The case for Curry and Giannis in the All-Time Top 10

[TheLand13]

this is insane. he had to do everything because he was on a sh***y team. but yes if he had better teammates he wouldn't have had to do as much,,,so you're going to crucify him for being on a bad team??!! LMAO - so be dismissive of a legendary player. if you want to denegrate some of lesser talent then do so as they struggle to validate themselves,,,but you if want to besmirch a LEGEND then do so whilst appearing stupid for all to see

you are better off if you simply look at his skillset. he was f*****ing unique and great at it. his accomplishments from high school to college to pros says so. he practically invented the word skillset

Sorry, but I'm not going to buy the "he was on a terrible team" excuse when I watched a 22 year old LeBron James carry a terrible team to the NBA Finals in my freshmen (edit: I'm an idiot, it was my senior year of high school). Again, Oscar missed the postseason four times in his prime. There's no defending that.

Oscar missing the play-offs = inexcusable
Curry missing the play-offs in 2021 = not even worth a mention

Surprising

Also if you think 2022 wasn't a strong supporting cast I'm starting to doubt whether you ever even look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.

Good job, you're good at framing someone's posts. I think I made it pretty clear that it has a lot more to do with Oscar doing it on FOUR different occasions in his prime. That's a hell of a lot worse than someone doing it one time in a season where two of his all star teammates were out with injury, especially since he went on to win the finals the following season anyways so uh... yeah, I don't want to hear it.

And if you have any doubts about whether or not I look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, you can simply go to the thread "teams with the weakest supporting casts" and see for yourself. And if you still are having doubts after reading my posts in that thread, then you aren't worth my time responding to.

Yea but if the number accolades, rings etc. is just way less than those of others who are in the conversation, it becomes difficult to have said player firmly in the top 10 OR it opens up the whole Kawhi style GOAT conversation where even a span of 10-30 games is enough to have a player in the top 10 all time or maybe even as the greatest of all time.

Curry has 4 rings with a FMVP, multiple MVP's (including the only unanimous MVP season), multiple all team selections, multiple NBA records, one of which probably will never be broken, and he is considered the greatest shooter of all time. Hell he even has a steals title. This is a resume that stacks up pretty damn well with the other all time greats trying to inch into that top ten spot.

[WarriorGM]

Always funny when someone says someone's arguments are vague and backed up by nothing only to go on a vague tangent based on nothing. You're only talking about team achievements (finals and rings) and media awards like the MVP. Instead of only looking at the results maybe try diving just a little bit deeper and figure out how much of a team's results are because of certain players. If you only look at team results without any context and then give all the credit to the poster boy of the team of course you're going to be unreasonably high on Curry.

More nothing. What are you suggesting we should look at? Number of points and stats racked up? I see they have more points than Russell. I guess we should consider them better players than Russell because they amass more points and assists? Nah I value winning more.

You know how large the gulf is between Curry and West is? We can give outright West 4 more championships by pretending he won 4 of the finals that he lost so that he has 5 rings instead of 1—and Curry's résumé would still be stronger. The same logic that is currently used to argue Jordan is greater than Russell can be used to argue Curry is greater than West even in that hypothetical case where West has more rings. So this formless argument from you? It's dead in the water.

Are you simply not aware that there are much more detailed stats than points and assists or do you go out of your way to dismiss anything substantial? It's not even necessary to bring KD into the mix either because Curry wouldn't have a single ring if not for Draymond. Take Dray out of the picture and suddenly Curry is just another Reggie Miller. Your "Curry won this Curry won that" talk doesn't mean anything since the Warriors won all those series, not Curry on his own.

There are much more detailed stats than points and assists for 1960s players like Oscar and Jerry? Then by all means present them.

In Curry you are talking about a player it can be said revolutionized the way the game is played. Oscar and Jerry as closer to pioneer stars of a nascent league presumably had a better opportunity to influence its development but even then it's not obvious how they did more to revolutionize how the game is played than Curry.

Draymond? In the year Curry was finally given the reins to the team he led it to a 47-win season when in the previous year they had only won 23 games then proceeded to upset the third seed and then pushed the perennial contender and multiple time champion Spurs to 6 games. He was doing this in the playoffs with Jarrett Jack as arguably the second best player. Draymond was on the bench.

