RealGM

It just occurred to me that Bird is generally a consensus top 10 player even though he has some longevity issues. Depending on how you see his rookie year, Bird has 10 very strong prime years.

Steph is also someone considered to have longevity issues due to some injury-riddled years. But at the close of this year Steph will have 9 very strong prime years.

So, what is it that puts Bird into the top 10 all-time but not Steph? Is Bird's peak that much higher than Steph's that people think Bird should be top 10 but not Curry?

I had Bird/Curry 5 spots apart before this season. It's closer now.

I don't have Bird inside my top 10, it's that simple. He's number 12 on my all-time list if I remember correctly and Curry is getting closer and closer. With next solid season from Curry, I'd probably have him around 15th place which is the same tier as Bird.

I view them similary for peaks. I prefer Bird's prime because Curry missed a lot of games even in what you'd call healthy seasons (2016, 2022 and especially 2018). Bird also have 10 prime seasons vs Curry's 9.

I think Bird peaked quite a bit higher. I do judge peak by single seasons and Curry has a lot of seasons where he either takes it easy in the regular season (mostly when KD was there) or he has underwhelming performances in the most important play-off rounds. If we're comparing primes Curry has more of an argument and for like a 5 year prime it's pretty much a wash but I don't think Curry ever had a season as consistently high level as Bird in 84 or 86.

In the thread where Kobe's 2009 post-season was compared to Curry's play-off runs I noticed I'm noticeably lower on Curry's peak than average on here. To me Curry just seems like one of those players that play in a way people enjoy so they're quicker to give him the benefit of the doubt or assume he provides more impact/value than the stats show.

Curry to me never reached the level Bird did in the postseason in 84 and 86.

Dutchball97 wrote:I think Bird peaked quite a bit higher. I do judge peak by single seasons and Curry has a lot of seasons where he either takes it easy in the regular season (mostly when KD was there) or he has underwhelming performances in the most important play-off rounds. If we're comparing primes Curry has more of an argument and for like a 5 year prime it's pretty much a wash but I don't think Curry ever had a season as consistently high level as Bird in 84 or 86.

In the thread where Kobe's 2009 post-season was compared to Curry's play-off runs I noticed I'm noticeably lower on Curry's peak than average on here. To me Curry just seems like one of those players that play in a way people enjoy so they're quicker to give him the benefit of the doubt or assume he provides more impact/value than the stats show.

No-more-rings wrote:Curry to me never reached the level Bird did in the postseason in 84 and 86.

Uhh, 2017?

I don’t really see how the stats show his impact was overrated at his peak at all. Impact data and rapm data both point are consistent with best offensive season of all time type of impact. He was on a stacked team obviously but they were the best offense in nba history in the playoffs (and I’m assuming relative to league average in the RS) with him on the floor (only javale was higher) and the team had by far the lowest on court offensive rtg when he was off the floor (compared to when his other teammates were off the floor). And his impact only increased in the postseason

Sure he had an absolutely stacked team but it’s not as if they didn’t perform at their talent level, that 2017 team probably goes 6 games at most against any team in nba history.

As for currys postseason vs birds in 84 and 86, I don’t really understand how curry doesn’t measure up

1984 bird
27.5-11-6 4 turnovers on 60.7TS +6.5rTS

1986 bird
26-9-8 on 2.5 turnovers on 61.5TS +7.5rTS

2017 curry
28-6-7 on 3.5 turnovers on 66TS +11rTS

rTS may be harder to separate from the pack in the more modern eras as well, since in the 80s and 90s the top scorers more often had the highest TS whereas now the top have more finishers (as in spot up shooters or garbage men/roll men) there’s also the obvious curry gravity effect that everyone knows about

I don’t really see how statistically his impact was overrated, and I don’t see how he didn’t reach the same highs. You can argue he didn’t face as much adversity, and maybe he wouldn’t have done as well if he had (which I don’t necessarily disagree with) but if we’re comparing purely level of play and not hypotheticals like if KD got hurt or something, I feel curry prolly had about as high as you can go offensively outside of guys that single handedly carried their teams

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:I think Bird peaked quite a bit higher. I do judge peak by single seasons and Curry has a lot of seasons where he either takes it easy in the regular season (mostly when KD was there) or he has underwhelming performances in the most important play-off rounds. If we're comparing primes Curry has more of an argument and for like a 5 year prime it's pretty much a wash but I don't think Curry ever had a season as consistently high level as Bird in 84 or 86.

