RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #29

[RCM88x]

Vote: Scottie Pippen

In my opinion the GOAT perimeter defender, and one of the best passing Forwards of all time. Pippen posted an impressive prime run of 9 seasons from '90 to '98, averaging a BPM of 6.1 and a WS/48 of .173. He ranks an impressive 13th all time in career playoff WS, 18th in career average playoff BPM, and an insane 5th all time in playoff VORP.

In my opinion, probably the idea 2nd option. Doesn't need the ball to have an impact and when he does, is a 3 way threat to drive, pass or shoot.

2nd Vote: John Havlicek

[trex_8063]

How do you compare Kidd and Payton?

Fair question, and I do have Gary Payton nearby in the low-mid 30's. Short answer: close.

Payton was again clearly a better scorer (probably not quite as good as Frazier, fwiw). I still think Kidd is the better passer/playmaker (though I'd put Payton ahead of Frazier here). Rebounding is again clearly in Kidd's favor.

I think probably Glove peaked higher defensively, but his defensive imprint didn't maintain throughout his career; Kidd's more or less did.
We see Kidd's stl/100 poss numbers maintain perfectly steady right into the twilight of his career (even a slight uptick at the end). His blk/100 numbers also (for what that's worth, still small) also have a marginal UPtick late in his career. And his DRAPM's are pretty consistently positive right to the end.
Payton, otoh, was clearly declining defensively by the early 00's, and was just not at all the defensive player that garnered a DPOY. Although it's generally a poor measure of defensive ability, this is perhaps reflected in his stl and blk per 100 possession numbers that are basically cut in half (relative to earlier in his career) by ~'04 and after.

Payton's offensive value is certainly far FAR diminished during his final two seasons, too, and is basically getting by on reputation alone imo. Again, whereas Kidd still maintains some value on both ends even unto his final season.

So I do tend to rank Kidd slightly higher. Very close though.

[Senior]

This is somewhat result-oriented thinking though: Curry did (twice); meanwhile Stockton/Malone were together forever and didn't, therefore....
If, for example, Stockton had not only Malone at PF, but also Scottie Pippen at SF and maybe Reggie Miller at SG, plus one of the best benches in the league, I'm willing to bet he'd have won a title (perhaps easily). That's roughly the strength of team/supporting cast Curry had last year, and '15 and '16 weren't far behind.

I don't tend to think strictly in term of championship probability anyway, and generally frown on a "title or bust" philosophy of evaluating success, too. But even if we were to look in the terms you've suggested in the bolded section above, Elgee's study has indicated that a bunch more years of lesser impact may indeed yield equivalent championship odds (depending on just how big the gap in longevity and/or impact is).

It's not just that they won, it's HOW they won as well. The Warriors had one of the greatest 3 year stretches in history - only the biggest upset of all time prevented it from being set in stone. I'm not denying that the Warriors did a good job surrounding Curry with the right pieces, but a 3 year stretch like that was matched only by like the threepeat Bulls. Average of 69 Ws and 2 titles they sleepwalked to. I don't really agree with the equivalencies drawn (Malone/Pippen vs Dray/Iggy??) but you get the idea. This wasn't an accident.

In this case, I believe that an individual Curry year is better to the point I would take 5 Curry years over 10 Stockton years. I think of it like this; given Curry or Stockton as a building block and having the ability to re-draft everyone in the league (let's say snake draft and Curry/Stockton is your 1st rounder, random draft position), do you go farther with Stockton as your first guy or Curry? I'd bet anything you field a better team with Curry.

Sure there's other measures of success other than titles - RS W-L, consistency, etc - but really, players are playing for a title. Everything the players do is with the title in mind. Why should I hold them to any other standard?

It can go either way depending on the context. Stockton not having an MVP peak may have hurt the Jazz, but Havlicek being on the longevity driven side instead of a shorter higher peak helped the Celtics by allowing Boston to extend their window into Cowens years. Likewise there's a reason why Pippen has 6 rings and Curry has 2, the Bulls wouldn't trade his longevity for a shorter higher peak just to be better from 91-93. Other stars like Garnett and Dirk also show waiting a long time for the perfect year

Considering that Havlicek and Pippen were helped by their own all-timers, I'm not giving their longevity the primary share of credit for the titles. Take MJ and Russell off those teams and see how many rings those guys end up with, elite longevity and everything.

