What more does Curry need to do, in your opinion, to overtake Kobe?

[edgymnerch]

Title

[TheGOATRises007]

He's already overtook him for me.

I have his peak/prime ahead of Kobe.

[rim213221]

They’re pretty neck and neck in the top 8-12 range.

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. LeBron
5. Kareem
6. Magic
7. Duncan
8. Shaq
9. Bird
10. Kobe
11. Curry
12. Hakeem

[frica]

Stay healthy.

[Narigo]

More durable/longevity

[eminence]

Agreeing with the above, more longevity. For me, that means finishing out this season healthy and then 1-2 more seasons at a reasonably high level (all-nba or higher level). He's close.

[rk2023]

I'm higher on peak Kobe Bryant (his career too, extending off of that) than most who use the PC Board. I'd have to re-analyze and will at some point, but the last time I looked into the subject.. I preferred 16/17 Curry over any Bryant season - while also feeling that 2015/19?/21 are close to 08/09 Bryant.

With having Bryant around the low end of T-10 (9th / 10th) all time and Curry around 15, I'd need to see one or two MVP level years in order to think this through and deep-dive into this potential career-val. debate. Waiting to see how this year plays out, but I think Curry had 6 strong MVP+ seasons from 2015-22 - I see Kobe as having 8 (01-03, 06-10) strong MVP+ seasons with stellar surrounding years.

[Doctor MJ]

So, the logic of "Needs more longevity to overtake the guy with a long career" makes sense in general, but people need to remember what Kobe's longevity actually entailed.

If I look at raw +/- comparing Curry to Tim Duncan, I get this:

Duncan +10,000
Curry +6,474

While I certainly don't rank guys just by this stat, Duncan spent a lot of years playing a critical role on a contending team, and it's reasonable to feel that until Curry rivals that, Duncan's always going to have a good argument over Curry.

What about Curry vs Kobe?

Curry +6,474
Bryant +4,721

By this metric, what Curry needs to "overtake" Kobe is to go about -1700 the rest of his career, which frankly isn't realistic imho. Curry blew past Kobe a while ago and has just kept going. So, this race is almost certainly over, and it leaves a pro-Kobe argument with a "but he played with such weak supporting talent" type arguments, which I would argue doesn't make sense for Kobe.

[eminence]

So, the logic of "Needs more longevity to overtake the guy with a long career" makes sense in general, but people need to remember what Kobe's longevity actually entailed.

If I look at raw +/- comparing Curry to Tim Duncan, I get this:

Duncan +10,000
Curry +6,474

While I certainly don't rank guys just by this stat, Duncan spent a lot of years playing a critical role on a contending team, and it's reasonable to feel that until Curry rivals that, Duncan's always going to have a good argument over Curry.

What about Curry vs Kobe?

Curry +6,474
Bryant +4,721

By this metric, what Curry needs to "overtake" Kobe is to go about -1700 the rest of his career, which frankly isn't realistic imho. Curry blew past Kobe a while ago and has just kept going. So, this race is almost certainly over, and it leaves a pro-Kobe argument with a "but he played with such weak supporting talent" type arguments, which I would argue doesn't make sense for Kobe.

Two thoughts.

I don't think most would agree with a metric where a player can relatively easily move backwards. '05/'14/'15/'16 certainly don't add a ton to Kobes career, but backwards progress feels strange in such a discussion. Certainly not to the extremes Kobe actually moved by this metric (it would imply his '16 season essentially negated one of his best seasons).

I think the better pro-Kobe argument here would not be that he played with weak supporting talent, but that the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were RS underachievers, and so a RS based metric will underate them. Which I find a pretty defensible position.

Anywho, I don't think it's too crazy to have Steph having already caught Kobe either, so do as you will

[Cavsfansince84]

So, the logic of "Needs more longevity to overtake the guy with a long career" makes sense in general, but people need to remember what Kobe's longevity actually entailed.

