Hakeem or Shaq? Nope.

As for whether he's "not as good offensively as Jordan or LeBron in the POs"...maybe we can let the stats speak for themselves?

Jordan per 36 career POs: 29ppg / 5apg with 28 PER, 54.5 TS%, 118 ORTG and a 8.3 OBPM.

LeBron per 36 career POs: 24ppg / 6apg with 30 PER, 65 TS%, 115 ORTG and a 7.3 OBPM.

Steph per 36 career POs: 25ppg / 6apg with 27 PER, 61 TS%, 116 ORTG and a 7.3 OBPM.

Not this huge discrepancy you're attempting to portray.

[Regulio]

Hm, I am just wondering who could guard Shaq in today's league. Conventional centers are becoming a rarity.
I think he would destroy nowadays teams at his peak.

Anyway, I'd take MJ as first, can't see a reason why not, he delivered when he was supposed to all the time.
LBJ is a better player than Curry, no question about that to me as well.
Not sure about Hakeem. He wasn't that great offensively, but he would be a monster on D even in this era.

[laika]

Jordan
Lebron
Shaq
Hakeem
Curry

The Curry hype is completely out of control on this board, he's the worst player defensively out of these 5 by a very large margin plus he's most definitely not as good offensively as Jordan and Lebron in the playoffs. Even if the question was just offensive impact, there's no good argument to have him higher than #3 on this list, let alone when you factor in defense.

And yet, he's the only one out of the the group to lead his team to 73 wins. Did Jordan do it? Nope. LeBron? Nope. Hakeem or Shaq? Nope.

As for whether he's "not as good offensively as Jordan or LeBron in the POs"...maybe we can let the stats speak for themselves?

Jordan per 36 career POs: 29ppg / 5apg with 28 PER, 54.5 TS%, 118 ORTG and a 8.3 OBPM.

LeBron per 36 career POs: 24ppg / 6apg with 30 PER, 65 TS%, 115 ORTG and a 7.3 OBPM.

Steph per 36 career POs: 25ppg / 6apg with 27 PER, 61 TS%, 116 ORTG and a 7.3 OBPM.

Not this huge discrepancy you're attempting to portray.

These stats are wrong. The actual numbers-
Curry- 25.0 pts, 6.3 ast, .609 TS%
Jordan- 28.8 pts, 4.9 ast, .568 TS%
Lebron- 24.3 pts, 5.9 ast, .574 TS%

PER, Ortng and BPM are not accurate enough to ever bother to reference. You can argue about the value of playing more minutes, but Curry has the best per minute career playoff stats of the three.

[thekdog34]

Hakeem's defense would be great but the question is how the offense would work?

That said Hakeem was good at finding open 3pt shooters.

[mihail_petkov]

Lebron was better than Curry the past 2 postseaons, arguably the past 3 and there’s still people picking Curry, it doesn’t make any damn sense.

LeBron better than Curry last playoffs? It's close but saying he was better...

Curry per36: 28.6 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 6.6 apg, 2.0 spg, 3.5 tpg, 125 ORTG, 105 DRTG, 27.1 PER, 66% TS, .272 WS/48, 10.8 BPM, 2.0 VORP, +18.5 on, +20.5 on/off (yeah, the GOAT team was -2.1 with Curry on the bench in the playoffs).
LeBron per36: 28.6 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 6.6 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 tpg, 125 ORTG, 108 DRTG, 30.1 PER, 65% TS, .275 WS/48, 11.5 BPM, 2.5 VORP, +12.9 on, +30.7 on/off

Both of them had GOAT level playoffs. Saying one of them was clearly better is pretty much unfair.

[Joey Wheeler]

Jordan
Lebron
Shaq
Hakeem
Curry

The Curry hype is completely out of control on this board, he's the worst player defensively out of these 5 by a very large margin plus he's most definitely not as good offensively as Jordan and Lebron in the playoffs. Even if the question was just offensive impact, there's no good argument to have him higher than #3 on this list, let alone when you factor in defense.

And yet, he's the only one out of the the group to lead his team to 73 wins. Did Jordan do it? Nope. LeBron? Nope. Hakeem or Shaq? Nope.

As for whether he's "not as good offensively as Jordan or LeBron in the POs"...maybe we can let the stats speak for themselves?

