Is Stephen Curry the greatest scorer at the PG position

[dhsilv2]

From some statements I've read I really gotta say this... superstars of the 00s, the 10s, the 90s, 80s or any era would be superstar in any era.

They were/are great at basketball. They would adjust to the era they would be in. But they have natural talent, a lot of will to work hard and be great and those are things they would keep with them. Natural talent and the right mindset is what produces superstar talents. And that doesn't change in any era. The work is just different from era to era, the game is different but they would damn adapt. MJ could have played in any era and he would be in contention for GOAT. LeBron, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan...

And yes those other stars who aren't as good but were still great would be great too. And James Harden is within those players. I don't think people sometimes understand what type of mindset and work is needed for a guy to be an NBA superstar.

Harden is a not a vertical leaper. "he's got fat knees" Name one none vertical leaper at the 2G that was a superstar during the 80's or 90's. or even 00's

Harden is just a bigger more ball hog version of Manu

Manu is one of the most impactful players of the last 20 years. That's high high praise for anyone. If Manu had played 36 minutes a game, he'd likely have been constantly in debates with fans on if he was better than Kobe.

[dhsilv2]

If Harden is a point guard then Michael Jordan is a point guard too. Michael brought the ball up most of the time and ran the offense.

Pippen was bulls point.

[Johnlac1]

It's apples and oranges to try and prove who was a better scorer. It's almost impossible (or at least very difficult) to compare different eras because of the three ball shot which was absent during the first thirty years of the NBA and not thought of as a strategy until almost the 2000s.
Everything considered, I'm still taking Robertson over Curry even if we're just talking about scoring. When he played Robertson never averaged more than about 22 shots per game. He could have easily averaged five more shots per game without hurting his efficiency.
When asked one time why he didn't go for a huge scoring game like Chamberlain or Baylor who both had 70 plus pt games, Robertson (whose career high was 57 pts) replied "what would that prove?"

[PartyTime]

From some statements I've read I really gotta say this... superstars of the 00s, the 10s, the 90s, 80s or any era would be superstar in any era.

They were/are great at basketball. They would adjust to the era they would be in. But they have natural talent, a lot of will to work hard and be great and those are things they would keep with them. Natural talent and the right mindset is what produces superstar talents. And that doesn't change in any era. The work is just different from era to era, the game is different but they would damn adapt. MJ could have played in any era and he would be in contention for GOAT. LeBron, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan...

And yes those other stars who aren't as good but were still great would be great too. And James Harden is within those players. I don't think people sometimes understand what type of mindset and work is needed for a guy to be an NBA superstar.

Harden is a not a vertical leaper. Name one none vertical leaper at the 2G that was a superstar during the 80's or 90's. or even 00's

Harden is just a bigger more ball hog version of Manu

Manu is one of the most impactful players of the last 20 years. That's high high praise for anyone. If Manu had played 36 minutes a game, he'd likely have been constantly in debates with fans on if he was better than Kobe.

So now Manu is better than Kobe? Just stop it.

Manu at his best in his prime was a border line all star.
He has ZERO RINGS if not for the top 5 player Tim Duncan.


You never named a sg that was great without jumping.

Harden is a poor mans Mitch Richmond. Mitch was a better shooter, better post up player and better mid range shooter. Mitch would be the MVP in today three point happy league.

[PartyTime]

From some statements I've read I really gotta say this... superstars of the 00s, the 10s, the 90s, 80s or any era would be superstar in any era.

They were/are great at basketball. They would adjust to the era they would be in. But they have natural talent, a lot of will to work hard and be great and those are things they would keep with them. Natural talent and the right mindset is what produces superstar talents. And that doesn't change in any era. The work is just different from era to era, the game is different but they would damn adapt. MJ could have played in any era and he would be in contention for GOAT. LeBron, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan...

And yes those other stars who aren't as good but were still great would be great too. And James Harden is within those players. I don't think people sometimes understand what type of mindset and work is needed for a guy to be an NBA superstar.