If I look at raw +/- comparing Curry to Tim Duncan, I get this:

Duncan +10,000
Curry +6,474

While I certainly don't rank guys just by this stat, Duncan spent a lot of years playing a critical role on a contending team, and it's reasonable to feel that until Curry rivals that, Duncan's always going to have a good argument over Curry.

What about Curry vs Kobe?

Curry +6,474
Bryant +4,721

By this metric, what Curry needs to "overtake" Kobe is to go about -1700 the rest of his career, which frankly isn't realistic imho. Curry blew past Kobe a while ago and has just kept going. So, this race is almost certainly over, and it leaves a pro-Kobe argument with a "but he played with such weak supporting talent" type arguments, which I would argue doesn't make sense for Kobe.

Using that as a major form of criteria though, does it make sense to you then that Curry in say 2018 was that much better than Kobe in say 2006 when his +/- was likely only slightly more than neutral and then also taking into account Kobe's +/-'s in his last couple of years which likely dragged down his careers totals by a lot due to both being past his prime and on sub par teams.

[Black Feet]

So, the logic of "Needs more longevity to overtake the guy with a long career" makes sense in general, but people need to remember what Kobe's longevity actually entailed.

If I look at raw +/- comparing Curry to Tim Duncan, I get this:

Duncan +10,000
Curry +6,474

While I certainly don't rank guys just by this stat, Duncan spent a lot of years playing a critical role on a contending team, and it's reasonable to feel that until Curry rivals that, Duncan's always going to have a good argument over Curry.

What about Curry vs Kobe?

Curry +6,474
Bryant +4,721

By this metric, what Curry needs to "overtake" Kobe is to go about -1700 the rest of his career, which frankly isn't realistic imho. Curry blew past Kobe a while ago and has just kept going. So, this race is almost certainly over, and it leaves a pro-Kobe argument with a "but he played with such weak supporting talent" type arguments, which I would argue doesn't make sense for Kobe.

Using that as a major form of criteria though, does it make sense to you then that Curry in say 2018 was that much better than Kobe in say 2006 when his +/- was likely only slightly more than neutral and then also taking into account Kobe's +/-'s in his last couple of years which likely dragged down his careers totals by a lot due to both being past his prime and on sub par teams.

by his backwards logic if curry plays long past his prime and his +\- declines then he will move him down on his all time list lol.

[Colbinii]

So, the logic of "Needs more longevity to overtake the guy with a long career" makes sense in general, but people need to remember what Kobe's longevity actually entailed.

If I look at raw +/- comparing Curry to Tim Duncan, I get this:

Duncan +10,000
Curry +6,474

While I certainly don't rank guys just by this stat, Duncan spent a lot of years playing a critical role on a contending team, and it's reasonable to feel that until Curry rivals that, Duncan's always going to have a good argument over Curry.

What about Curry vs Kobe?

Curry +6,474
Bryant +4,721

By this metric, what Curry needs to "overtake" Kobe is to go about -1700 the rest of his career, which frankly isn't realistic imho. Curry blew past Kobe a while ago and has just kept going. So, this race is almost certainly over, and it leaves a pro-Kobe argument with a "but he played with such weak supporting talent" type arguments, which I would argue doesn't make sense for Kobe.

Using that as a major form of criteria though, does it make sense to you then that Curry in say 2018 was that much better than Kobe in say 2006 when his +/- was likely only slightly more than neutral and then also taking into account Kobe's +/-'s in his last couple of years which likely dragged down his careers totals by a lot due to both being past his prime and on sub par teams.

by his backwards logic if curry plays long past his prime and his +\- declines then he will move him down on his all time list lol.

I wouldn't put Curry ahead of Kobe solely because of +/-, and I certainly wouldn't call using +/- as backward logic, but it is a short-sighted view on this comparison, which is ironic given it is the post in this thread providing the most detail, thought and explanation for one's own stance.

So, before bashing someone for having backwards logic, or poking a whole in the logic provided, perhaps presenting your own argument first is more fair and can generate better discussion.

