RealGM

I'd say the highest reasonable is 8-9 and the lowest reasonable is probably 14-ish. Curious on everyone else's thoughts

As always, it depends on one's criteria. You can easily rank Curry lower than 14 if you place a lot of emphasis on longevity, or use no or regressive era-adjustments. At the same time, you may reasonably rank him higher than 8-9 if you strongly adjust for era-strength and hold the modern era in high regard, or if you factor in what a player brings next to the court (e.g., cultural impact).

I'd say it's easier to justify ranking him lower than 14 than it is to justify ranking him higher than 8. I also suspect more people have him outside their top 14 than inside their top 8, but that range should still cover a clear majority of the people overall with a sizable but decreasing minority having him lower than that and a considerably smaller minority having him higher than that.

The-Power wrote:As always, it depends on one's criteria. You can easily rank Curry lower than 14 if you place a lot of emphasis on longevity, or use no or regressive era-adjustments. At the same time, you may reasonably rank him higher than 8-9 if you strongly adjust for era-strength and hold the modern era in high regard, or if you factor in what a player brings next to the court (e.g., cultural impact).

Yeah. Completely fair. The most people that rank him lower than 14 are usually tradionalists who prefer the older era. Also suspect that small minority is usually people who think Steph wasn't elite prior to 2015 (when he has been elite since 2013) or just downright "oldheads" who hate how he's changed the game.

I'm curious, what's your take on this question, using your own personality criteria?

If KD didn't join the Warriors, and they still won those 2 championships with Curry being named Finals MVP those two seasons as well I think Curry could reasonably have an argument as high as #5 or #6 range. Winning four as the guy and being the greatest shooter of all time probably puts him right there with Duncan, Magic, Bird, etc. He'd be between 5 and 10.

But since KD join the Warriors and Curry took a bit of a back seat for a few years I think it changes things quite a bit with just the one Finals MVP he's more likely to be in the 10 - 15 range for me.... which is still great and super high but just not the same level he would have been winning those two without KD and having to carry that team.

edgymnerch wrote:

The-Power wrote:As always, it depends on one's criteria. You can easily rank Curry lower than 14 if you place a lot of emphasis on longevity, or use no or regressive era-adjustments. At the same time, you may reasonably rank him higher than 8-9 if you strongly adjust for era-strength and hold the modern era in high regard, or if you factor in what a player brings next to the court (e.g., cultural impact).

Yeah. Completely fair. The most people that rank him lower than 14 are usually tradionalists who prefer the older era. Also suspect that small minority is usually people who think Steph wasn't elite prior to 2015 (when he has been elite since 2013) or just downright "oldheads" who hate how he's changed the game.

I'm curious, what's your take on this question, using your own personality criteria?

I haven't given it a ton of thought, as I'd need to properly evaluate all players that are in competition with him. I'm fairly high on Curry's peak and prime and tend to factor in – albeit not as much as some others – that I consider the modern era to be stronger and more competitive. I thought that would put me on the higher end of evaluations but I find myself aligned with the results of the ongoing Top 100 project in – gun to my head – ranking Curry in that 10-12 range.

The-Power wrote:As always, it depends on one's criteria. You can easily rank Curry lower than 14 if you place a lot of emphasis on longevity, or use no or regressive era-adjustments. At the same time, you may reasonably rank him higher than 8-9 if you strongly adjust for era-strength and hold the modern era in high regard, or if you factor in what a player brings next to the court (e.g., cultural impact).

I mean, Kerr and Draymond are bigger leadership figures in the organization...

4-12

I think you can still put him outside of top 15, but not much lower.

For high end, anything inside top 5 is unreasonable to me.

OhayoKD wrote:

The-Power wrote:As always, it depends on one's criteria. You can easily rank Curry lower than 14 if you place a lot of emphasis on longevity, or use no or regressive era-adjustments. At the same time, you may reasonably rank him higher than 8-9 if you strongly adjust for era-strength and hold the modern era in high regard, or if you factor in what a player brings next to the court (e.g., cultural impact).