Those guys aren't like Kobe or Duncan where they just last forever at a top 10 all-time level. 10 years of Kobe or 5 years of Steph? I'll take Kobe. 10 years of Pippen vs 5 of Steph? I'll take Steph. Prime KG and Dirk easily outstrip what Pip and Hondo were doing as well - and even KG had one of the worst team situations of all-time in Minny and Dirk ended up winning anyway. Again, it's not a matter of "waiting" for their time like was so often mentioned in the Jazz years - next year was always it until it wasn't. It's a matter of MAKING it your time, and better players are going to do that more than worse ones.

[Doctor MJ]

How do you compare Kidd and Payton?

Fair question, and I do have Gary Payton nearby in the low-mid 30's. Short answer: close.

Payton was again clearly a better scorer (probably not quite as good as Frazier, fwiw). I still think Kidd is the better passer/playmaker (though I'd put Payton ahead of Frazier here). Rebounding is again clearly in Kidd's favor.

I think probably Glove peaked higher defensively, but his defensive imprint didn't maintain throughout his career; Kidd's more or less did.
We see Kidd's stl/100 poss numbers maintain perfectly steady right into the twilight of his career (even a slight uptick at the end). His blk/100 numbers also (for what that's worth, still small) also have a marginal UPtick late in his career). And his DRAPM's are pretty consistently positive right to the end.
Payton, otoh, was clearly declining defensively by the early 00's, and was just not at all the defensive player that garnered a DPOY. Although it's generally a poor measure of defensive ability, this is perhaps reflected in his stl and blk per 100 possession numbers that are basically cut in half (relative to earlier in his career) by ~'04 and after.

Payton's offensive value is certain far FAR diminished during his final two seasons, and is basically by on reputation alone imo. Again, whereas Kidd still maintains some value on both ends even unto his final season.

So I do tend to rank Kidd slightly higher. Very close though.

I largely agree with this.

I'll add something that could be seen as a personal bias: I just don't see Payton as a great BBIQ/intangible guy. I don't have Payton way, way below Kidd, but I also don't rate them as all that similar.

[penbeast0]

My problem with Kidd as a playmaker is that he was always a big assist guy but when you look at his teams, they weren't particularly good offensively (and conversely, he seemed to have a strong defensive impact, better than Payton!).

Until he got to Dallas where he was basically a catch and shoot player playing off Dirk, he NEVER had a team even in the top 10 in the league in Ortg (which is a better rating for teams than players). He was in teh bottom 5 in the league 3 times though. Where is this magical passing? Nash, sure, his teams got ridiculous offensive ratings; Stockton, same; Oscar Robertson, again consistently close to the best in the league. Jason Kidd . . . consistently below average, never good. Now, if his passing was that good, then his inability to hit a jumper must have been that dehabilitating through 3 teams and multiple coaches to come up with such a consistent record of mediocrity. He met the eye test with his passing, but he had talent around him in Phoenix, and to a lesser extent in both NJ and Dallas, he just wasn't able to run an efficient offense.

Compare to Walt Frazier who generally ran above average offenses (they slipped toward the second half of his career) or Gary Payton whose offenses were frequently in the top 5 in the league (though his defenses were generally rated low). I would have to believe Kidd's defense is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Payton, more than Payton's offense was better than Kidd's, to justify his ranking above him because his box score numbers sure aren't cutting it. For Frazier, I can see a longevity argument which I know I weigh less than many people. Jason Kidd was a very good defensive PG (which many say is unimportant -- I disagree or I wouldn't be considering these 3 so high), great rebounder, good in open court, but a liablity in the halfcourt (until his second stint in Dallas where he had his primary impact as an off ball 3 and D player).

Eye test I go Frazier, numbers/team impact I go Payton, narrative I go Isiah, I just don't see Jason Kidd as the top PG left. Not even sure I have him above Chauncey Billups or Kevin Johnson though I haven't looked that closely.