Jordan per 36 career POs: 29ppg / 5apg with 28 PER, 54.5 TS%, 118 ORTG and a 8.3 OBPM.

LeBron per 36 career POs: 24ppg / 6apg with 30 PER, 65 TS%, 115 ORTG and a 7.3 OBPM.

Steph per 36 career POs: 25ppg / 6apg with 27 PER, 61 TS%, 116 ORTG and a 7.3 OBPM.

Not this huge discrepancy you're attempting to portray.

Regular season wins have no intrinsic value in the NBA. Curry lost the championship the year he won those 73 wins to a 57-win Lebron team; Hakeem won the title in a year where his team was the 6th seed with 47 wins... Shaq had the most dominant playoff run ever (2001 Lakers) in a year his team won 56. There's no direct correlation between # of RS wins and how good a team actually is: in reality the 73-win Warriors were not much better if at all than the 57-win Cavs, 67-win Spurs and 55-win OKC in that same season as we saw in the playoffs. The following year's 67-win Warriors could potentially sweep that 73-win team.

Pretty convenient to give those stats per 36; the fact Jordan and Lebron can stay on the floor more minutes is another advantage they have. It's not a small gap there either, Lebron and Jordan play 42mpg in the playoffs, Curry 38. They are also better in high leverage moments than Curry. But even if we concede Curry is their equal on offense (a concession with very little legs to stand on to begin with) he still can't compare to them overall because of defense.

Tbf, Curry doesn't have much argument against Shaq either unless we go by the assumption Shaq would struggle in today's game. Shaq at peak was arguably the most dominant force we've ever seen; the only reason I have him behind Jordan and Lebron is Shaq needs to be fed while Jordan/Lebron can act as the primary ballhandlers on their teams.

[clyde21]

Regular season wins have no intrinsic value in the NBA. Curry lost the championship the year he won those 73 wins to a 57-win Lebron team; Hakeem won the title in a year where his team was the 6th seed with 47 wins... Shaq had the most dominant playoff run ever (2001 Lakers) in a year his team won 56. There's no direct correlation between # of RS wins and how good a team actually is: in reality the 73-win Warriors were not much better if at all than the 57-win Cavs, 67-win Spurs and 55-win OKC in that same season as we saw in the playoffs. The following year's 67-win Warriors could potentially sweep that 73-win team.

Does that mean we can stop talking about Durant joining a 73 win team?

Pretty convenient to give those stats per 36; the fact Jordan and Lebron can stay on the floor more minutes is another advantage they have. It's not a small gap there either, Lebron and Jordan play 42mpg in the playoffs, Curry 38. They are also better in high leverage moments than Curry. But even if we concede Curry is their equal on offense (a concession with very little legs to stand on to begin with) he still can't compare to them overall because of defense.

Lol, it's not like Curry played 12 minutes and I'm extrapolating it to 36. He played over 30, and the only reason he didn't was because Curry's teams often blew out the competition where he didn't have to play 4th quarters, not because Jordan and LeBron "can play more minutes".

Tbf, Curry doesn't have much argument against Shaq either unless we go by the assumption Shaq would struggle in today's game. Shaq at peak was arguably the most dominant force we've ever seen; the only reason I have him behind Jordan and Lebron is Shaq needs to be fed while Jordan/Lebron can act as the primary ballhandlers on their teams.

I don't think Shaq would be as good today as he was in the 2000s, so yes, I do think Curry has an argument. You should stop pretending that he doesn't even belong in the conversation.

[The-Power]

Regular season wins have no intrinsic value in the NBA. Curry lost the championship the year he won those 73 wins to a 57-win Lebron team; Hakeem won the title in a year where his team was the 6th seed with 47 wins... Shaq had the most dominant playoff run ever (2001 Lakers) in a year his team won 56. There's no direct correlation between # of RS wins and how good a team actually is: in reality the 73-win Warriors were not much better if at all than the 57-win Cavs, 67-win Spurs and 55-win OKC in that same season as we saw in the playoffs. The following year's 67-win Warriors could potentially sweep that 73-win team.

Does that mean we can stop talking about Durant joining a 73 win team?

Nah, this argument only applies when it's convenient. It's still okay to hate on Durant because of it, you must be able to understand that.