But hey it is undeniable that Draymond did contribute to Curry's future successes. Let us take a moment to appreciate how amazing it really is how a second round pick who is known for triple singles is considered the prime partner and contributor to the career of one of the greatest players in NBA history. Jordan had Pippen. Kareem had Oscar and then Magic. Shaq had Kobe. LeBron had Wade. West had Baylor. And Curry has Draymond. That should say it all right there.

[TheLand13]

There are much more detailed stats than points and assists for 1960s players like Oscar and Jerry? Then by all means present them.

In Curry you are talking about a player it can be said revolutionized the way the game is played. Oscar and Jerry as closer to pioneer stars of a nascent league presumably had a better opportunity to influence its development but even then it's not obvious how they did more to revolutionize how the game is played than Curry.

It's really bad that the very point I agreed with you on I am still being forced to disagree with you on now because of how laughably bad your arguments are.

Curry revolutionized the way the game is played but it's not obvious how Jerry did it more? Bruh, there's a reason why the NBA chose him as the player for the logo.

[WarriorGM]

There are much more detailed stats than points and assists for 1960s players like Oscar and Jerry? Then by all means present them.

In Curry you are talking about a player it can be said revolutionized the way the game is played. Oscar and Jerry as closer to pioneer stars of a nascent league presumably had a better opportunity to influence its development but even then it's not obvious how they did more to revolutionize how the game is played than Curry.

It's really bad that the very point I agreed with you on I am still being forced to disagree with you on now because of how laughably bad your arguments are.

Curry revolutionized the way the game is played but it's not obvious how Jerry did it more? Bruh, there's a reason why the NBA chose him as the player for the logo.

Being chosen as the basis of the silhouette of the league's logo caused coaches to throw out their playbooks?

[baldur]

There is no case for giannis.

[lambchop]

Yea but if the number accolades, rings etc. is just way less than those of others who are in the conversation, it becomes difficult to have said player firmly in the top 10 OR it opens up the whole Kawhi style GOAT conversation where even a span of 10-30 games is enough to have a player in the top 10 all time or maybe even as the greatest of all time.

Curry has 4 rings with a FMVP, multiple MVP's (including the only unanimous MVP season), multiple all team selections, multiple NBA records, one of which probably will never be broken, and he is considered the greatest shooter of all time. Hell he even has a steals title. This is a resume that stacks up pretty damn well with the other all time greats trying to inch into that top ten spot.

Big facts. I was talking about Giannis though, my bad if that wasn't clear.

[baldur]

Giannis still has to do more to crack that top 10. 1 ring, 1 DPOY and 2 MVPs won't do it. Probably needs another MVP and 1 or 2 awesome playoff runs (not necessarily culminating in rings).

I see Curry as a top 10 player, though I'm not sure who to remove from the top 10.

I really dislike this argument of “Giannis needs another MVP or two and x amount of championships”

No he doesn’t. Everyone’s top ten journey is different and your number of accolades isn’t what defines that.

He was being generous actually.

Giannis needs 4 or 5 rings to even have an actual claim.

[Lalouie]

this is insane. he had to do everything because he was on a sh***y team. but yes if he had better teammates he wouldn't have had to do as much,,,so you're going to crucify him for being on a bad team??!! LMAO - so be dismissive of a legendary player. if you want to denegrate some of lesser talent then do so as they struggle to validate themselves,,,but you if want to besmirch a LEGEND then do so whilst appearing stupid for all to see

you are better off if you simply look at his skillset. he was f*****ing unique and great at it. his accomplishments from high school to college to pros says so. he practically invented the word skillset

Sorry, but I'm not going to buy the "he was on a terrible team" excuse when I watched a 22 year old LeBron James carry a terrible team to the NBA Finals in my freshmen (edit: I'm an idiot, it was my senior year of high school). Again, Oscar missed the postseason four times in his prime. There's no defending that.

Oscar missing the play-offs = inexcusable
Curry missing the play-offs in 2021 = not even worth a mention

Surprising

Also if you think 2022 wasn't a strong supporting cast I'm starting to doubt whether you ever even look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.