[Doctor MJ]

My problem with Kidd as a playmaker is that he was always a big assist guy but when you look at his teams, they weren't particularly good offensively (and conversely, he seemed to have a strong defensive impact, better than Payton!).

Until he got to Dallas where he was basically a catch and shoot player playing off Dirk, he NEVER had a team even in the top 10 in the league in Ortg (which is a better rating for teams than players). He was in teh bottom 5 in the league 3 times though. Where is this magical passing? Nash, sure, his teams got ridiculous offensive ratings; Stockton, same; Oscar Robertson, again consistently close to the best in the league. Jason Kidd . . . consistently below average, never good. Now, if his passing was that good, then his inability to hit a jumper must have been that dehabilitating through 3 teams and multiple coaches to come up with such a consistent record of mediocrity. He met the eye test with his passing, but he had talent around him in Phoenix, and to a lesser extent in both NJ and Dallas, he just wasn't able to run an efficient offense.

Compare to Walt Frazier who generally ran above average offenses (they slipped toward the second half of his career) or Gary Payton whose offenses were frequently in the top 5 in the league (though his defenses were generally rated low). I would have to believe Kidd's defense is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Payton, more than Payton's offense was better than Kidd's, to justify his ranking above him because his box score numbers sure aren't cutting it. For Frazier, I can see a longevity argument which I know I weigh less than many people. Jason Kidd was a very good defensive PG (which many say is unimportant -- I disagree or I wouldn't be considering these 3 so high), great rebounder, good in open court, but a liablity in the halfcourt (until his second stint in Dallas where he had his primary impact as an off ball 3 and D player).

Eye test I go Frazier, numbers/team impact I go Payton, narrative I go Isiah, I just don't see Jason Kidd as the top PG left. Not even sure I have him above Chauncey Billups or Kevin Johnson though I haven't looked that closely.

I think the fact that Kidd's offenses weren't that good needs to be seriously thought about by everyone.

For me it ends up hurting him some, but not a ton.

Kidd got credited with turning around the Nets, and the reality is that that doesn't make sense based on all our evidence of Kidd's actual impact. He helped them a lot with offense, but was only a small part of the defense becoming the beast that it was. Kidd gets too much credit with the second, and thus his peak got overrated.

I don't actually feel like Kidd's offense is net overrated, but it's because of a combination of inflating and deflating factors. Kidd consistently seems to have had offensive impact, but when he ran the show, the team never reached a point where it just plain "worked", and that is to me the gold standard of a GOAT floor general.

And the thing is, Frazier's offenses did work. Now he had a smaller role in them than Kidd as a passer. Frazier was playing basically in a proto-triangle. It's a given that it's harder to be the one making the offense totally work than it is just to be one of many guys making decisions out there, and that's why guys like Magic, Oscar, Nash, and West get clear nods over Frazier offensively, but since Kidd didn't actually do that, it's pretty easy to argue that Frazier was more impressive both on offense and defense than Kidd.

At that point you're arguing for Kidd by longevity, which is fine, although there is the matter that he'd basically a divorce waiting to happen. Kidd didn't do for any team what Frazier did for New York.

Okay, so I think I just talked myself into pretty firmly backing Frazier as my next PG...

[trex_8063]

Sure there's other measures of success other than titles - RS W-L, consistency, etc - but really, players are playing for a title. Everything the players do is with the title in mind.

Don't have time to reply to everything right now (and I don't necessarily disagree with much of it). But I did want to reply to the bolded portion here. There are many individuals for whom (at least at some point in their careers) we have every indication that this is patently untrue.

[Outside]

Late to the party (again), but will squeak my vote in under the wire. BTW, most of my out-of-town obligations are done, so hopefully I can be a more consistent contributor going forward.

Vote: Baylor
Alternate: Curry

Going with Baylor for reasons expressed in what seems like the last five threads I've participated in -- all-time great scorer, even when adjusted for pace, excellent rebounder, and very good playmaker. Excellent PS resume even without a title because he was in the postseason so often, helped get his team to the finals repeatedly, and he performed well on that stage.

