Better Tandem: Oscar Robertson/Kareem or Curry/KD

[mdonnelly1989]

Better Tandem: Oscar Robertson/Kareem or Curry/KD

[70sFan]

For careers? Kareem and Robertson, it's not even close to me.

[MyUniBroDavis]

For careers? Kareem and Robertson, it's not even close to me.

I’d assume it’s peaks, career wise I don’t see how this could be close lol

[70sFan]

For careers? Kareem and Robertson, it's not even close to me.

I’d assume it’s peaks, career wise I don’t see how this could be close lol

I guess so, but my choice remains the same. Oscar was far removed from his peak in 1971 and yet what they did with lesser supporting cast (Dandridge/McGlocklin/Allen vs Green/Klay/Iggy is a no-contest to me) looks more impressive to me given that.

[No-more-rings]

I think it’s Oscar/Kareem and not close regardless if it’s peak or career.

[capfan33]

Curry/Draymond would be a more logical and interesting comparison IMO.

[70sFan]

Curry/Draymond would be a more logical and interesting comparison IMO.

Still not close.

[No-more-rings]

Curry/Draymond would be a more logical and interesting comparison IMO.

Still not close.

Yeah even if you think Oscar/Curry is roughly a wash, Kareem is in a different stratosphere than Draymond.

[Outside]

Given the multitude of ways you could compare them, my initial take is that it's going to be Oscar/Kareem almost every time. I have Curry higher than Durant on my list, I've got both Kareem and Oscar higher than Curry, and the guard/center combo of Kareem and Oscar is as good as it gets in traditional basketball pairings.

However, there are factors that could skew it toward Curry/Durant:

-- If we consider them as they were when they played together, that skews it somewhat in the Curry/KD direction. Curry and Durant played together with both at their peak. When Oscar and Kareem played together, Oscar was in a diminished late-career form, which was very good but not anywhere near his peak form, and Kareem was excellent but not yet at his absolute peak.

-- Using the current era of basketball as the the environment in which they would be compared would benefit Curry and Durant since they are obviously optimal for the current era, but that hardly seems "fair" since it's not Kareem and Oscar's fault that they played in the era they played in. Even given that condition, you'd have to assume that if they played in the current era, Oscar in particular would adapt his game accordingly. I'd see him playing like a much bigger, better version of Chris Paul -- a more traditional "floor general" point guard capable of leading great offenses, developing a three-point shot (in Oscar's time, there was no advantage to shooting outside for him since he was so effective at using his size and strength to back down opposing guards and shoot a much closer shot), and rebounding better than many big men. Peak Kareem would still be GOAT-level offensively, with increased spacing making him even more effective and his post gravity opening up the floor for perimeter shooters. Kareem would be somewhat less effective defensively, since defending in space was a relative weakness for him, but he'd still be Gobert or better defending the paint.

-- Sansterre's top teams list has the 2017 Warriors as the best team of all time. You can talk about individual stats and impact all day, but in the end, it's how it all comes together in team performance, and the Curry-KD pairing was legitimately better than anyone. Yes, they had good supporting players, particularly Dray and Klay, but while Iguodala and Livingston were still effective, they were declining. Getting Durant meant the Warriors had to sacrifice a portion of their quality depth and become a more top-heavy team. The fact that they were so reliant on Curry and Durant and were what can be argued is the best team of all time says a lot about that pairing.