[Owly]

So, the logic of "Needs more longevity to overtake the guy with a long career" makes sense in general, but people need to remember what Kobe's longevity actually entailed.

If I look at raw +/- comparing Curry to Tim Duncan, I get this:

Duncan +10,000
Curry +6,474

While I certainly don't rank guys just by this stat, Duncan spent a lot of years playing a critical role on a contending team, and it's reasonable to feel that until Curry rivals that, Duncan's always going to have a good argument over Curry.

What about Curry vs Kobe?

Curry +6,474
Bryant +4,721

By this metric, what Curry needs to "overtake" Kobe is to go about -1700 the rest of his career, which frankly isn't realistic imho. Curry blew past Kobe a while ago and has just kept going. So, this race is almost certainly over, and it leaves a pro-Kobe argument with a "but he played with such weak supporting talent" type arguments, which I would argue doesn't make sense for Kobe.

Two thoughts.

I don't think most would agree with a metric where a player can relatively easily move backwards. '05/'14/'15/'16 certainly don't add a ton to Kobes career, but backwards progress feels strange in such a discussion. Certainly not to the extremes Kobe actually moved by this metric (it would imply his '16 season essentially negated one of his best seasons).

I think the better pro-Kobe argument here would not be that he played with weak supporting talent, but that the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were RS underachievers, and so a RS based metric will underate them. Which I find a pretty defensible position.

Anywho, I don't think it's too crazy to have Steph having already caught Kobe either, so do as you will

On 1:
Conceptually, rather more than on the specifics of this metric. I don't think I'd be inclined to do it much but at the same time, I can see it an might struggle to argue against it. You speak about a bad season nearly wiping out a best season but ... his team was historically awful with him on the floor (merely poor/bad otherwise) ... it has to be really bad to take out great seasons and it was and that happened and is part of his career. And there's multi-year signal of a real and significant negative impact ... and it's not like he took some huge discount (at the margins ... nor was he recruiter who made other stars feel at home playing with him and he's still at 33 usage, above career average those last 3 years) those are years that it seems would make it really difficult to have a good, contending team around him.

There's value beyond titles. And the optics of cutting someone like that don't bear thinking about. And those Lakers weren't going to be good. Still ... I could be more sympathetic to what I think could be considered outright bad at a lower chunk of the cap or if showing more signs of bending your game to try to do something different. On an actually potentially good team it seems cutting might have be the best move.

There's something uncomfortable dinging a great for negative value. At the same time I don't know that I could tell someone they were wrong for factoring it into cumulative value.

[Cavsfansince84]

On 1:
Conceptually, rather more than on the specifics of this metric. I don't think I'd be inclined to do it much but at the same time, I can see it an might struggle to argue against it. You speak about a bad season nearly wiping out a best season but ... his team was historically awful with him on the floor (merely poor/bad otherwise) ... it has to be really bad to take out great seasons and it was and that happened and is part of his career. And there's multi-year signal of a real and significant negative impact ... and it's not like he took some huge discount (at the margins ... nor was he recruiter who made other stars feel at home playing with him and he's still at 33 usage, above career average those last 3 years) those are years that it seems would make it really difficult to have a good, contending team around him.

There's value beyond titles. And the optics of cutting someone like that don't bear thinking about. And those Lakers weren't going to be good. Still ... I could be more sympathetic to what I think could be considered outright bad at a lower chunk of the cap or if showing more signs of bending your game to try to do something different. On an actually potentially good team it seems cutting might have be the best move.

There's something uncomfortable dinging a great for negative value. At the same time I don't know that I could tell someone they were wrong for factoring it into cumulative value.

The issue that I would have is not so much the idea of a negative season but more the idea that a player who is top 20 all time would have a prime season that is truly negative in terms of impact. I think its much easier to say that someone who's barely nba starter material or someone like Westbrook the last few years could and does have negative impact but harder to fully rationalize that Kobe in say 05 was truly a negative impact player which is what we seem to be inferring by using +/-.