I do want to (re)address the arguments I keep seeing against him -- overall efficiency and production after his knee issues began -- but Baylor doesn't seem to have much hope of getting in with this thread, so I'll save that for the next thread.

I'm going with Curry as my alternate instead of Havlicek because 1) the group I have after Baylor is very close and Curry is a worthy nominee; and 2) I want my alternate vote to count for something in case the voting goes that far. (Please let me know if that goes against the spirit of how we're supposed to vote, if that's some sort of strategic vote that undermines the intent of the process. I don't think it does -- I think Curry deserved to get in before Durant and certainly before Chris Paul, and like I said, I consider him a valid vote at this point in the list.)

[Senior]

Sure there's other measures of success other than titles - RS W-L, consistency, etc - but really, players are playing for a title. Everything the players do is with the title in mind.

Don't have time to reply to everything right now (and I don't necessarily disagree with much of it). But I did want to reply to the bolded portion here. There are many individuals for whom (at least at some point in their careers) we have every indication that this is patently untrue.

Would "players worth discussing on this all-time list" work better? It's true we've got the Robert Horrys going around for the $ but do you disagree that the superstars are almost always gunning for the title? And if you feel that money/prestige is the primary reason for those guys, then how do we evaluate them in terms of whether they reached their goals?

[Outside]

Regarding Jason Kidd, I think others are more deserving at this point. Kidd did some things very well, but he was a poor shooter and mediocre scorer. He has some abysmal TS% years -- 8 seasons below 50%, career RS 50.7%, career PS 49.8% (and people get on Baylor for being inefficient?). He never averaged 20 points in any season and is a career 12.6 PPG scorer. He finally got decent at catch-and-shoot threes late in his career, but he never shot that many, and that doesn't wipe away how poor he was overall as a shooter.

By all means, Kidd should get consideration on this list due to his assists, rebounding, playmaking, defense, and BBIQ, but putting the ball in the basket is a big part of the game, and it's a big hole in his resume.

[Dr Positivity]

From last thread (Curry/Pippen/Baylor/Barry/Gilmore/Kidd/Payton/Drexler)

Spoiler:

Stephen Curry - Case for: Probable best peak remaining of candidates, boxscore stats combined with offensive gravity and playing GP puts him in mix for greatest offensive impact of all time. The history of champions suggests the difference between generational talents and everyone else means everything. Case against: Weak longevity and compounded by not carrying his 2016 form into the playoffs. Not significant defensive impact considering his play and position.

Scottie Pippen - Case for: One of the greatest perimeter defenders at a good defensive position SF. Passes well which correlates well with offensive impact. 90s ORAPM is good. Showed he can be in MVP convo away from Jordan. Great portability and popular pick on all time teams. Case against: Good not great scorer and generally not rated as an MVP level talent in his time. Longevity is fine but not miles ahead of a player like Durant. 98 and 99 DRAPM is disappointing for still being 1st team All-D at that point.

Elgin Baylor - Case for: Elite MVP contending peak due to volume scoring, rebounding, passing combo. Some big playoff performances at his peak and comes to within earshot of title. After surgery still a well rounded player who is recognized by All-NBA and MVP votes in 68 and 69. Case against: Short prime up to 63. When his TS and scoring volume drops after surgery, his value as represented by WS falls off hard. Shoots a lot on a team with a better offensive option in West. Until the star version of West comes through his teams keep finishing below .500, although doing well in playoffs.

Rick Barry - Case for: Plays an offensive impact friendly style of play, as floor spacing/passing combo. Very solid longevity compared to competition for this spot when including ABA - a good 12 years of all-star play. Wins with one of the weakest champion supporting casts on paper, then wins 59 games with them the next year. Case against: Kind of the Kobe of his era in terms of relationship with his teammates, and overall Grade A Douche. Typically has mediocre TS. Never finishes top 2 in either MVP vote or Win Shares in NBA.