In the thread where Kobe's 2009 post-season was compared to Curry's play-off runs I noticed I'm noticeably lower on Curry's peak than average on here. To me Curry just seems like one of those players that play in a way people enjoy so they're quicker to give him the benefit of the doubt or assume he provides more impact/value than the stats show.

No-more-rings wrote:Curry to me never reached the level Bird did in the postseason in 84 and 86.

Uhh, 2017?

I don’t really see how the stats show his impact was overrated at his peak at all. Impact data and rapm data both point are consistent with best offensive season of all time type of impact. He was on a stacked team obviously but they were the best offense in nba history in the playoffs (and I’m assuming relative to league average in the RS) with him on the floor (only javale was higher) and the team had by far the lowest on court offensive rtg when he was off the floor (compared to when his other teammates were off the floor). And his impact only increased in the postseason

Sure he had an absolutely stacked team but it’s not as if they didn’t perform at their talent level, that 2017 team probably goes 6 games at most against any team in nba history.

As for currys postseason vs birds in 84 and 86, I don’t really understand how curry doesn’t measure up

1984 bird
27.5-11-6 4 turnovers on 60.7TS +6.5rTS

1986 bird
26-9-8 on 2.5 turnovers on 61.5TS +7.5rTS

2017 curry
28-6-7 on 3.5 turnovers on 66TS +11rTS

rTS may be harder to separate from the pack in the more modern eras as well, since in the 80s and 90s the top scorers more often had the highest TS whereas now the top have more finishers (as in spot up shooters or garbage men/roll men) there’s also the obvious curry gravity effect that everyone knows about

I don’t really see how statistically his impact was overrated, and I don’t see how he didn’t reach the same highs. You can argue he didn’t face as much adversity, and maybe he wouldn’t have done as well if he had (which I don’t necessarily disagree with) but if we’re comparing purely level of play and not hypotheticals like if KD got hurt or something, I feel curry prolly had about as high as you can go offensively outside of guys that single handedly carried their teams

My point was that while Curry's 2017 post-season might be comparable to Bird's 1984 and 1986 runs, Curry's regular season performance wasn't nearly as impressive that year. What also works against Curry in 2017 is KD being very comparable to him statistically even if there is a recent trend of people trying to give Curry all the credit for the success of Golden State. Even Draymond Green was probably more impactful as the third best player in 2017 than McHale was as the 2nd best player in 1986. For 1984 I don't think Curry has much of an argument at all as that was a big carryjob by Bird. I feel like people are starting to forget just how stacked the Warriors were for some reason but it should definitely count how much help someone gets.

Dutchball97 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:I think Bird peaked quite a bit higher. I do judge peak by single seasons and Curry has a lot of seasons where he either takes it easy in the regular season (mostly when KD was there) or he has underwhelming performances in the most important play-off rounds. If we're comparing primes Curry has more of an argument and for like a 5 year prime it's pretty much a wash but I don't think Curry ever had a season as consistently high level as Bird in 84 or 86.

In the thread where Kobe's 2009 post-season was compared to Curry's play-off runs I noticed I'm noticeably lower on Curry's peak than average on here. To me Curry just seems like one of those players that play in a way people enjoy so they're quicker to give him the benefit of the doubt or assume he provides more impact/value than the stats show.

No-more-rings wrote:Curry to me never reached the level Bird did in the postseason in 84 and 86.

Uhh, 2017?

I don’t really see how the stats show his impact was overrated at his peak at all. Impact data and rapm data both point are consistent with best offensive season of all time type of impact. He was on a stacked team obviously but they were the best offense in nba history in the playoffs (and I’m assuming relative to league average in the RS) with him on the floor (only javale was higher) and the team had by far the lowest on court offensive rtg when he was off the floor (compared to when his other teammates were off the floor). And his impact only increased in the postseason

Sure he had an absolutely stacked team but it’s not as if they didn’t perform at their talent level, that 2017 team probably goes 6 games at most against any team in nba history.

