DraymondGold wrote:1. 2017 Steph Curry1b. 2016 Curry
2. 1986 Bird
3. 1964 Russell HM: 2004 Garnett. I might end up switching Russell and KG depending on the arguments.
1. Reasoning for Curry:In short, I think by the data, Curry clearly outperforms Hakeem.
1a. Curry >> Hakeem (even though he's been voted in):
2017 Curry beats 1994 Hakeem 4/4 of our most trusted stats, 4/4 playoff-only stats, and by 9/10 stats total. If we add 2016 Curry and either 1993 or 1994 Hakeem (whichever helps Hakeem more), Curry beats Hakeem in 8/10 stats with 1 tie. The only stats Hakeem ties or beats Curry in are WOWY (which is famously noisy and missing data for Curry) and CORP (which is Ben Taylor's personal evaluation). In the four of the stats that aren’t old enough for Hakeem, Curry is at least 2nd all time in three of them. In short: I don't think there's any statistical argument for Hakeem > Curry.
1b. Curry > Russell:
In preferred stats, Curry wins 2/2. Playoff-only stats are tied 1-1 while in total stats we have, Curry wins 4-2. The only stats where Russell is ahead is WOWY (which is missing much of Curry's data), and WS/48, which is the least trusted stat here. If we expand the years (16 for curry and any year in 62-65 for russell), Curry still wins 4-2. 16/17 Curry is also top 2 all time in 4/8 of the stats we don’t have for Russell, and top 10 all time in 7/8 of the stats we don’t have for Russell.
1c. Curry > Bird
1986 Bird and 2017 Curry are tied 2-2 in our more trusted stats and in playoff-only stats, so it's clearly close. If we include less-trusted stats, 1986 Bird beats 2017 Curry 6-4. But: If we look at a larger sample (2016 for Curry and either 1985 or 1987 for Bird, whichever helps Bird more), Curry dominates in 7/10 stats. 16/17 Curry is also top 2 all time in all 4 stats that don’t have data for Bird.
1d. Curry > Magic
So Curry beats Magic in 6/10 of these total stats, and in 4/4 of the playoff-only stats. If we add 2016 Curry and either 87 Magic or 88 Magic (whichever helps Magic more), Curry wins even more in 7/10 Stats. Magic also faced the weakest playoff competition of any player at this level: 87 Magic's average opponent overall SRS was +1.53 to 17 Curry's +4.59, so if you value playoff difficulty, this makes the playoff gap look even larger.
1e. A Statistical Case for Curry > Jokic, Giannis, Chris Paul, Durant, Kawhi, and Harden can be found here:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=100432654#p100432654. Curry's favorable statistical comparison to Duncan, and Shaq are also in previous threads.
Counter to Curry 1: Did better fit allow Curry to put up better stats than other players? Not enough to matter.
The team around Steph did have an optimal fit, and the team was dominant. But the data seems to suggest the team's dominance was primarily driven by Curry. The other all stars obviously helped the team win, but superstars' individual stats usually decline when they have better teammates, because the better teammates take on-ball time away from the superstar. Instead, Curry's numbers seem as dominant as ever. This indicates Curry's GOAT-level ceiling raising ability.
From 2017–2019 (larger sample to give more stable values), here's the net rating with each of the stars on or off:
-All 4 stars on: +17. (that's 20% better than the 1996 Chicago Bulls across 3 seasons!)
-Only Klay off: +15.64.
-Only KD off: +13.54 (still better than the 96 Chicago Bulls even with KD off)
-Only Draymond off: +12.77
-Only Steph on, all 3 other stars off: +10.81
-Only Steph off: +1.94
With all 3 other all stars off, and just Steph on, the 17-19 Warriors have a better net rating than the 16 Warriors, 13 Heat, 2000 Lakers, 91 Bulls, 87 Lakers, or 86 Celtics. With all 3 all stars on, and just Steph off, the 17-19 Warriors are worse than this season's 2022 Cavs. This pattern remains in the playoffs (more info below).
Counter to Curry 2: Did other players have better resilience to justify them over Curry? No.
Bird, Magic, and KG are all not major playoff improvers over the course of their career. Curry's playoff decline almost entirely correlates with postseason health. Per Per BPM and AUPM, Curry actually improves in the playoffs when he's healthy. Even if the others improve more in the playoffs, the difference isn't significant enough for them to catch up to Curry (e.g. Shaq's career +0.67% improvement vs Curry's career +0.57% improvement), particularly when 2017 Curry outperforms his opponents per the above statistics.
More in depth discussion of Curry's Resilience here:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=100017661#p100017661Counter to Curry 3: Did Curry face sufficiently weak playoff opponents to allow his postseason success?