Good job, you're good at framing someone's posts. I think I made it pretty clear that it has a lot more to do with Oscar doing it on FOUR different occasions in his prime. That's a hell of a lot worse than someone doing it one time in a season where two of his all star teammates were out with injury, especially since he went on to win the finals the following season anyways so uh... yeah, I don't want to hear it.

And if you have any doubts about whether or not I look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, you can simply go to the thread "teams with the weakest supporting casts" and see for yourself. And if you still are having doubts after reading my posts in that thread, then you aren't worth my time responding to.

Yea but if the number accolades, rings etc. is just way less than those of others who are in the conversation, it becomes difficult to have said player firmly in the top 10 OR it opens up the whole Kawhi style GOAT conversation where even a span of 10-30 games is enough to have a player in the top 10 all time or maybe even as the greatest of all time.

Curry has 4 rings with a FMVP, multiple MVP's (including the only unanimous MVP season), multiple all team selections, multiple NBA records, one of which probably will never be broken, and he is considered the greatest shooter of all time. Hell he even has a steals title. This is a resume that stacks up pretty damn well with the other all time greats trying to inch into that top ten spot.

that's a valid reason if you're making a comparative statement. if you do that you may as well write a book taking a deep dive into comparing eras. and if you do THAT you may as well compare all players and all eras,,,,,GOOD LUKKKKK

i am not. i am trying not to.

what oscar did was a standalone assessment of his contribution to the game

[TheLand13]

Giannis still has to do more to crack that top 10. 1 ring, 1 DPOY and 2 MVPs won't do it. Probably needs another MVP and 1 or 2 awesome playoff runs (not necessarily culminating in rings).

I see Curry as a top 10 player, though I'm not sure who to remove from the top 10.

I really dislike this argument of “Giannis needs another MVP or two and x amount of championships”

No he doesn’t. Everyone’s top ten journey is different and your number of accolades isn’t what defines that.

He was being generous actually.

Giannis needs 4 or 5 rings to even have an actual claim.

First off no he doesn’t. But second and more importantly, huh? He’s already got a DPOY and multiple MVPs.

4-5 more rings would put him in the GOAT conversation. I feel like some of you don’t even think before you throw out these numbers.

[TheLand13]

Yea but if the number accolades, rings etc. is just way less than those of others who are in the conversation, it becomes difficult to have said player firmly in the top 10 OR it opens up the whole Kawhi style GOAT conversation where even a span of 10-30 games is enough to have a player in the top 10 all time or maybe even as the greatest of all time.

Curry has 4 rings with a FMVP, multiple MVP's (including the only unanimous MVP season), multiple all team selections, multiple NBA records, one of which probably will never be broken, and he is considered the greatest shooter of all time. Hell he even has a steals title. This is a resume that stacks up pretty damn well with the other all time greats trying to inch into that top ten spot.

Big facts. I was talking about Giannis though, my bad if that wasn't clear.

My bad.

[Dutchball97]

Good job, you're good at framing someone's posts. I think I made it pretty clear that it has a lot more to do with Oscar doing it on FOUR different occasions in his prime. That's a hell of a lot worse than someone doing it one time in a season where two of his all star teammates were out with injury, especially since he went on to win the finals the following season anyways so uh... yeah, I don't want to hear it.

And if you have any doubts about whether or not I look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, you can simply go to the thread "teams with the weakest supporting casts" and see for yourself. And if you still are having doubts after reading my posts in that thread, then you aren't worth my time responding to.

Putting so much emphasis on FOUR when it was three years is already kind of telling about your knowledge of the era but you know, could be an honest mistake too. In 68 Oscar missed time, in 69 they went up to 41 games again but missed out on the post-season because of them playing in the east (5th in the east, would've been 3rd in the east), in 1970 his only teammate of note Jerry Lucas played only 4 games.

Maybe you don't want to hear it but the moment Curry wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players, he missed the play-offs. He still had Andrew Wiggins playing all but 1 game and Dray playing just as many games as Curry himself, only Klay was gone and he hadn't been All-Star level for a while anyway. You're being way too simple here. You just see someone missing or making the play-offs and call it a day.

You're probably right though that I'm not worth your time because I don't really think anything you're saying makes any sense.