As for currys postseason vs birds in 84 and 86, I don’t really understand how curry doesn’t measure up

1984 bird
27.5-11-6 4 turnovers on 60.7TS +6.5rTS

1986 bird
26-9-8 on 2.5 turnovers on 61.5TS +7.5rTS

2017 curry
28-6-7 on 3.5 turnovers on 66TS +11rTS

rTS may be harder to separate from the pack in the more modern eras as well, since in the 80s and 90s the top scorers more often had the highest TS whereas now the top have more finishers (as in spot up shooters or garbage men/roll men) there’s also the obvious curry gravity effect that everyone knows about

I don’t really see how statistically his impact was overrated, and I don’t see how he didn’t reach the same highs. You can argue he didn’t face as much adversity, and maybe he wouldn’t have done as well if he had (which I don’t necessarily disagree with) but if we’re comparing purely level of play and not hypotheticals like if KD got hurt or something, I feel curry prolly had about as high as you can go offensively outside of guys that single handedly carried their teams

My point was that while Curry's 2017 post-season might be comparable to Bird's 1984 and 1986 runs, Curry's regular season performance wasn't nearly as impressive that year. What also works against Curry in 2017 is KD being very comparable to him statistically even if there is a recent trend of people trying to give Curry all the credit for the success of Golden State. Even Draymond Green was probably more impactful as the third best player in 2017 than McHale was as the 2nd best player in 1986. For 1984 I don't think Curry has much of an argument at all as that was a big carryjob by Bird. I feel like people are starting to forget just how stacked the Warriors were for some reason but it should definitely count how much help someone gets.

I don’t understand why the regular season performance of a guy in a team that literally swept the western conference should matter at all honestly, it’s a case by case thing

It’s true that curry had way more help than bird, it’s also true that the 2017 team would beat either of those Celtics teams in 5.

So KD wasn’t comparable to him statistically in terms of impact, but I do agree that KD in the playoffs was absolutely absurd.

It wasn’t a carry job of course

But you said that currys asthetic leads to people overrating his impact compared to what statistics say, but most stats that estimate impact paint him as a best offensive player in nba history type over his peak years and in that playoff run

I don’t agree with that personally, but statistically that is the case

Durant having an absurd playoffs doesn’t discount how good curry was either.

Note: I’m not saying curry is a million times better or anything, but I don’t think it’s fair to say his impact is overrated based on his stats which put him at a top tier

If you argue that curry couldn’t do the same type of carry job that’s fine, but it’s not as if curry hasn’t shown he can carry teams offensively

MyUniBroDavis wrote:rTS may be harder to separate from the pack in the more modern eras as well, since in the 80s and 90s the top scorers more often had the highest TS whereas now the top have more finishers (as in spot up shooters or garbage men/roll men) there’s also the obvious curry gravity effect that everyone knows about

Is that true though? If we just look at the presented seasons (1984, 1986 and 2017):

2016/17

The number of players in 90th percentile in ppg: 27
The number of players in 90th percentile in both ppg and TS%: 9 (Durant, Thomas, Curry, Lowry, James, KAT, Harden, Kawhi, Beal)
Percentage: 33%

1983/84

The number of players in 90th percentile in ppg: 18
The number of players in 90th percentile in both ppg and TS%: 4 (Dantley, McHale, Vandeweghe, KAJ)
Percentage: 28%

1985/86

The number of players in 90th percentile in ppg: 18
The number of players in 90th percentile in both ppg and TS%: 5 (Dantley, Ruland, King, Vandeweghe, KAJ)
Percentage: 22%

Maybe you have stronger evidences, but just brief look at these seasons suggest that your theory isn't true.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:




Uhh, 2017?

I don’t really see how the stats show his impact was overrated at his peak at all. Impact data and rapm data both point are consistent with best offensive season of all time type of impact. He was on a stacked team obviously but they were the best offense in nba history in the playoffs (and I’m assuming relative to league average in the RS) with him on the floor (only javale was higher) and the team had by far the lowest on court offensive rtg when he was off the floor (compared to when his other teammates were off the floor). And his impact only increased in the postseason

Sure he had an absolutely stacked team but it’s not as if they didn’t perform at their talent level, that 2017 team probably goes 6 games at most against any team in nba history.