Same with per36 numbers. You cannot use them in comparison to someone like Jordan, but you also can't use raw numbers because teams score more points and it's easier to score today. So basically when looking at Curry, you have to use his raw numbers and subtract something from them as well – then we can compare them to the numbers former players posted, except that we also add some more points and some percent to the TS% because of the generally increased efficiency.

[Joey Wheeler]

Regular season wins have no intrinsic value in the NBA. Curry lost the championship the year he won those 73 wins to a 57-win Lebron team; Hakeem won the title in a year where his team was the 6th seed with 47 wins... Shaq had the most dominant playoff run ever (2001 Lakers) in a year his team won 56. There's no direct correlation between # of RS wins and how good a team actually is: in reality the 73-win Warriors were not much better if at all than the 57-win Cavs, 67-win Spurs and 55-win OKC in that same season as we saw in the playoffs. The following year's 67-win Warriors could potentially sweep that 73-win team.

Does that mean we can stop talking about Durant joining a 73 win team?

Pretty convenient to give those stats per 36; the fact Jordan and Lebron can stay on the floor more minutes is another advantage they have. It's not a small gap there either, Lebron and Jordan play 42mpg in the playoffs, Curry 38. They are also better in high leverage moments than Curry. But even if we concede Curry is their equal on offense (a concession with very little legs to stand on to begin with) he still can't compare to them overall because of defense.

Lol, it's not like Curry played 12 minutes and I'm extrapolating it to 36. He played over 30, and the only reason he didn't was because Curry's teams often blew out the competition where he didn't have to play 4th quarters, not because Jordan and LeBron "can play more minutes".

Tbf, Curry doesn't have much argument against Shaq either unless we go by the assumption Shaq would struggle in today's game. Shaq at peak was arguably the most dominant force we've ever seen; the only reason I have him behind Jordan and Lebron is Shaq needs to be fed while Jordan/Lebron can act as the primary ballhandlers on their teams.

I don't think Shaq would be as good today as he was in the 2000s, so yes, I do think Curry has an argument. You should stop pretending that he doesn't even belong in the conversation.

I don't believe I've ever said that about Durant. I did say he joined a team that was championship-level without him, but 73-win team is clearly exaggerating how good they were... We can and should stop referring to teams by their # of RS wins though in general, that's for sure. It's been shown time and time again that there's no direct correlation in the NBA between # of RS wins and how good a team really is. There are teams who won less than 60 games that are decisively better than the so-called 73-win Warriors, like the 2001 Lakers. Last year and this year's Warriors are also decidedly better teams...

That was only the case last year, in years before that GSW weren't blowing teams out in the playoffs, even when they won the title in 2015. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but aside from last year I'd imagine most of the Jordan Bulls teams won by a bigger margin than the Warriors in the playoffs...

As for whether Curry 'belongs in the conversation', it depends on what you mean by that. He certainly has no argument to be any higher than #3 on this list. It's not like the comparison to Lebron is even hypothetical, whether you consider Curry's peak 2016 or 2017 Lebron was playing at the same time and was pretty uncontroversially the better player even while not being at his peak himself. An argument against Shaq would have to be almost entirely based on Shaq having trouble adapting to the way teams play today. Against Hakeem at least he's most definitely the better offensive player in that comparison.

[dreamshake]

And yet, he's the only one out of the the group to lead his team to 73 wins. Did Jordan do it? Nope. LeBron? Nope. Hakeem or Shaq? Nope.

This is such a silly point to me. The primary reason it's hard to win that many games is health. The other 2 members of Curry's "big 3" only missed a combined 3 games that season - that's what makes that season such an anomaly. The '13 Heat were just as dominant during that 27 game win streak and won 66 games that season. The difference is that Wade & Bosh missed 21 games. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you got 18 more games from Wade & Bosh that season they could have picked up 7 more wins. And every season with the 2nd-era Cavs so far either Kyrie/IT or Love has missed big chunks of the season. I feel pretty confident that if you gave the peak version of any of those 4 players a supporting cast as good as the '16 Warriors and they missed as few games as those guys did any of those 5 guys could achieve similar results. And probably win the title as well.

[clyde21]

And yet, he's the only one out of the the group to lead his team to 73 wins. Did Jordan do it? Nope. LeBron? Nope. Hakeem or Shaq? Nope.