I mean, Kerr and Draymond are bigger leadership figures in the organization...

Well, that's your impression. Very good reasons to see Curry as the foundation of this organization's culture. Either way, I was referring more to basketball culture than team culture (as not everyone defines ‘greatness’ the same) but obviously leadership off the court is also something to consider.

bstein14 wrote:If KD didn't join the Warriors, and they still won those 2 championships with Curry being named Finals MVP those two seasons as well I think Curry could reasonably have an argument as high as #5 or #6 range. Winning four as the guy and being the greatest shooter of all time probably puts him right there with Duncan, Magic, Bird, etc. He'd be between 5 and 10.

But since KD join the Warriors and Curry took a bit of a back seat for a few years I think it changes things quite a bit with just the one Finals MVP he's more likely to be in the 10 - 15 range for me.... which is still great and super high but just not the same level he would have been winning those two without KD and having to carry that team.

Well the problem is when it comes to the 'what if KD doesn't go there' is obviously a. Steph's health quite possibly being an auto loss in at least one season and b. It's hard to say if they'd even be favored over the 17 Cavs or 18 Rockets. So while I agree its a big boost if he gets 2 fmvps without KD I think sometimes people act like its highly likely he would have and its not that likely imo. Them winning 1 more in the 17-19 period seems somewhat likely though. It also depends on how well Myers uses the money that went to KD.

~10 to ~20

The-Power wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

The-Power wrote:As always, it depends on one's criteria. You can easily rank Curry lower than 14 if you place a lot of emphasis on longevity, or use no or regressive era-adjustments. At the same time, you may reasonably rank him higher than 8-9 if you strongly adjust for era-strength and hold the modern era in high regard, or if you factor in what a player brings next to the court (e.g., cultural impact).

I mean, Kerr and Draymond are bigger leadership figures in the organization...

Well, that's your impression. Very good reasons to see Curry as the foundation of this organization's culture. Either way, I was referring more to basketball culture than team culture (as not everyone defines ‘greatness’ the same) but obviously leadership off the court is also something to consider.

I guess that's different. Arguing he is an atg leader(not saying you are, but some do) in the league is indefensible though. Plenty of people do/have done the "culture" bit while also making actual decisions for the team off the court(with the team generally being better in the aftermath).

I think the highest reasonable ranking for Steph is probably #4 or #5. Getting there would require a substantial emphasis on impact data, the peak greatness of a player’s teams, and a player’s overall effect on the game, alongside a strong conviction that present-day players are superior to past players. I think it’d be hard to get Steph above Kareem, Jordan, and LeBron, and Duncan would be a tough lift too. With everyone else, I think you can make a decent argument if you have the framework and priorities I mentioned above. (Even Kareem I guess you could make an argument against if you *really* leaned into present-day players being better, but it’d tilt over into unreasonable overall, I think).

Lowest reasonable ranking would probably require a really strong emphasis on longevity, alongside taking a particularly uncharitable view of his playoff performances. You could probably use that to get him in the 15-20 range.

I can see a case for his peak being higher than anyone’s other than LeBron’s, Shaq’s, and Jordan’s. I have his peak around 10th, but I believe one could reasonably have him on the Mount Rushmore of hoops. He’s just a total offensive freak who’s by far the best ever at the essence of basketball.

Lowest: like 17th

Mogspan wrote:I can see a case for his peak being higher than anyone’s other than LeBron’s, Shaq’s, and Jordan’s. I have his peak around 10th, but I believe one could reasonably have him on the Mount Rushmore of hoops. He’s just a total offensive freak who’s by far the best ever at the essence of basketball.

Lowest: like 17th

Aren't you a time machine guy? You're probably underselling his cieling with that framework: Things get crazy the more you teleport him back

OhayoKD wrote:

Mogspan wrote:I can see a case for his peak being higher than anyone’s other than LeBron’s, Shaq’s, and Jordan’s. I have his peak around 10th, but I believe one could reasonably have him on the Mount Rushmore of hoops. He’s just a total offensive freak who’s by far the best ever at the essence of basketball.