As for currys postseason vs birds in 84 and 86, I don’t really understand how curry doesn’t measure up

1984 bird
27.5-11-6 4 turnovers on 60.7TS +6.5rTS

1986 bird
26-9-8 on 2.5 turnovers on 61.5TS +7.5rTS

2017 curry
28-6-7 on 3.5 turnovers on 66TS +11rTS

rTS may be harder to separate from the pack in the more modern eras as well, since in the 80s and 90s the top scorers more often had the highest TS whereas now the top have more finishers (as in spot up shooters or garbage men/roll men) there’s also the obvious curry gravity effect that everyone knows about

I don’t really see how statistically his impact was overrated, and I don’t see how he didn’t reach the same highs. You can argue he didn’t face as much adversity, and maybe he wouldn’t have done as well if he had (which I don’t necessarily disagree with) but if we’re comparing purely level of play and not hypotheticals like if KD got hurt or something, I feel curry prolly had about as high as you can go offensively outside of guys that single handedly carried their teams

My point was that while Curry's 2017 post-season might be comparable to Bird's 1984 and 1986 runs, Curry's regular season performance wasn't nearly as impressive that year. What also works against Curry in 2017 is KD being very comparable to him statistically even if there is a recent trend of people trying to give Curry all the credit for the success of Golden State. Even Draymond Green was probably more impactful as the third best player in 2017 than McHale was as the 2nd best player in 1986. For 1984 I don't think Curry has much of an argument at all as that was a big carryjob by Bird. I feel like people are starting to forget just how stacked the Warriors were for some reason but it should definitely count how much help someone gets.

I don’t understand why the regular season performance of a guy in a team that literally swept the western conference should matter at all honestly, it’s a case by case thing

It’s true that curry had way more help than bird, it’s also true that the 2017 team would beat either of those Celtics teams in 5.

So KD wasn’t comparable to him statistically in terms of impact, but I do agree that KD in the playoffs was absolutely absurd.

It wasn’t a carry job of course

But you said that currys asthetic leads to people overrating his impact compared to what statistics say, but most stats that estimate impact paint him as a best offensive player in nba history type over his peak years and in that playoff run

I don’t agree with that personally, but statistically that is the case

Durant having an absurd playoffs doesn’t discount how good curry was either.

Why would sweeping the western conference matter when we're talking about the performance of an individual, especially one playing in the most stacked team ever? Putting so much emphasis on an arbitrary team achievement like that but then discounting the ENTIRE regular season doesn't track with me.

It also depends which stats you place more emphasis on. +- based stats like RAPM have Curry as the clear best player on the team with KD quite a way down but look at the boxscore composites and KD comes out looking slightly better. With more complex stats that involve both boxscore and +- inputs like LEBRON and RAPTOR we see Curry as the most important in the team but with KD and Draymond right behind him. With raw +- even Klay and Iggy are in the top 6 along with CP3 and the previously mentioned other 3 GSW players.

To be fair when comparing current players with the 80s I do mostly use the boxscore stats as there is no RAPM or LEBRON for the 86 Celtics. I'm not sure if there is a way to proximate the +- before 97 but as it stands I don't think you can take Curry being a +- darling as an argument over Bird when we don't know whether Bird's boxscore stats would be brought down or elevated by inclusion of +-.

70sFan wrote:I don't have Bird inside my top 10, it's that simple. He's number 12 on my all-time list if I remember correctly and Curry is getting closer and closer. With next solid season from Curry, I'd probably have him around 15th place which is the same tier as Bird.

I view them similary for peaks. I prefer Bird's prime because Curry missed a lot of games even in what you'd call healthy seasons (2016, 2022 and especially 2018). Bird also have 10 prime seasons vs Curry's 9.