Here are the average playoff opponents' Overall SRS (playoff + regular season SRS) or SRS for relevant teams:
2004 Mavs' opponents: +5.09 (hardest opponent: Lakers at +7.6)
2017 Warriors' opponents: +4.59 (hardest opponent: Cavs at +9.5)
2003 Spurs' opponents: +4.45 (hardest opponent: Mavs at +7.5)
1964 Celtics' opponents: +4.42 (hardest opponent: Royals at +4.43)
1991 Bulls' opponents: +4.10 (hardest opponent: Lakers at +8.1)
1986 Celtics' opponents: +2.77 (hardest opponent: Rockets at +7.4)
1962 Celtics' opponents: +2.22 (hardest opponent: Warriors at +2.22)
1963 Celtics' opponents: +1.90 (hardest opponent: Lakers at +2.67)
1965 Celtics' opponents: +1.76 (hardest opponent: Lakers at +4.41)
1987 Lakers' opponents: +1.53 (hardest opponent: Celtics at +5.3)
2017 Curry's average playoff opponents were better the opponents of 2003 Tim Duncan, 1991 Jordan, 1986 Larry Bird, 1987 Magic Johnson, and 1962-1965 Bill Russell. Accounting for opponent injury, Curry still faced harder competition than Magic, Bird, or Russell. 1962-1965 Russell's best opponent was statistically worse than Curry's average opponent. The 2017 Cavs were statistically a better opponent than any opponent faced by 1994-95 Hakeem, 2004 Garnett, 2003 Duncan, 1991 Jordan, 1986 Bird, 1987 Magic, or 1962-1965 Bill Russell. Source for opponent SRS: Basketball Reference, Sansterre's Top 100 Teams:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2012241.
This overall opponent difficulty does not account for the disproportionate defensive attention that Curry faced.
For example, in the 2018 Finals, Curry faced double teams more than 20x more (that's 2000% more) than Durant (Source: Nbalogix and Clutch Points). Per my personal film analysis, this GOAT-level defensive attention persists in the 2017 Finals, even when playing next to KD. It's also worth noting that in my film analysis, Curry had a good rate of good defensive plays to defensive mistakes, and the Cavs did not produce good offense by putting LeBron against Curry in isolation.
Film study of a 2017 Curry here:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=100386706#p100386706.
Counter to Curry 4: Does health matter? Maybe.
Curry was healthy throughout the entire 2017 season, which is one of the reasons I take 2017 over 2016. However, if you want to dock Curry for being a health risk (even though he stayed healthy this season), that's understandable.
Counter to Curry 5: Should we have 2016 Curry > 2017 Curry?
I certainly see the arguments for 2016 Curry. If he had a healthy playoffs (or if you only care about players' chances of getting injured in a season, rather than whether they actually got injured or not), I could see 2016 Curry > 2017 Curry.
Still, Doctor Mj and I have argued before that Curry actually was a better player in 2017. Specifically, I see him improving in his health, resilience (e.g. better strength, decision making, and handle), and scalability. I'm not concerned by that his decline in metrics from 2016 to 2017 show a decline in skill -- Curry openly admitted in interviews that mentally, he took too much of a step back and and got into a small slump when trying to accommodate KD. This shows good leadership and chemistry. Once he figured out how to play alongside KD, metrics / the eye test / player interviews all say 2017 Curry returned to 2016 form by the end of the 2017 regular seasons.
More discussion on 2017 Curry > 2016 be found here:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=100017661#p1000176612. Reasoning for Bird:What about Bird against the competition of KG or Hakeem?
Bird > KG: 2004 KG and 1986 Bird are tied 4 stats to 4, but Bird’s up 3-1 in our most trusted stats, and Bird leads in 4/4 playoff-only stats.
Bird > Hakeem: 86 Bird beats 94 Hakeem in 4/4 of the most trusted stats, 4/4 of the playoff-only stats, and 9/10 of the total stats. If we add 93 Hakeem to the mix, 86 Bird still wins in 8/10 total stats (or 7/8 if you prefer total WS over WS/48).
Any contextual factors (1. Scalability, 2. Resilience, 3. Health, 4. Defense not captured in impact metrics, 5. Team Fit exaggerating/limiting impact, 6. Time machine.)? Bird is definitely more scalable and performs better in a time machine to today the Hakeem (though it's close for KG). KG doesn't have a resilience advantage, and Hakeem's Resilience advantage isn't enough to make up the difference according to playoff-only stats. Overall, the contextual factors aren't enough in KG or Hakeem's favor to make up for Bird's clear impact advantage.
3. Thoughts on Russell vs KG KG and Russell are tied 1-1 in trusted stats and 3-3 in total stats. Russell wins in 2/2 postseason only stats. KG is top 3 all-time in 2 of the more trusted stats which we don’t have for Russell.
Does context help? 1. Scalability: KG > Russell. KG is clearly more scalable. His offensive spacing, better passing, and off-ball ability all fit perfectly on a good offense.
2, Resilience: Russell > KG. Russell is clearly more resilient at his peak, winning both playoff-only stats. Russell's team had a 10-0 record in Game 7s and a 22-0 record in elimination games (
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/l81hr6/its_pretty_well_known_that_bill_russell_was_210/). That's just crazy!
3. Health: KG = Russell. Both are healthy.
4. Defense not captured in impact metrics: Both players are defense-oriented, and Russell is missing many of the impact metrics. It's possible WinShares is underrating Russell more, but WOWY is likely accurate to Russell's defensive value.
so I'm not too concerned that there's a bias against one over the other based on defense being missed in the stats.
5. Fit: KG > Russell. KG had a much worse fit at his peak, which may limit his impact metrics more than Russell's.
6. Time Machine: KG > Russell. KG would perform better if they both took a time machine to the modern era.
Overall, both are close statistically, with lots of stats missing for Russell. The argument for Russell relies on his playoff resilience. The argument for KG relies on portability and the time machine argument, while arguing that his poor postseason performance was caused by atrocious fitting team, rather than an inherent lack of skill on his part. There’s some evidence for this, since 2001 and 2008 both have better postseason metrics than 2004, but it’s hard to know just how much better the 2004 postseason would be with better fit. All in all, there’s high uncertainty for both players, and I’m not sure who to go with.