Harden is a not a vertical leaper. Name one none vertical leaper at the 2G that was a superstar during the 80's or 90's. or even 00's

Harden is just a bigger more ball hog version of Manu

Manu is one of the most impactful players of the last 20 years. That's high high praise for anyone. If Manu had played 36 minutes a game, he'd likely have been constantly in debates with fans on if he was better than Kobe.

So now Manu is better than Kobe? Just stop it.

Manu at his best in his prime was a border line all star.
He has ZERO RINGS if not for the top 5 player Tim Duncan.


You never named a sg that was great without jumping.

Harden is a poor mans Mitch Richmond. Mitch was a better shooter, better post up player and better mid range shooter. Mitch would be the MVP in today three point happy league.

[dhsilv2]

Harden is a not a vertical leaper. Name one none vertical leaper at the 2G that was a superstar during the 80's or 90's. or even 00's

Harden is just a bigger more ball hog version of Manu

Manu is one of the most impactful players of the last 20 years. That's high high praise for anyone. If Manu had played 36 minutes a game, he'd likely have been constantly in debates with fans on if he was better than Kobe.

So now Manu is better than Kobe? Just stop it.

Manu at his best in his prime was a border line all star.
He has ZERO RINGS if not for the top 5 player Tim Duncan.


You never named a sg that was great without jumping.

Harden is a poor mans Mitch Richmond. Mitch was a better shooter, better post up player and better mid range shooter. Mitch would be the MVP in today three point happy league.

Did you forget the change between accounts Tony?

[Joao Saraiva]

Richmond would be MVP? Oh boy Some people really should think a bit before what they write.

And no, Manu was not better than Kobe. Altough I'd say Tim Duncan would have at least one less ring without Manu since he performed really well in the 05 finals.

18.7 PPG 63.6 ts% 5.9 RPG 4 APG in a 7 game series. That's really impressive.

[Jaivl]

Manu is one of the most impactful players of the last 20 years. That's high high praise for anyone. If Manu had played 36 minutes a game, he'd likely have been constantly in debates with fans on if he was better than Kobe.

So now Manu is better than Kobe? Just stop it.

Manu at his best in his prime was a border line all star.
He has ZERO RINGS if not for the top 5 player Tim Duncan.


You never named a sg that was great without jumping.

Harden is a poor mans Mitch Richmond. Mitch was a better shooter, better post up player and better mid range shooter. Mitch would be the MVP in today three point happy league.

Huh... that's not what he said? Manu is easily better than Richmond though. Especially their defense and vision/passing are like night and day.

I'd say Manu's per minute play is similar to players like... not Kobe or Wade, but probably players a tier below like Hornets Paul or Westbrook. That skillset of elite passing and vision + 3 point shooting + pesky defense + decent overall scoring is so so nasty. Of course Kobe is easily better overall just by, you know, playing like 40% more.

[CodeBreaker]

Curry's scoring 40-50pts without playing the 4th qtr.... never seen something like that from anyone in the PG position before

[dhsilv2]

Manu is one of the most impactful players of the last 20 years. That's high high praise for anyone. If Manu had played 36 minutes a game, he'd likely have been constantly in debates with fans on if he was better than Kobe.

So now Manu is better than Kobe? Just stop it.

Manu at his best in his prime was a border line all star.
He has ZERO RINGS if not for the top 5 player Tim Duncan.


You never named a sg that was great without jumping.

Harden is a poor mans Mitch Richmond. Mitch was a better shooter, better post up player and better mid range shooter. Mitch would be the MVP in today three point happy league.

Huh... that's not what he said? Manu is easily better than Richmond though. Especially their defense and vision/passing are like night and day.

I'd say Manu's per minute play is similar to players like... not Kobe or Wade, but probably players a tier below like Hornets Paul or Westbrook. That skillset of elite passing and vision + 3 point shooting + pesky defense + decent overall scoring is so so nasty. Of course Kobe is easily better overall just by, you know, playing like 40% more.

08 Kobe vs 08 Manu on rate metrics are pretty darn close. Kobe has a .1 better PER and then BPM, RAPM, and WS/48 all give Manu a small edge. Wade imo at his best was clearly better (though not a tier higher).