[DB23]

Good job, you're good at framing someone's posts. I think I made it pretty clear that it has a lot more to do with Oscar doing it on FOUR different occasions in his prime. That's a hell of a lot worse than someone doing it one time in a season where two of his all star teammates were out with injury, especially since he went on to win the finals the following season anyways so uh... yeah, I don't want to hear it.

And if you have any doubts about whether or not I look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, you can simply go to the thread "teams with the weakest supporting casts" and see for yourself. And if you still are having doubts after reading my posts in that thread, then you aren't worth my time responding to.

Putting so much emphasis on FOUR when it was three years is already kind of telling about your knowledge of the era but you know, could be an honest mistake too. In 68 Oscar missed time, in 69 they went up to 41 games again but missed out on the post-season because of them playing in the east (5th in the east, would've been 3rd in the east), in 1970 his only teammate of note Jerry Lucas played only 4 games.

Maybe you don't want to hear it but the moment Curry wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players, he missed the play-offs. He still had Andrew Wiggins playing all but 1 game and Dray playing just as many games as Curry himself, only Klay was gone and he hadn't been All-Star level for a while anyway. You're being way too simple here. You just see someone missing or making the play-offs and call it a day.

You're probably right though that I'm not worth your time because I don't really think anything you're saying makes any sense.

Curry missed time that year as well. So you excuse it when Oscar misses time but not curry.

They were on just under a 50 win pace when he played.

Double standards again.

[Dutchball97]

Good job, you're good at framing someone's posts. I think I made it pretty clear that it has a lot more to do with Oscar doing it on FOUR different occasions in his prime. That's a hell of a lot worse than someone doing it one time in a season where two of his all star teammates were out with injury, especially since he went on to win the finals the following season anyways so uh... yeah, I don't want to hear it.

And if you have any doubts about whether or not I look past the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, you can simply go to the thread "teams with the weakest supporting casts" and see for yourself. And if you still are having doubts after reading my posts in that thread, then you aren't worth my time responding to.

Putting so much emphasis on FOUR when it was three years is already kind of telling about your knowledge of the era but you know, could be an honest mistake too. In 68 Oscar missed time, in 69 they went up to 41 games again but missed out on the post-season because of them playing in the east (5th in the east, would've been 3rd in the east), in 1970 his only teammate of note Jerry Lucas played only 4 games.

Maybe you don't want to hear it but the moment Curry wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players, he missed the play-offs. He still had Andrew Wiggins playing all but 1 game and Dray playing just as many games as Curry himself, only Klay was gone and he hadn't been All-Star level for a while anyway. You're being way too simple here. You just see someone missing or making the play-offs and call it a day.

You're probably right though that I'm not worth your time because I don't really think anything you're saying makes any sense.

Curry missed time that year as well. So you excuse it when Oscar misses time but not curry.

They were on just under a 50 win pace when he played.

Double standards again.

Buddy pal you're only digging yourself and your credibility a bigger hole. It's the entire point that it's a double standard but you've got the perpetrator the wrong way around. Sure Oscar missed the play-offs but I'm just showing Curry did as well while still having more help than Oscar. Curry was fortunate he was only in such a situation for 1 season but how can you not see that team context matters? You think Oscar would've missed 3 post-seasons straight if he had Curry's help? No way. Similarly Curry wouldn't have done much more, if more at all, with the supporting casts Oscar had to deal with especially in the late 60s. Besides that what's more impactful? Missing 15 games in a league where playing every game is the standard or missing 9 games in a league where half the star players miss that many games for rest alone?

[WarriorGM]

Putting so much emphasis on FOUR when it was three years is already kind of telling about your knowledge of the era but you know, could be an honest mistake too. In 68 Oscar missed time, in 69 they went up to 41 games again but missed out on the post-season because of them playing in the east (5th in the east, would've been 3rd in the east), in 1970 his only teammate of note Jerry Lucas played only 4 games.

Maybe you don't want to hear it but the moment Curry wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players, he missed the play-offs. He still had Andrew Wiggins playing all but 1 game and Dray playing just as many games as Curry himself, only Klay was gone and he hadn't been All-Star level for a while anyway. You're being way too simple here. You just see someone missing or making the play-offs and call it a day.

You're probably right though that I'm not worth your time because I don't really think anything you're saying makes any sense.