What is your top 15 list if you don't mind my asking? I ask because I appreciate your contributions to this forum

70sFan wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:rTS may be harder to separate from the pack in the more modern eras as well, since in the 80s and 90s the top scorers more often had the highest TS whereas now the top have more finishers (as in spot up shooters or garbage men/roll men) there’s also the obvious curry gravity effect that everyone knows about

Is that true though? If we just look at the presented seasons (1984, 1986 and 2017):

2016/17

The number of players in 90th percentile in ppg: 27
The number of players in 90th percentile in both ppg and TS%: 9 (Durant, Thomas, Curry, Lowry, James, KAT, Harden, Kawhi, Beal)
Percentage: 33%

1983/84

The number of players in 90th percentile in ppg: 18
The number of players in 90th percentile in both ppg and TS%: 4 (Dantley, McHale, Vandeweghe, KAJ)
Percentage: 28%

1985/86

The number of players in 90th percentile in ppg: 18
The number of players in 90th percentile in both ppg and TS%: 5 (Dantley, Ruland, King, Vandeweghe, KAJ)
Percentage: 22%

Maybe you have stronger evidences, but just brief look at these seasons suggest that your theory isn't true.

I think 1984 is missing king but ye I was tripping lol

Dutchball97 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:
My point was that while Curry's 2017 post-season might be comparable to Bird's 1984 and 1986 runs, Curry's regular season performance wasn't nearly as impressive that year. What also works against Curry in 2017 is KD being very comparable to him statistically even if there is a recent trend of people trying to give Curry all the credit for the success of Golden State. Even Draymond Green was probably more impactful as the third best player in 2017 than McHale was as the 2nd best player in 1986. For 1984 I don't think Curry has much of an argument at all as that was a big carryjob by Bird. I feel like people are starting to forget just how stacked the Warriors were for some reason but it should definitely count how much help someone gets.

I don’t understand why the regular season performance of a guy in a team that literally swept the western conference should matter at all honestly, it’s a case by case thing

It’s true that curry had way more help than bird, it’s also true that the 2017 team would beat either of those Celtics teams in 5.

So KD wasn’t comparable to him statistically in terms of impact, but I do agree that KD in the playoffs was absolutely absurd.

It wasn’t a carry job of course

But you said that currys asthetic leads to people overrating his impact compared to what statistics say, but most stats that estimate impact paint him as a best offensive player in nba history type over his peak years and in that playoff run

I don’t agree with that personally, but statistically that is the case

Durant having an absurd playoffs doesn’t discount how good curry was either.

Why would sweeping the western conference matter when we're talking about the performance of an individual, especially one playing in the most stacked team ever? Putting so much emphasis on an arbitrary team achievement like that but then discounting the ENTIRE regular season doesn't track with me.

It also depends which stats you place more emphasis on. +- based stats like RAPM have Curry as the clear best player on the team with KD quite a way down but look at the boxscore composites and KD comes out looking slightly better. With more complex stats that involve both boxscore and +- inputs like LEBRON and RAPTOR we see Curry as the most important in the team but with KD and Draymond right behind him. With raw +- even Klay and Iggy are in the top 6 along with CP3 and the previously mentioned other 3 GSW players.

To be fair when comparing current players with the 80s I do mostly use the boxscore stats as there is no RAPM or LEBRON for the 86 Celtics. I'm not sure if there is a way to proximate the +- before 97 but as it stands I don't think you can take Curry being a +- darling as an argument over Bird when we don't know whether Bird's boxscore stats would be brought down or elevated by inclusion of +-.

Box score composites are essentially PER and say how impressive a box score looks. Using box scores as part of how you analyze a player is of course important to contextualize what they are doing, using box score composites has about the same meaning to me as writing down a random formula for hints youvalue more in a box score and putting them together


RAPTOR is a garbage stat and shouldn’t be used

LEBRON is good but you can argue some aspects of the luck adjustment are unfavorable to curry given that, if we assume curry gives his teammates more open looks from three through his playmaking/gravity(which he obviously does), since the luck adjustment for three point shooting essentially takes the average for both three point percentages and uses that as the whole.

The idea that every season must be weighted the same is so odd.