Artis Gilmore - Case for: 10th all time in NBA/ABA Win Shares and continued to have top 5/top 3 appearances in less heralded NBA stint. Great defense at C gives him high baseline of value. Efficient on offense. MVP and superstar in ABA. Elite longevity and durability. Case against: Underwhelming MVP support in NBA and said to have lacked it mentally, aggressiveness, killer gene, etc. The type of giant who likes to be underwater more than on the surface so his size doesn't stand out. Plays a near the rim, unpolished style of offensive game the type of which tends to not rate that well in impact stats. Did he benefit in ABA from playing against weaker big men competition?

Jason Kidd - Case for: Very good RAPM player at his peak, with several top 5 finishes. Superb longevity and continues to have impact till the end. Bring an ok supporting cast to 2 Finals. Playmaking alone has value on offense. One of the top defensive PGs and ability to guard SGs gives him more value than PGs normally can have on that end. Case against: Weak scoring threat in volume/efficiency limits offensive value. At his peak had system built around his strengths/weaknesses to maximize his impact. Boxscore stats (WS/VORP/etc.) generally don't support him as MVP caliber player.

Gary Payton - Case for: All time great defensive PG while having a very good offensive career as an over 20 points, 8-9 assist player at highly valuable offensive position PG, leads the league in OBPM several times. Quality decade's worth of longevity and elite durability. Responded to losing Kemp, once considered an equal star to him, by leading Sonics to 61 Ws and 3rd in MVP in 98. Case against: Playing PG puts ceiling on how high his defensive impact can be compared to a bigger defender like Pippen, late 90s DRAPM good but not massive. Questionable portability - average 3pt shooting PG with a big ego, not the style of player you want beside say, 2004 Kobe and Shaq or similar situations. Neither stats or awards has him as a real MVP caliber player the bulk of his career. Playoff record has some spottiness.

Clyde Drexler - Case for: Good longevity considering alternatives here with a decade's worth of high level seasons and still being a decent player to the end. VORP/BPM friendly player. Good results as team's best player including 2 Finals. High peak in MVP recognition getting 12 1st place votes against MJ in 1992. Great passing wing is valuable in offensive impact, while position along gives him some defensive points. Case against: A low key playoff numbers drop guy in his prime. Needs transition play which may not translate as well to playoffs. Is he the David Robinson of his position - has holes in his skill game that get more exposed in playoffs than regular season?

+ John Havlicek: Case for: Elite longevity and durability. Great portability, can be a defender, passer, has been #1 scorer. Great playoff performer. Great intangibles. Case against: Neither boxscore or awards has him as real MVP caliber player. High 20s scoring seasons inflated by minutes and pace. Ok efficiency in his career. Rated as the 2nd best player on a team with Dave Cowens.

I like the argument for Havlicek over Pippen based on clutch moments in playoffs and more longevity. Curry is difficult to rate against both but the difference in longevity is still significant especially with Curry not in GOAT mode in 2016 playoffs.

Vote: John Havlicek

2nd: Scottie Pippen

[Doctor MJ]

I just can't do Curry at this point. There is always SOME projection involved, but this high I want it to be just a little projection. Durant or CP3 have had almost full careers, they retire tomorrow, they still had a career nearly as long as many old timers who came into the league later.

Wanted to address this specifically because there's truth in it and it's important.

Dwight Howard went down from the 2011 list and the 2014 list, and frankly I hope he goes down further this time around. Is this due to projection? Well, depends on how you define projection, but it's certainly part of the same concern:

There's an absurdity to moving down the list as you play more, and we should fine it pretty abhorrent.

In Howard's case, for me what's happened is that his subsequent behavior changed how I saw what he'd accomplished before, and not for the better. And that's something that Curry at this point is potentially vulnerable too.

So it's possible that in 2020 I'll rate Curry worse than I do now, and that will make me look pretty silly...but I'll just have to own that. I can't rate Curry lower than I see him now simply because I recognize that there's still some uncertainty about how best to see what he's accomplishing. Right now I'm really freaking impressed, and so I rank him as I do.

To the other point, is Curry's a partial career compared to Durant and Paul Well consider raw +/- over careers:

Steph Curry +4049
Chris Paul +3996
Kevin Durant +3082

Now, don't let me appear to overrate this here. I voted Paul ahead of Curry, but just the literal statement here that Curry has already more net advantage over opponents in his career when he's on the floor than Paul or Durant to me is quite telling.