Curry missed time that year as well. So you excuse it when Oscar misses time but not curry.

They were on just under a 50 win pace when he played.

Double standards again.

Buddy pal you're only digging yourself and your credibility a bigger hole. It's the entire point that it's a double standard but you've got the perpetrator the wrong way around. Sure Oscar missed the play-offs but I'm just showing Curry did as well while still having more help than Oscar. Curry was fortunate he was only in such a situation for 1 season but how can you not see that team context matters? You think Oscar would've missed 3 post-seasons straight if he had Curry's help? No way. Similarly Curry wouldn't have done much more, if more at all, with the supporting casts Oscar had to deal with especially in the late 60s. Besides that what's more impactful? Missing 15 games in a league where playing every game is the standard or missing 9 games in a league where half the star players miss that many games for rest alone?

Even with Curry missing time in that year he "wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players", the team finished with a 54% winning percentage. Looks like a better record than Oscar in 67, 68, 69, and 70. Would have been seeded directly into the playoffs any previous year without the play-in shenanigans.

Curry had more help than Oscar? Wasn't Oscar playing with two future hall of famers and another future all-star? Curry's team was coming off a 15-win season.

Oscar just looks worse and worse in comparison the more I look at it.

[Dutchball97]

Curry missed time that year as well. So you excuse it when Oscar misses time but not curry.

They were on just under a 50 win pace when he played.

Double standards again.

Buddy pal you're only digging yourself and your credibility a bigger hole. It's the entire point that it's a double standard but you've got the perpetrator the wrong way around. Sure Oscar missed the play-offs but I'm just showing Curry did as well while still having more help than Oscar. Curry was fortunate he was only in such a situation for 1 season but how can you not see that team context matters? You think Oscar would've missed 3 post-seasons straight if he had Curry's help? No way. Similarly Curry wouldn't have done much more, if more at all, with the supporting casts Oscar had to deal with especially in the late 60s. Besides that what's more impactful? Missing 15 games in a league where playing every game is the standard or missing 9 games in a league where half the star players miss that many games for rest alone?

Even with Curry missing time in that year he "wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players", the team finished with a 54% winning percentage. Looks like a better record than Oscar in 67, 68, 69, and 70.

Curry had more help than Oscar? Wasn't Oscar playing with two future hall of famers and another future all-star?

I'd love for you to make an in depth comparison between the supporting casts of the 2021 Warriors and the late 60s Royals, maybe you'd even learn something. Maybe you'll get an insight in the discrepency between the east and the west in those days. In 1969 and 1970 especially all eastern teams had higher SRS than the top team in the west.

[WarriorGM]

Buddy pal you're only digging yourself and your credibility a bigger hole. It's the entire point that it's a double standard but you've got the perpetrator the wrong way around. Sure Oscar missed the play-offs but I'm just showing Curry did as well while still having more help than Oscar. Curry was fortunate he was only in such a situation for 1 season but how can you not see that team context matters? You think Oscar would've missed 3 post-seasons straight if he had Curry's help? No way. Similarly Curry wouldn't have done much more, if more at all, with the supporting casts Oscar had to deal with especially in the late 60s. Besides that what's more impactful? Missing 15 games in a league where playing every game is the standard or missing 9 games in a league where half the star players miss that many games for rest alone?

Even with Curry missing time in that year he "wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players", the team finished with a 54% winning percentage. Looks like a better record than Oscar in 67, 68, 69, and 70.

Curry had more help than Oscar? Wasn't Oscar playing with two future hall of famers and another future all-star?

I'd love for you to make an in depth comparison between the supporting casts of the 2021 Warriors and the late 60s Royals, maybe you'd even learn something. Maybe you'll get an insight in the discrepency between the east and the west in those days. In 1969 and 1970 especially all eastern teams had higher SRS than the top team in the west.

Maybe you should do a deep dive analysis of the 2021 Warriors yourself and find out that without Curry there is reason to believe it was an even worse roster than the 15-win roster the year before that finished with the worst record in the league.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

Name the greatest NBA team. The Warriors.
Who is the greatest player on that team?

That kind of logic will make sense when a 10 dollar bill in a wallet with four 5 dollar bills is worth more than a 20 dollar bill in a wallet with four 1 dollar bills.