The regular season was quite literally meaningless for the Warriors. Propping up bird for being great in the RS is fine, but saying currys “bad” RS brings him down makes no sense when there’s absolutely no reason for him to meaninglessly chase a few more points here and there. From a practical standpoint it did not matter,and therefore I think it’s fair to judge him based on his playoffs. For the Warriors the regular season was essentially them practicing playing together.

It’s not an arbitrary achievement it’s a pretty clear indicator that the regular season was meaningless to them similar to how it was to the cavs that year in hindsight.

It’s not as if curry had a bad regular season or the team wasn’t the best team in the nba over the rs anyways, so the idea that curry’s season should be docked because he should have had his team win 70 instead of 67 is absurd

Saying it depends on the stats you put emphasis on doesn’t make sense.

There isn’t LEBRON or EPM or DPM for the 2017 playoffs. Using raw +/- and saying multiple Warriors rate in the
top 6 is a completely meaningless statement since that basically means “the Warriors, the best team in nba history, played like the best team in nba history”

LEBRON is a thing for the 2018-2020 playoffs (so only 2018 and 2019 for curry), where curry was much less impressive, and his offensive LEBRON is by far the highest in the database

Regular +/- numbers hold the 2017 season in general in high regard

Net rtg stuff isn’t the best but also agree, as does rapm

You said statistics show currys impact is overhyped, but if the only stats that show this are box score composites that don’t even have an impact component, or RAPTOR, that doesn’t really make much sense, unless you mean focusing on stats that measure impact worst, or the box score + impact composite that is very clearly inferior in RAPTOR

BenoUdrihFTL wrote:

70sFan wrote:I don't have Bird inside my top 10, it's that simple. He's number 12 on my all-time list if I remember correctly and Curry is getting closer and closer. With next solid season from Curry, I'd probably have him around 15th place which is the same tier as Bird.

I view them similary for peaks. I prefer Bird's prime because Curry missed a lot of games even in what you'd call healthy seasons (2016, 2022 and especially 2018). Bird also have 10 prime seasons vs Curry's 9.

What is your top 15 list if you don't mind my asking? I ask because I appreciate your contributions to this forum

Sure:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. LeBron James
3. Bill Russell
4. Michael Jordan
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Magic Johnson
10. Kevin Garnett
11. Oscar Robertson
12. Larry Bird
13. Kobe Bryant
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Steph Curry

I will likely have Curry over Robinson by the end of the season and with another MVP-level year, I will have him in Bird-West tier.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

Uhh, 2017?

I don’t really see how the stats show his impact was overrated at his peak at all. Impact data and rapm data both point are consistent with best offensive season of all time type of impact. He was on a stacked team obviously but they were the best offense in nba history in the playoffs (and I’m assuming relative to league average in the RS) with him on the floor (only javale was higher) and the team had by far the lowest on court offensive rtg when he was off the floor (compared to when his other teammates were off the floor). And his impact only increased in the postseason

Sure he had an absolutely stacked team but it’s not as if they didn’t perform at their talent level, that 2017 team probably goes 6 games at most against any team in nba history.

As for currys postseason vs birds in 84 and 86, I don’t really understand how curry doesn’t measure up

1984 bird
27.5-11-6 4 turnovers on 60.7TS +6.5rTS

1986 bird
26-9-8 on 2.5 turnovers on 61.5TS +7.5rTS

2017 curry
28-6-7 on 3.5 turnovers on 66TS +11rTS

rTS may be harder to separate from the pack in the more modern eras as well, since in the 80s and 90s the top scorers more often had the highest TS whereas now the top have more finishers (as in spot up shooters or garbage men/roll men) there’s also the obvious curry gravity effect that everyone knows about

I don’t really see how statistically his impact was overrated, and I don’t see how he didn’t reach the same highs. You can argue he didn’t face as much adversity, and maybe he wouldn’t have done as well if he had (which I don’t necessarily disagree with) but if we’re comparing purely level of play and not hypotheticals like if KD got hurt or something, I feel curry prolly had about as high as you can go offensively outside of guys that single handedly carried their teams

Curry's playoff production in 2017 is such an outlier, I don't take it at face value like you apparently do.