Obviously this is happening because the past few years in GS have been such an outlier...but does that make it less impressive, or more impressive?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #72 (17 votes, requiring 9 for majority):

Stephen Curry - 8 (andrewww, dhsilv2, Doctor MJ, Joao Saraiva, oldschooled, pandrade83, penbeast0, twolves97)
Scottie Pippen - 3 (RCM88x, trex_8063, Winsome Gerbil)
John Havlicek - 2 (scabbarista, Dr Positivity)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (Outside)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
Artis Gilmore - 1 (Narigo)
Clyde Drexler - 1 (JordansBulls)

Drexler/Gilmore/Baylor/Cousy are first eliminated; that transfers two votes to Curry, which pretty much settles it.
Will have the next thread up in a moment.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

Something you don't say in your questions, but I have to think is implied, is the idea that Curry couldn't possibly have the GOAT RS if another teammate was as elite as Green was, but actually it's exactly what we'd expect from a 73 win. Plenty of other guys have had a sidekick who could arguably be said to be a top 5 player, none of them won 73 games.

This is absolutely true. The fact that a team spearheaded by Curry+Green led to the greatest RS in history when people still don't think *that* highly of Green is unheard of. Obviously Green is much better than we anticipated, but compared to the two teams in their W-L ballpark (96 Bulls/72 LA) MJ/Pippen and Wilt/West, Green would be seen as the worst of those guys. And even if he's comparable to Pippen, then that makes Curry the MJ. And after all that the league is stronger than it was in 1996 or 1972.

And as Dr. MJ mentioned, a lot of other teams had a comparable talent to Green and didn't reach the same results. This shouldn't be a knock on either guy because it means that the Curry/Green blend lifted their teams to insane heights.

It's worth pointing out though a situation like Ginobili's where he was used typically as a 6th man. Presuming that was a wise choice, what that means is that Ginobili would be used disproportionately to attack opponent backups because it was thought he was particularly good and gaining advantages against bad players. How should we factor that in? Well, it's up to your. For myself, whenever I see a guy whose time was cherrypicked by his coach, I'm hesitant to make too much of what these numbers say.

Manu's impact numbers are only within his lower minutes - again, same with old Stockton, old D-Rob, etc. In his prime he was playing 29 MPG in the RS and around 32 in the playoffs. There is no guarantee Manu could maintain those numbers taking on a superstar's load - and there's nothing to suggest it, either.

And for everyone talking about the weak longevity - ask yourself, do you think you can get more titles building around 5 Curry years (counting 2013-14 because he was healthy and knocking on the door) or say, 10 Pippen years? Or 10 Stockton years? It's strange to see guys get pushed ahead for weaker play just because they played longer. As with Malone/Stockton, better longevity didn't guarantee anything because better players always stood in their way. You only need one year to win, and better players are going to take advantage of their better chances more often than not. Look at a dude like Hakeem, who had like 5 years in the mid 90s (93-97) and came away with 2 titles compared to Malone/Stockton who were together forever and never won anything of note.

I hope this works, so hard to get quotes right here.

I just have to comment on Manu as I'm both an active hater on his RAPM stats and a HUGE fan, trust me around 50-60 he's coming up in my votes! 30 minutes a game is 4 more than curry plays. Yes 40 minutes is over 10% of manu's but come on. Just because Pop realized before others should be held against his players THAT much. I hold missed games and somewhat the bench role against Manu, though Manu was closing games out with the starters, so he wasn't playing as many minutes with the bench as people sometimes think. He did have fresher legs...not sure what to say there though lol.

[dhsilv2]

I just can't do Curry at this point. There is always SOME projection involved, but this high I want it to be just a little projection. Durant or CP3 have had almost full careers, they retire tomorrow, they still had a career nearly as long as many old timers who came into the league later.

Wanted to address this specifically because there's truth in it and it's important.

Dwight Howard went down from the 2011 list and the 2014 list, and frankly I hope he goes down further this time around. Is this due to projection? Well, depends on how you define projection, but it's certainly part of the same concern:

There's an absurdity to moving down the list as you play more, and we should fine it pretty abhorrent.

