How credible is a Steph Curry GOAT case?

[Ainosterhaspie]

He was referring to a title he won. I fail to see how that conflicts with perfect finals record not being a meaningful argument.

There is some sense in arguing Jordan has six titles, more than all GOAT contenders other than Russell, tied with Kareem. That is not the same as arguing he's better than Kareem because 6/6 is somehow better than 6/10. It's not.

I interpret that statement by James to be a claim that not all finals wins are of equal weight. That is a proposition that must be true for Jordan to have a claim to GOAT status. If it is not true, Russell is the undisputed GOAT.

[MacGill]

Jordan played 15 NBA seasons. He won 6 titles. Those are meaningful numbers. As soon as you start looking at finals record, you run into the absurdity that it is better to lose early or even miss the playoffs entirely rather than lose in the finals.

To ensure that I am following along then, when LeBron said 'that one right there made me the GOAT' he wasn't referring to the finals then? To be clear, not trying to be cheeky, but I don't agree with your second sentence. How in the world can you rank the ATG's if you're not looking and including their performances in the highest level of play any ATG can play in?

No one is saying not to look at their Finals performances.

The point is that actually getting to the Finals is a good thing. How can you win a championship (the goal of the sport) if you fail to reach the Finals? Simple - you can’t.

It would be better, not worse, for Jordan’s legacy if he made it to the Finals in 1995 and lost.

Nice, I'm not sure where you came from as I don't think I quoted you, but okay.

Of course, getting to the finals is a good thing. Did I state it wasn't? But your finals performances also matter and there is no higher nba level to make so I will fairly critique both ways. I am sure you would also agree with that, no?

I'm not sure what your last sentence has to do with anything tbh but in principle, sure. But if you're making the finals and losing as the favourite or underperforming it will also hurt you far more then making the finals and delivering.

[jalengreen]

To ensure that I am following along then, when LeBron said 'that one right there made me the GOAT' he wasn't referring to the finals then? To be clear, not trying to be cheeky, but I don't agree with your second sentence. How in the world can you rank the ATG's if you're not looking and including their performances in the highest level of play any ATG can play in?

No one is saying not to look at their Finals performances.

The point is that actually getting to the Finals is a good thing. How can you win a championship (the goal of the sport) if you fail to reach the Finals? Simple - you can’t.

It would be better, not worse, for Jordan’s legacy if he made it to the Finals in 1995 and lost.

Nice, I'm not sure where you came from as I don't think I quoted you, but okay.

Of course, getting to the finals is a good thing. Did I state it wasn't? But your finals performances also matter and there is no higher nba level to make so I will fairly critique both ways. I am sure you would also agree with that, no?

I'm not sure what your last sentence has to do with anything tbh but in principle, sure. But if you're making the finals and losing as the favourite or underperforming it will also hurt you far more then making the finals and delivering.

It’s a public message board, you’re able to respond to posts in which you’re not quoted. There’s a private message feature if you prefer 1-on-1s, I think.


I jumped in because your comment didn’t make any sense. Conversation went from discussing Finals record to your point on Finals performances mattering.

“To ensure that I am following along then, when LeBron said 'that one right there made me the GOAT' he wasn't referring to the finals then?” Like, what?

No one is in disagreement that winning the Finals is a good thing and better than not winning the Finals. Maybe that’s your confusion? In a previous comment you brought up a hypothetical in which LeBron was 10/10. Obviously that’s better, it’s more Finals wins! So I’m not sure you’re actually fully understanding what you responded to initially.

[MacGill]

He was referring to a title he won. I fail to see how that conflicts with perfect finals record not being a meaningful argument.

There is some sense in arguing Jordan has six titles, more than all GOAT contenders other than Russell, tied with Kareem. That is not the same as arguing he's better than Kareem because 6/6 is somehow better than 6/10. It's not.

I interpret that statement by James to be a claim that not all finals wins are of equal weight. That is a proposition that must be true for Jordan to have a claim to GOAT status. If it is not true, Russell is the undisputed GOAT.