2017:

PER 27.1, next highest 24.5(+2.6)
ts% 65.9, next highest 62(+3.9)
BPM 9.7, next highest 8.8(+0.9)
WS/48 .272 next highest .228(+.044)
FG % 48.4, next highest 45.6(+2.8)

Playoff average from 2015-2022: 23.7 PER, ts% 61.3, BPM 7.3

It's an outlier playoff run that he didn't really come all that close to again. Why? Is it because Curry was some level above his other prime years? No, it's because he didn't even have to break a sweat considering he played with another top 5 player plus 3 other all stars on top while going against an injured Spurs and relatively weak Cavs team in the finals.

1st round: Blazers 24th ranked defense -0.23 SRS
2nd round: Jazz 3rd ranked defense 4.00 SRS
3rd round: Spurs without Kawhi after game 1, if we use the following season without him they played as a 2.89 SRS team
4th round: Cavs 0.59 SRS 29th ranked defense

That's pretty historically weak competition for a championship team, especially considering how unfairly the warriors were loaded. I find it strange you gloss over that as if it's not a big deal. There is no "pure level of play" as far as I'm concerned, everything needs put into context.

I also didn't see you mention defense where Bird was clearly better in, even if you wanted to give Curry the offensive edge. Bird crushed great teams and great defenses those 2 years I mentioned without goat spacing and support. I'd welcome you to look more into it.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
I don’t understand why the regular season performance of a guy in a team that literally swept the western conference should matter at all honestly, it’s a case by case thing

It’s true that curry had way more help than bird, it’s also true that the 2017 team would beat either of those Celtics teams in 5.

So KD wasn’t comparable to him statistically in terms of impact, but I do agree that KD in the playoffs was absolutely absurd.

It wasn’t a carry job of course

But you said that currys asthetic leads to people overrating his impact compared to what statistics say, but most stats that estimate impact paint him as a best offensive player in nba history type over his peak years and in that playoff run

I don’t agree with that personally, but statistically that is the case

Durant having an absurd playoffs doesn’t discount how good curry was either.

Why would sweeping the western conference matter when we're talking about the performance of an individual, especially one playing in the most stacked team ever? Putting so much emphasis on an arbitrary team achievement like that but then discounting the ENTIRE regular season doesn't track with me.

It also depends which stats you place more emphasis on. +- based stats like RAPM have Curry as the clear best player on the team with KD quite a way down but look at the boxscore composites and KD comes out looking slightly better. With more complex stats that involve both boxscore and +- inputs like LEBRON and RAPTOR we see Curry as the most important in the team but with KD and Draymond right behind him. With raw +- even Klay and Iggy are in the top 6 along with CP3 and the previously mentioned other 3 GSW players.

To be fair when comparing current players with the 80s I do mostly use the boxscore stats as there is no RAPM or LEBRON for the 86 Celtics. I'm not sure if there is a way to proximate the +- before 97 but as it stands I don't think you can take Curry being a +- darling as an argument over Bird when we don't know whether Bird's boxscore stats would be brought down or elevated by inclusion of +-.

Box score composites are essentially PER and say how impressive a box score looks. Using box scores as part of how you analyze a player is of course important to contextualize what they are doing, using box score composites has about the same meaning to me as writing down a random formula for hints youvalue more in a box score and putting them together


RAPTOR is a garbage stat and shouldn’t be used

LEBRON is good but you can argue some aspects of the luck adjustment are unfavorable to curry given that, if we assume curry gives his teammates more open looks from three through his playmaking/gravity(which he obviously does), since the luck adjustment for three point shooting essentially takes the average for both three point percentages and uses that as the whole.

The idea that every season must be weighted the same is so odd.

The regular season was quite literally meaningless for the Warriors. Propping up bird for being great in the RS is fine, but saying currys “bad” RS brings him down makes no sense when there’s absolutely no reason for him to meaninglessly chase a few more points here and there. From a practical standpoint it did not matter,and therefore I think it’s fair to judge him based on his playoffs. For the Warriors the regular season was essentially them practicing playing together.

It’s not an arbitrary achievement it’s a pretty clear indicator that the regular season was meaningless to them similar to how it was to the cavs that year in hindsight.