[Dutchball97]

Even with Curry missing time in that year he "wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players", the team finished with a 54% winning percentage. Looks like a better record than Oscar in 67, 68, 69, and 70.

Curry had more help than Oscar? Wasn't Oscar playing with two future hall of famers and another future all-star?

I'd love for you to make an in depth comparison between the supporting casts of the 2021 Warriors and the late 60s Royals, maybe you'd even learn something. Maybe you'll get an insight in the discrepency between the east and the west in those days. In 1969 and 1970 especially all eastern teams had higher SRS than the top team in the west.

Maybe you should do a deep dive analysis of the 2021 Warriors yourself and find out that without Curry there is reason to believe it was an even worse roster than the 15-win roster the year before that finished with the worst record in the league.

Klay still missed the full season, Dray missed 22 of 65 games instead of the 9 of 72 he missed in 2021, the bench had no consistency at all. Maybe you noticed both D'Angelo Russell and Wiggins on the roster without realizing they were traded for each other? Even then 33 games of Russell and 12 games of Wiggins isn't worth more than 71 games of Wiggins in 2021. So please enlighten me how the 2021 was arguably even worse than 2020.

[DB23]

Putting so much emphasis on FOUR when it was three years is already kind of telling about your knowledge of the era but you know, could be an honest mistake too. In 68 Oscar missed time, in 69 they went up to 41 games again but missed out on the post-season because of them playing in the east (5th in the east, would've been 3rd in the east), in 1970 his only teammate of note Jerry Lucas played only 4 games.

Maybe you don't want to hear it but the moment Curry wasn't surrounded by a legion of great players, he missed the play-offs. He still had Andrew Wiggins playing all but 1 game and Dray playing just as many games as Curry himself, only Klay was gone and he hadn't been All-Star level for a while anyway. You're being way too simple here. You just see someone missing or making the play-offs and call it a day.

You're probably right though that I'm not worth your time because I don't really think anything you're saying makes any sense.

Curry missed time that year as well. So you excuse it when Oscar misses time but not curry.

They were on just under a 50 win pace when he played.

Double standards again.

Buddy pal you're only digging yourself and your credibility a bigger hole. It's the entire point that it's a double standard but you've got the perpetrator the wrong way around. Sure Oscar missed the play-offs but I'm just showing Curry did as well while still having more help than Oscar. Curry was fortunate he was only in such a situation for 1 season but how can you not see that team context matters? You think Oscar would've missed 3 post-seasons straight if he had Curry's help? No way. Similarly Curry wouldn't have done much more, if more at all, with the supporting casts Oscar had to deal with especially in the late 60s. Besides that what's more impactful? Missing 15 games in a league where playing every game is the standard or missing 9 games in a league where half the star players miss that many games for rest alone?

You didn’t answer my previous question, how much did you see Oscar play live? Because unless your 60-70 years old then I doubt you know how Oscar would have dealt with it either.

Don’t particularly care what you think of credibility when you state that curry is equal to Reggie, terrible take.

[WarriorGM]

I'd love for you to make an in depth comparison between the supporting casts of the 2021 Warriors and the late 60s Royals, maybe you'd even learn something. Maybe you'll get an insight in the discrepency between the east and the west in those days. In 1969 and 1970 especially all eastern teams had higher SRS than the top team in the west.

Maybe you should do a deep dive analysis of the 2021 Warriors yourself and find out that without Curry there is reason to believe it was an even worse roster than the 15-win roster the year before that finished with the worst record in the league.

Klay still missed the full season, Dray missed 22 of 65 games instead of the 9 of 72 he missed in 2021, the bench had no consistency at all. Maybe you noticed both D'Angelo Russell and Wiggins on the roster without realizing they were traded for each other? Even then 33 games of Russell and 12 games of Wiggins isn't worth more than 71 games of Wiggins in 2021. So please enlighten me how the 2021 was arguably even worse than 2020.

The 2021 Warriors are The Worst Team in The NBA When Steph isn't On The Court. And It Gets Worse.

Was the above just empty conjecture? Consider when the player that was identified as being the main problem was injured the team went on a 15-5 run (a 60-win pace).