Well for one, I never said that just because you have X amount if titles that makes you better. But your performances in those finals matter. And since the point is not to just make the finals but to win the finals we can exam each performance. Like we've seen, MJ had the opporunity to perform like 2011 LeBron but he never did, not even close, so that matters to me because he has a history of these performances in the PS. If MJ had a 2011 performance I would 100% use that as an underwhelming performance for him as well.

No amount of winning or finals appearances erase what actually happened. I don't care if a team and star player loses but how they perform matters. So being 6/6 is > then 10 finals appearances because of how the star players actually performed. It includes the highs and lows of both, not just one-sided.

[MacGill]

No one is saying not to look at their Finals performances.

The point is that actually getting to the Finals is a good thing. How can you win a championship (the goal of the sport) if you fail to reach the Finals? Simple - you can’t.

It would be better, not worse, for Jordan’s legacy if he made it to the Finals in 1995 and lost.

Nice, I'm not sure where you came from as I don't think I quoted you, but okay.

Of course, getting to the finals is a good thing. Did I state it wasn't? But your finals performances also matter and there is no higher nba level to make so I will fairly critique both ways. I am sure you would also agree with that, no?

I'm not sure what your last sentence has to do with anything tbh but in principle, sure. But if you're making the finals and losing as the favourite or underperforming it will also hurt you far more then making the finals and delivering.

It’s a public message board, you’re able to respond to posts in which you’re not quoted. There’s a private message feature if you prefer 1-on-1s, I think.


I jumped in because your comment didn’t make any sense. Conversation went from discussing Finals record to your point on Finals performances mattering.

“To ensure that I am following along then, when LeBron said 'that one right there made me the GOAT' he wasn't referring to the finals then?” Like, what?

No one is in disagreement that winning the Finals is a good thing and better than not winning the Finals. Maybe that’s your confusion? In a previous comment you brought up a hypothetical in which LeBron was 10/10. Obviously that’s better, it’s more Finals wins! So I’m not sure you’re actually fully understanding what you responded to initially.

See, you jump in and try to explain to me what someone else was trying to state and then state that you responded to me when I didn't make any sense.

I'm pretty sure I'm being pretty simplistic here in what I am saying. My point was with respect to the other poster's wording, not yours.

To be clear, I'm not confused and things don't need to get overcomplicated in trying to discuss simple points.

[lessthanjake]

To get this discussion on track a bit (since it’s not a Jordan/LeBron thread), I’d note that I think the “lack of blemishes” argument for Jordan is something that he definitely has over Curry, since I think most consider the 2016 Finals to be a blemish for Curry. Of course, people can try to argue that actually Jordan *does* have significant blemishes that people just don’t think about, and they can also argue that the 2016 Finals shouldn’t be seen as a blemish for Steph. But I think by conventional wisdom, that’s definitely an argument for Jordan that is seen as true for Jordan that most people wouldn’t see as true for Steph. More generally, I also think that Jordan’s case obviously has a much stronger box-data component than Steph’s. Jordan also simply won more titles than Steph. So there’s plenty of arguments for Jordan that don’t really apply in the same way to Steph.

I think the overlap where someone who has a particularly favorable view of Jordan might also have a particularly favorable view of Steph as well is mostly just that neither of them are on the top end in terms of longevity. So, someone who puts really big weight on longevity would probably take a relatively dim view of both of them, while someone who puts less weight on longevity would probably take a relatively favorable view of both of them. That’s the main overlapping thing here, IMO—they share a relative weakness. Another overlapping thing is how much one values a player having been on genuinely GOAT-level teams. Obviously, both Jordan and Steph were major stars on teams that are in the top-tier of best teams ever, and if you value that a lot (whether as an independent marker of “greatness” in a team sport, or as a strong indicator of ceiling raising) then that’d operate favorably for both Jordan and Curry.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Like we've seen, MJ had the opporunity to perform like 2011 LeBron but he never did, not even close, so that matters to me because he has a history of these performances in the PS. If MJ had a 2011 performance I would 100% use that as an underwhelming performance for him as well.