It’s not as if curry had a bad regular season or the team wasn’t the best team in the nba over the rs anyways, so the idea that curry’s season should be docked because he should have had his team win 70 instead of 67 is absurd

Saying it depends on the stats you put emphasis on doesn’t make sense.

There isn’t LEBRON or EPM or DPM for the 2017 playoffs. Using raw +/- and saying multiple Warriors rate in the
top 6 is a completely meaningless statement since that basically means “the Warriors, the best team in nba history, played like the best team in nba history”

LEBRON is a thing for the 2018-2020 playoffs (so only 2018 and 2019 for curry), where curry was much less impressive, and his offensive LEBRON is by far the highest in the database

Regular +/- numbers hold the 2017 season in general in high regard

Net rtg stuff isn’t the best but also agree, as does rapm

You said statistics show currys impact is overhyped, but if the only stats that show this are box score composites that don’t even have an impact component, or RAPTOR, that doesn’t really make much sense, unless you mean focusing on stats that measure impact worst, or the box score + impact composite that is very clearly inferior in RAPTOR

We value certain stats differently and that's fine. To me personally it doesn't make sense to quote how great Curry is +-, RAPM or the most recent stats like LEBRON/EPM when we have no idea how Bird or his teammates would be rated in these, which is the original point of the thread.

I still really don't agree with the idea the regular season doesn't matter. I'm someone who thinks the play-offs are more important than the regular season (most do but not so much on the PC board generally) but to just write off regular season performance altogether is a step too far for me. Sure Curry took a small step back because he could afford it but that doesn't mean you can then say Curry could've definitely have played at a higher level, like for example the level at which Bird played in the regular season in 86. And how then do you compare seasons where one player cruises through the regular season on a superteam against someone who had to carry his team to the play-offs? You make it sound like you judge all players on entire seasons but Curry only has to play well in the play-offs.

This kind of ties back into my point where I think Curry gets a lot of extra credit. His gravity is quickly becoming the new mamba mentality in that it doesn't matter how good Curry plays, certain people will always mark him up because they see Curry as a basketball god who elevates his teammates beyond a point held imaginable prior. I don't think Curry is overhyped, I just see a lot of benefit of the doubt going on at all times with him.

If you take 2017 Curry at face value it's Curry probably but Bird has a much larger sample size of high level play. 84-86 in aggregate is likely better than Curry, especially when you consider the only reason his 85 numbers are bad is beacuse of the bar fight, which is more of an outlier than Curry's well-documented injury issues.

Moreover I think Bird in the modern era with more of an emphasis on 3-point shooting could probably mimic a lot of Curry's "gravity" and that's the biggest reason to put Curry over Bird as I think Bird was generally better otherwise. But I haven't looked in-depth at the numbers for either.

capfan33 wrote:If you take 2017 Curry at face value it's Curry probably but Bird has a much larger sample size of high level play. 84-86 in aggregate is likely better than Curry, especially when you consider the only reason his 85 numbers are bad is beacuse of the bar fight, which is more of an outlier than Curry's well-documented injury issues.

Moreover I think Bird in the modern era with more of an emphasis on 3-point shooting could probably mimic a lot of Curry's "gravity" and that's the biggest reason to put Curry over Bird as I think Bird was generally better otherwise. But I haven't looked in-depth at the numbers for either.

i have to disagree with the injuries part, bird struggled too often in the playoffs (scoring wise at least) for me to think 85 was a mere bad outlier

I am fortunate in being able to watch just about every Curry game by living in the Bay Area. By the eye test, Curry seems to be a noticeably better defender this season than he was before. But at 34, this is no longer his offensive peak so he never put his best offensive and defensive efforts together. And while Bird will never be compared to Pippen or Bobby Jones on defense, he was a 2nd team All Defensive member in both 83 and 84. Granted those were largely based on his help defense and not his man defense but it is still a noteworthy accomplishment for someone who is largely known for his offensive skill. And while Curry is a good rebounder for a PG, Bird was an exceptional defensive rebounder for a PF. There is also a clear difference in passing. At their peaks, I would go with Bird.

Bird was the clear cut best player in the world for half a decade. Curry never got that high. This isn’t a hard choice.