This is such a silly point to me. The primary reason it's hard to win that many games is health. The other 2 members of Curry's "big 3" only missed a combined 3 games that season - that's what makes that season such an anomaly. The '13 Heat were just as dominant during that 27 game win streak and won 66 games that season. The difference is that Wade & Bosh missed 21 games. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you got 18 more games from Wade & Bosh that season they could have picked up 7 more wins. And every season with the 2nd-era Cavs so far either Kyrie/IT or Love has missed big chunks of the season. I feel pretty confident that if you gave the peak version of any of those 4 players a supporting cast as good as the '16 Warriors and they missed as few games as those guys did any of those 5 guys could achieve similar results. And probably win the title as well.

Really? Health? That's the reason we've only had two 70 win seasons in 50 years? That's the best you can come up with?

[clyde21]

I don't believe I've ever said that about Durant. I did say he joined a team that was championship-level without him, but 73-win team is clearly exaggerating how good they were... We can and should stop referring to teams by their # of RS wins though in general, that's for sure.

Well, that's another topic altogether, though I do find it amusing how you always try to find ways to underplay and diminish Steph's accomplishments...even the 2nd ever 70 wins season.

It's been shown time and time again that there's no direct correlation in the NBA between # of RS wins and how good a team really is. There are teams who won less than 60 games that are decisively better than the so-called 73-win Warriors, like the 2001 Lakers. Last year and this year's Warriors are also decidedly better teams...

What are you talking about? There is direct correlation between record and who wins the championship. The team with the best RS regular goes on to win the championship more often than any other non-1st overall seed team. How is that not correlation?

That was only the case last year, in years before that GSW weren't blowing teams out in the playoffs, even when they won the title in 2015. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but aside from last year I'd imagine most of the Jordan Bulls teams won by a bigger margin than the Warriors in the playoffs

2015 the Warriors were a young team with a brand new HC in a brand new system making their first deep postseason run as a team. No one was expecting them to "blow out" teams at any point. People were actually surprised they won 67 games that year given their preseason projections (most had them in the 50 win range as a 5th or 6th seed).

And in 2016 they would'be blown everyone out, including the Cavs, had Curry not been injured. You put 2017 PO Curry on the 2016 Warriors and not only do the Warriors win 73 games, they go on to sweep the POs and finals.

As for whether Curry 'belongs in the conversation', it depends on what you mean by that. He certainly has no argument to be any higher than #3 on this list.

I have him at three. But where you lost me is when you put crap out like "doesn't belong offensively with Jordan and LeBron". It's just untrue no many levels and you know it.

[dreamshake]

1. As good as people believe Klay and Draymond to be we don't know how they would fare on other teams. The role-players on the Lakers and Bulls showed they could win rings on multiple teams. .

Yeah I'm sure Klay would forget how to shoot on another team. Or Draymond wouldn't be able to play defense. This is silly. Did you really not know that Scottie Pippen was a good player until '99? I mean we never saw Larry Bird on a team other than the Celtics or Tim Duncan on another team than the Spurs, so maybe they weren't really that good.

2. Compiling top 100 rankings by career is silly? You know what? I think you're right because it distorts and misses the mark on what people are really after when they ask who is the best/better player. But that's how people are doing it. I'm not going to apologize for it in this case though because Curry is being grossly underrated with the approach. In any event the one being compared is Durant and I'm sure there are many who will say Kobe is better and Pippen would be comparable. Furthermore we have years where Curry was at MVP and championship level without KD so it's largely a moot point in regards to Curry's skill and impact except to show he can incorporate and play with all-time great talent with negligible negative effects which is something that has not been shown and something we cannot assume with the others.

I never said compiling top 100 rankings by career is silly. I think you're missing the point of those rankings - they're not supposed to tell you which player was better at any given time. It's about total value of their careers. And my point was that you can't use them to compare a player with an in-progress career with a retired player.

[dreamshake]

And yet, he's the only one out of the the group to lead his team to 73 wins. Did Jordan do it? Nope. LeBron? Nope. Hakeem or Shaq? Nope.