Let's say James played exactly the way he did in 2011, but Wade plays a little bit better and the Heat win. James' finals record improves, but does that mean he has a better argument for his place all time? Does that erase his bad performance? Obviously not. This again demonstrates that finals record is not a meaningful argument. Or suppose LeBron plays slightly worse against the Bulls that year, they lose that series and LeBron never gets the chance to have that bad finals performance. Does this improve his legacy? Again, obviously not.

No amount of winning or finals appearances erase what actually happened. I don't care if a team and star player loses but how they perform matters. So being 6/6 is > then 10 finals appearances because of how the star players actually performed. It includes the highs and lows of both, not just one-sided.

You seem to be itching for another Jordan/LeBron fight in a thread that is not about that in any way, and are using a post that was meant to show that Jordan is far ahead of Curry in several ways as a launching pad to attack James which is veering wildly off topic. I'm not sure why 6FMVPs, numerous extra scoring titles, and numerous extra defensive awards isn't sufficient praise for Jordan, particularly in the context of showing his separation from Curry, and why we need to talk about LeBron here.

[Colbinii]

I think if you were a "bury your head in the sand Jordan-Stan", you could come up with some arguments for Curry > Jordan.

1) Curry's +/- profile beats Jordan's, and that is one of the strongest arguments for Jordan as the GOAT.
2) TS+. Curry's +454 in 2016 is never going to be topped and is ~33% higher than Jordan's best of 330.
3) Unanimous MVP
4) Extended Prime doesn't matter. Being better for longer doesn't matter. Curry hits that sweet spot where his career isn't too long where we start downplaying it because of its length. Instead his prime is shorter and we are able to comprehend it and wrap our head around it rather than explaining it away because we don't understand the greatness of it.
5) Winning Finals Record
6) Olympic Gold Medalist
7) Played multiple years in college
8) Stayed with 1 franchise for Prime
9) Played majority of prime next to GOAT level defender (Draymond/Pippen)
10) Played in a system specifically utilized to maximize their talents as players with 1 coach as the Mad Scientist

Seems pretty cut and dry for me, although I am choking on the sand.

[Djoker]

Like we've seen, MJ had the opporunity to perform like 2011 LeBron but he never did, not even close, so that matters to me because he has a history of these performances in the PS. If MJ had a 2011 performance I would 100% use that as an underwhelming performance for him as well.

Let's say James played exactly the way he did in 2011, but Wade plays a little bit better and the Heat win. James' finals record improves, but does that mean he has a better argument for his place all time? Does that erase his bad performance? Obviously not. This again demonstrates that finals record is not a meaningful argument. Or suppose LeBron plays slightly worse against the Bulls that year, they lose that series and LeBron never gets the chance to have that bad finals performance. Does this improve his legacy? Again, obviously not.

No amount of winning or finals appearances erase what actually happened. I don't care if a team and star player loses but how they perform matters. So being 6/6 is > then 10 finals appearances because of how the star players actually performed. It includes the highs and lows of both, not just one-sided.

You seem to be itching for another Jordan/LeBron fight in a thread that is not about that in any way, and are using a post that was meant to show that Jordan is far ahead of Curry in several ways as a launching pad to attack James which is veering wildly off topic. I'm not sure why 6FMVPs, numerous extra scoring titles, and numerous extra defensive awards isn't sufficient praise for Jordan, particularly in the context of showing his separation from Curry, and why we need to talk about LeBron here.

Finals record in itself is obviously a poor argument. We agree with that.

However your post is a bit simplistic. Does winning the 2011 Finals erase the bad performance? Of course not but it does reduce the magnitude of the blemish substantially. The reason 2011 is so bad for Lebron is because A) he played horribly and B) his team blew a chance at a winnable championship. Both of those factors together are a deadly combination so to speak. That's why an earlier round collapse (say 1973 Kareem for instance) often doesn't hit quite as hard. Because it doesn't feel like a lost opportunity. The Bucks were far from guaranteed to win the title. In fact, team expectations can play into it even regardless of playoff round. For instance, Lebron's 2007 Finals were also horribly bad but because his team was a heavy underdog (younger Lebron, poor supporting cast) that wasn't expected to win the series, that reduces the blemish.