[AEnigma]

I have said before what I think about this heavy on-court approach. For everyone else, though, including those who find Statmuse unfamiliar to navigate or otherwise would like to cast aspersions on its accuracy in marking plus/minus, here is a basic career leaderboard since 1997:

Steph far from the only player to have cleared Kobe by this measure — even if you add back the value lost from 2014-16.

[iggymcfrack]

I’d say he passed him at least 5 years ago.

[Black Feet]

I have said before what I think about this heavy on-court approach. For everyone else, though, including those who find Statmuse unfamiliar to navigate or otherwise would like to cast aspersions on its accuracy in marking plus/minus, here is a basic career leaderboard since 1997:

Steph far from the only player to have cleared Kobe by this measure — even if you add back the value lost from 2014-16.

goes to show it’s not a very useful stat for comparing players. Duncan,Ginobli,Parker all top 6 says more about the Spurs than them as individual players.

[Colbinii]

I have said before what I think about this heavy on-court approach. For everyone else, though, including those who find Statmuse unfamiliar to navigate or otherwise would like to cast aspersions on its accuracy in marking plus/minus, here is a basic career leaderboard since 1997:

Steph far from the only player to have cleared Kobe by this measure — even if you add back the value lost from 2014-16.

goes to show it’s not a very useful stat for comparing players. Duncan,Ginobli,Parker all top 6 says more about the Spurs than them as individual players.

Which stat do you find more useful as an all-in-one, career value statistic?

[Doctor MJ]

So, the logic of "Needs more longevity to overtake the guy with a long career" makes sense in general, but people need to remember what Kobe's longevity actually entailed.

If I look at raw +/- comparing Curry to Tim Duncan, I get this:

Duncan +10,000
Curry +6,474

While I certainly don't rank guys just by this stat, Duncan spent a lot of years playing a critical role on a contending team, and it's reasonable to feel that until Curry rivals that, Duncan's always going to have a good argument over Curry.

What about Curry vs Kobe?

Curry +6,474
Bryant +4,721

By this metric, what Curry needs to "overtake" Kobe is to go about -1700 the rest of his career, which frankly isn't realistic imho. Curry blew past Kobe a while ago and has just kept going. So, this race is almost certainly over, and it leaves a pro-Kobe argument with a "but he played with such weak supporting talent" type arguments, which I would argue doesn't make sense for Kobe.

Two thoughts.

I don't think most would agree with a metric where a player can relatively easily move backwards. '05/'14/'15/'16 certainly don't add a ton to Kobes career, but backwards progress feels strange in such a discussion. Certainly not to the extremes Kobe actually moved by this metric (it would imply his '16 season essentially negated one of his best seasons).

I think the better pro-Kobe argument here would not be that he played with weak supporting talent, but that the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were RS underachievers, and so a RS based metric will underate them. Which I find a pretty defensible position.

Anywho, I don't think it's too crazy to have Steph having already caught Kobe either, so do as you will

Well, let me give the playoff numbers first since you suggest it:

Duncan +1095
Curry +902
Bryant +557

Would not say that this makes Kobe look better though in this particular comparison.

Re: backwards progress feels strange. It does, but backwards progress is a very real thing. I wouldn't literally say that it's based on having a negative +/- of course, but do star players cause net damage to their teams on their way out? Yup, all the time. Should we care about that? Coaches, GM & owners do, so I think we should too.

[Jaivl]

I have said before what I think about this heavy on-court approach. For everyone else, though, including those who find Statmuse unfamiliar to navigate or otherwise would like to cast aspersions on its accuracy in marking plus/minus, here is a basic career leaderboard since 1997:

Steph far from the only player to have cleared Kobe by this measure — even if you add back the value lost from 2014-16.

goes to show it’s not a very useful stat for comparing players. Duncan,Ginobli,Parker all top 6 says more about the Spurs than them as individual players.

Which stat do you find more useful as an all-in-one, career value statistic?

If we're going hurr durr ape mode on one metric (why), I'd easily take VORP (even win shares?) over context-devoided +/-.