This is such a silly point to me. The primary reason it's hard to win that many games is health. The other 2 members of Curry's "big 3" only missed a combined 3 games that season - that's what makes that season such an anomaly. The '13 Heat were just as dominant during that 27 game win streak and won 66 games that season. The difference is that Wade & Bosh missed 21 games. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you got 18 more games from Wade & Bosh that season they could have picked up 7 more wins. And every season with the 2nd-era Cavs so far either Kyrie/IT or Love has missed big chunks of the season. I feel pretty confident that if you gave the peak version of any of those 4 players a supporting cast as good as the '16 Warriors and they missed as few games as those guys did any of those 5 guys could achieve similar results. And probably win the title as well.

Really? Health? That's the reason we've only had two 70 win seasons in 50 years? That's the best you can come up with?

My point is for a season like that to happen it takes:

1. A great player at or near their peak
2. A great supporting cast
3. much better than average luck in terms of injuries

It's rare for those things to line up and a lot (most) great players never get a chance at a season like that b/c of points #2 & #3 not happening simultaneously. There's simply not a season where most players have a reasonable opportunity to win that many games regardless of how well they play.

[WarriorGM]

As for whether Curry 'belongs in the conversation', it depends on what you mean by that. He certainly has no argument to be any higher than #3 on this list. It's not like the comparison to Lebron is even hypothetical, whether you consider Curry's peak 2016 or 2017 Lebron was playing at the same time and was pretty uncontroversially the better player even while not being at his peak himself. An argument against Shaq would have to be almost entirely based on Shaq having trouble adapting to the way teams play today. Against Hakeem at least he's most definitely the better offensive player in that comparison.

Curry most certainly has an argument to be higher than #3 on this list. He is the most efficient player. Let me repeat. He is the most efficient player. Theoretically that makes him better and Curry has actual victories over LeBron to support the argument.

[clyde21]

This is such a silly point to me. The primary reason it's hard to win that many games is health. The other 2 members of Curry's "big 3" only missed a combined 3 games that season - that's what makes that season such an anomaly. The '13 Heat were just as dominant during that 27 game win streak and won 66 games that season. The difference is that Wade & Bosh missed 21 games. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you got 18 more games from Wade & Bosh that season they could have picked up 7 more wins. And every season with the 2nd-era Cavs so far either Kyrie/IT or Love has missed big chunks of the season. I feel pretty confident that if you gave the peak version of any of those 4 players a supporting cast as good as the '16 Warriors and they missed as few games as those guys did any of those 5 guys could achieve similar results. And probably win the title as well.

Really? Health? That's the reason we've only had two 70 win seasons in 50 years? That's the best you can come up with?

My point is for a season like that to happen it takes:

1. A great player at or near their peak
2. A great supporting cast
3. much better than average luck in terms of injuries

It's rare for those things to line up and a lot (most) great players never get a chance at a season like that b/c of points #2 & #3 not happening simultaneously. There's simply not a season where most players have a reasonable opportunity to win that many games regardless of how well they play.

So, basically, the stars aligned for Steph to win 73 games? I just want to make sure before I proceed with this conversation.

[kabstah]

And yet, he's the only one out of the the group to lead his team to 73 wins. Did Jordan do it? Nope. LeBron? Nope. Hakeem or Shaq? Nope.

This is such a silly point to me. The primary reason it's hard to win that many games is health. The other 2 members of Curry's "big 3" only missed a combined 3 games that season - that's what makes that season such an anomaly. The '13 Heat were just as dominant during that 27 game win streak and won 66 games that season. The difference is that Wade & Bosh missed 21 games. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you got 18 more games from Wade & Bosh that season they could have picked up 7 more wins. And every season with the 2nd-era Cavs so far either Kyrie/IT or Love has missed big chunks of the season. I feel pretty confident that if you gave the peak version of any of those 4 players a supporting cast as good as the '16 Warriors and they missed as few games as those guys did any of those 5 guys could achieve similar results. And probably win the title as well.

Point differential per 100 possessions:
2015 Curry/Draymond/Klay: +19.7
2016 Curry/Draymond/Klay: +20.3

2011 LeBron/Wade/Bosh: +15.4
2012 LeBron/Wade/Bosh: +12.5
2013 LeBron/Wade/Bosh: +12.6

No matter how we slice it, the Big 3 Heat were just never as good as the Big 3 Warriors. I didn't look at any LeBron teams past 2013, because he clearly stopped caring about the RS at that point, but I can't imagine they're anywhere close either.