When people refer to Lebron's Finals record, what they are really implying is not meeting expectations. The record being 4-6 as opposed to 5-5 or better. But that doesn't sound as convincing as just spamming 4-6 lol.

[KembaWalker]

he's remade the whole league, the whole entire SPORT in his image. he is who team USA went to when the gold was on the line with other so called greats

he's no Jordan, but he's as good as anyone else.

Curry is greater than LeBron, by a lot. volume stats and excel metrics don't make anyone great. literally nobody cares

[Ainosterhaspie]

Spoiler:

Like we've seen, MJ had the opporunity to perform like 2011 LeBron but he never did, not even close, so that matters to me because he has a history of these performances in the PS. If MJ had a 2011 performance I would 100% use that as an underwhelming performance for him as well.

Let's say James played exactly the way he did in 2011, but Wade plays a little bit better and the Heat win. James' finals record improves, but does that mean he has a better argument for his place all time? Does that erase his bad performance? Obviously not. This again demonstrates that finals record is not a meaningful argument. Or suppose LeBron plays slightly worse against the Bulls that year, they lose that series and LeBron never gets the chance to have that bad finals performance. Does this improve his legacy? Again, obviously not.

No amount of winning or finals appearances erase what actually happened. I don't care if a team and star player loses but how they perform matters. So being 6/6 is > then 10 finals appearances because of how the star players actually performed. It includes the highs and lows of both, not just one-sided.

You seem to be itching for another Jordan/LeBron fight in a thread that is not about that in any way, and are using a post that was meant to show that Jordan is far ahead of Curry in several ways as a launching pad to attack James which is veering wildly off topic. I'm not sure why 6FMVPs, numerous extra scoring titles, and numerous extra defensive awards isn't sufficient praise for Jordan, particularly in the context of showing his separation from Curry, and why we need to talk about LeBron here.

Finals record in itself is obviously a poor argument. We agree with that.

However your post is a bit simplistic. Does winning the 2011 Finals erase the bad performance? Of course not but it does reduce the magnitude of the blemish substantially. The reason 2011 is so bad for Lebron is because A) he played horribly and B) his team blew a chance at a winnable championship. Both of those factors together are a deadly combination so to speak. That's why an earlier round collapse (say 1973 Kareem for instance) often doesn't hit quite as hard. Because it doesn't feel like a lost opportunity. The Bucks were far from guaranteed to win the title. In fact, team expectations can play into it even regardless of playoff round. For instance, Lebron's 2007 Finals were also horribly bad but because his team was a heavy underdog (younger Lebron, poor supporting cast) that wasn't expected to win the series, that reduces the blemish.

When people refer to Lebron's Finals record, what they are really implying is not meeting expectations. The record being 4-6 as opposed to 5-5 or better. But that doesn't sound as convincing as just spamming 4-6 lol.

How is any of that relevant to Jordan being superior to Curry? No one is trying to argue LeBron over Jordan here.

[Djoker]

How is any of that relevant to Jordan being superior to Curry? No one is trying to argue LeBron over Jordan here.

Does Curry have any blemishes? I can think of one.

[Special_Puppy]

About as credible as Magic Johnson and Larry Bird's GOAT case (which is to say not very)

[Special_Puppy]

Lebron had at worst similar impact signals (and at best unparalelled outside bill russel impact on team improvement)

led better offenses while playing with better defense showing to b a better ceiling raiser on both ends

At his peak had 2 consecutive years with better playoff offense with kyrie and love than curry did with klay and durant

maintained better playoffs value

Over a more than twice as long prime

Was a more portable player as he adapted to all kinds of teams and roles from heliocentric carry jobs, hyper efficieny on ball/off ball hybrid scorer, pass first point guard, cutting/rolling monster with low ish time of possesion

Outplayed curry head to head

Defined a player archetype as point forward with 3/4 versatility in both ends that alongside harden archetype of guards has been replicated all across the nba (whereas curry off ball approach and warriors approach has not became the norm)

If he has no case vs a contemporaneous player i dont see his overall case

Impact signals are neck and neck.