Lowest: like 17th

Aren't you a time machine guy? You're probably underselling his cieling with that framework: Things get crazy the more you teleport him back

I mean I give more credit to modern guys because they’re participating in by far the most globally competitive era. Rule changes are an important consideration that I try to factor in*, but I tend to think about how players would do in the state of the art. I don’t as much think about how Steph would look without the 3-point line as I do how Bill Russell would look if he weren’t a total outlier anatomical freak by modern standards.

*Isiah Thomas, whom I generally consider overrated, I feel doesn’t get enough credit for being as good as he was in an era when being small was a lot harder. I could definitely see him being a more efficient offensive player than his namesake if he had grown up in the 90s and played in the 2010s.

Mogspan wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Mogspan wrote:I can see a case for his peak being higher than anyone’s other than LeBron’s, Shaq’s, and Jordan’s. I have his peak around 10th, but I believe one could reasonably have him on the Mount Rushmore of hoops. He’s just a total offensive freak who’s by far the best ever at the essence of basketball.

Lowest: like 17th

Aren't you a time machine guy? You're probably underselling his cieling with that framework: Things get crazy the more you teleport him back

I mean I give more credit to modern guys because they’re participating in by far the most globally competitive era. Rule changes are an important consideration that I try to factor in*, but I tend to think about how players would do in the state of the art. I don’t as much think about how Steph would look without the 3-point line as I do how Bill Russell would look if he weren’t a total outlier anatomical freak by modern standards.

*Isiah Thomas, whom I generally consider overrated, I feel doesn’t get enough credit for being as good as he was in an era when being small was a lot harder. I could definitely see him being a more efficient offensive player than his namesake if he had grown up in the 90s and played in the 2010s.

I mean making assumptions about "growing up" is just fan-fiction. No one knows what happens. i prefer just straight "average impact across time if player gets an offseason or whatever"

OhayoKD wrote:

Mogspan wrote:I can see a case for his peak being higher than anyone’s other than LeBron’s, Shaq’s, and Jordan’s. I have his peak around 10th, but I believe one could reasonably have him on the Mount Rushmore of hoops. He’s just a total offensive freak who’s by far the best ever at the essence of basketball.

Lowest: like 17th

Aren't you a time machine guy? You're probably underselling his cieling with that framework: Things get crazy the more you teleport him back

What do you mean by Time Machine?

Curry is a great offensive player! likely top 5 all time on that end.

Defensively he’s a good team defender that’s not gonna be great man to man unless he has a lot of help (see the finals where draymond)

The idea of curry over players like Lebron offensicely is somewhat of a complete joke, and I wouldn’t even take him over a guy like Jokic, because he’s substantially more stoppable and ton of the off ball impact gets crazy overstated from a few video breakdowns that really just show the role movement and off screen shooters in organized offense has to cause miscommunication

Currys incredibly high impact from 2015-2019 and substantially lower impact from 2021-2024 despite not decline THAT much and seemingly not being substantially worse in areas that allegedly make him special isn’t as much him being worse as much as the team offense going from this crazy ahead of the time “omg wait what do we do” to “lol warriors running their BS again”

The warriors as a unit are the best run offense of all time in terms of attacking 4v3 situations and turning them into easier 3v2 or better in the halfcourt off of aggressive screen coverages, and are generally good at attacking switching by using things like slips and slips and flat screen angles (wel maybe not anymore, the nuggets probably have them beat adelman is a freak)

Even so though, we’ve seen him completely stifled by top locking players into Ad + a high drop in ball screens (you need an AD) in the 2023 series vs a lakers team who proceeded to get murdered by jamal Murray the next series (and let’s be clear, they literally had to blitz off Jokic at times although obviously hat didn’t work, the gameplan wasn’t let jamal beat them) and the rockets have also limited him too compared to his performance vs other teams