Is there a RAPM variant where LeBron's career RAPM isn't considerably higher than Curry's (mainly due to LeBron's considerable defensive edge)

[MacGill]

Let's say James played exactly the way he did in 2011, but Wade plays a little bit better and the Heat win. James' finals record improves, but does that mean he has a better argument for his place all time? Does that erase his bad performance? Obviously not. This again demonstrates that finals record is not a meaningful argument. Or suppose LeBron plays slightly worse against the Bulls that year, they lose that series and LeBron never gets the chance to have that bad finals performance. Does this improve his legacy? Again, obviously not.

I think the thread has been derailed enough so I'll just leave you with this. 2011 LeBron best player on Miami but Wade/Bosh played better than him in the finals. I don't think we need to go over the rest.

You seem to be itching for another Jordan/LeBron fight in a thread that is not about that in any way, and are using a post that was meant to show that Jordan is far ahead of Curry in several ways as a launching pad to attack James which is veering wildly off topic. I'm not sure why 6FMVPs, numerous extra scoring titles, and numerous extra defensive awards isn't sufficient praise for Jordan, particularly in the context of showing his separation from Curry, and why we need to talk about LeBron here.

trust me, it's the last thing I want. Your post here implies nothing of how I am feeling nor what I want. But when people look to discredit finals appearances and wins, of course it matters, good/bad/ugly for all mentioned players. There is seperation in where I rank MJ and LeBron but both are in my top 10, Curry is not. I'll leave it at that.

[Blame Rasho]

Side note, I wonder how history would look at Duncan if somehow he had won in 2013 and been 3-0 vs Lebron in the finals and how would Lebron would look with just 3 titles with three different teams. Duncan would likely have another finals mvp and Lebron would have had a big profile loss in finals.

[falcolombardi]

Side note, I wonder how history would look at Duncan if somehow he had won in 2013 and been 3-0 vs Lebron in the finals and how would Lebron would look with just 3 titles with three different teams. Duncan would likely have another finals mvp and Lebron would have had a big profile loss in finals.

Thinghs may have played out differently after 2013 i that scenario so is not a sum zero situation. Spurs may come out a lot less hungry in 2014 and lose to oklahoma or miami may retool more agressively

But all else being equal it would hurt lebron resume a lot. Dont think it does as much for duncan here because people woukd pigeon hole it as "a role player ring" imo

[Blame Rasho]

Side note, I wonder how history would look at Duncan if somehow he had won in 2013 and been 3-0 vs Lebron in the finals and how would Lebron would look with just 3 titles with three different teams. Duncan would likely have another finals mvp and Lebron would have had a big profile loss in finals.

Thinghs may have played out differently after 2013 i that scenario so is not a sum zero situation. Spurs may come out a lot less hungry in 2014 and lose to oklahoma or miami may retool more agressively

But all else being equal it would hurt lebron resume a lot. Dont think it does as much for duncan here because people woukd pigeon hole it as "a role player ring" imo

Yes… an all nba 1st teamer is a role player type of ring…

[falcolombardi]

Side note, I wonder how history would look at Duncan if somehow he had won in 2013 and been 3-0 vs Lebron in the finals and how would Lebron would look with just 3 titles with three different teams. Duncan would likely have another finals mvp and Lebron would have had a big profile loss in finals.

Thinghs may have played out differently after 2013 i that scenario so is not a sum zero situation. Spurs may come out a lot less hungry in 2014 and lose to oklahoma or miami may retool more agressively

But all else being equal it would hurt lebron resume a lot. Dont think it does as much for duncan here because people woukd pigeon hole it as "a role player ring" imo

Yes… an all nba 1st teamer is a role player type of ring…

I am not saying it would be fair or smart. But non superstar rings where you dont lead with scoring is usually less valued by the wider public

[B-Mitch 30]

I am not saying it would be fair or smart. But non superstar rings where you dont lead with scoring is usually less valued by the wider public

Tim Duncan led the 2012-13 Spurs in scoring and rebounds that Finals, while also being second in blocks. He was also arguably the best defender in the league that season (though Marc Gasol winning it doesn't bother me because he played in 11 more games than Tim).