In Howard's case, for me what's happened is that his subsequent behavior changed how I saw what he'd accomplished before, and not for the better. And that's something that Curry at this point is potentially vulnerable too.

So it's possible that in 2020 I'll rate Curry worse than I do now, and that will make me look pretty silly...but I'll just have to own that. I can't rate Curry lower than I see him now simply because I recognize that there's still some uncertainty about how best to see what he's accomplishing. Right now I'm really freaking impressed, and so I rank him as I do.

To the other point, is Curry's a partial career compared to Durant and Paul Well consider raw +/- over careers:

Steph Curry +4049
Chris Paul +3996
Kevin Durant +3082

Now, don't let me appear to overrate this here. I voted Paul ahead of Curry, but just the literal statement here that Curry has already more net advantage over opponents in his career when he's on the floor than Paul or Durant to me is quite telling.

Obviously this is happening because the past few years in GS have been such an outlier...but does that make it less impressive, or more impressive?

I think Howard is going to go up after he retires. I mean to me I think he's neck and neck with Ewing, who we already have in. It feels like a lot of centers rise on these lists. Hakeem (I didn't have him top 10 when he retired), Ewing, even Shaq I think gets a better look today than after he retired (all that team hopping). I'm not sure it's right but eventually people will look back at Howard who took a team to the finals, beat a top 3 player in Lebron in the plaoyffs, and was the best defender peak wise maybe ever.

People forget about the small stuff with time and that seems to always favor the big men. Not sure why.

[dhsilv2]

I have to say I still struggle with curry only having played 8 seasons being this high, even with his elite play over the last 3. He'd certainly be coming up soon for me, but as someone who values longevity, I don't quite consider this a full career. Even durant i'm more comfortable with having gotten in here, and i'm a big curry fan.

Will try to get a vote in for principle's sake, but I can't see it being for curry.

2 MVP's and 2 titles in 8 years. Is that not alone pretty insanely epic? The best player on two teams with over 65 wins as well. The best player on a 73 win team.

The more I think about it, the more I think if Walton is a top 100 guy with 1 or 1 and a half seasons, curry dwarf him! The more I think about it the more I think this is a fair spot for Curry. Of course I understand those who think he needs more years. It is odd but as long as he's outside the top 25, I feel much better even if it's just 4 spots.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I just can't do Curry at this point. There is always SOME projection involved, but this high I want it to be just a little projection. Durant or CP3 have had almost full careers, they retire tomorrow, they still had a career nearly as long as many old timers who came into the league later.

Wanted to address this specifically because there's truth in it and it's important.

Dwight Howard went down from the 2011 list and the 2014 list, and frankly I hope he goes down further this time around. Is this due to projection? Well, depends on how you define projection, but it's certainly part of the same concern:

There's an absurdity to moving down the list as you play more, and we should fine it pretty abhorrent.

In Howard's case, for me what's happened is that his subsequent behavior changed how I saw what he'd accomplished before, and not for the better. And that's something that Curry at this point is potentially vulnerable too.

So it's possible that in 2020 I'll rate Curry worse than I do now, and that will make me look pretty silly...but I'll just have to own that. I can't rate Curry lower than I see him now simply because I recognize that there's still some uncertainty about how best to see what he's accomplishing. Right now I'm really freaking impressed, and so I rank him as I do.

To the other point, is Curry's a partial career compared to Durant and Paul Well consider raw +/- over careers:

Steph Curry +4049
Chris Paul +3996
Kevin Durant +3082

Now, don't let me appear to overrate this here. I voted Paul ahead of Curry, but just the literal statement here that Curry has already more net advantage over opponents in his career when he's on the floor than Paul or Durant to me is quite telling.

Obviously this is happening because the past few years in GS have been such an outlier...but does that make it less impressive, or more impressive?

I think Howard is going to go up after he retires. I mean to me I think he's neck and neck with Ewing, who we already have in. It feels like a lot of centers rise on these lists. Hakeem (I didn't have him top 10 when he retired), Ewing, even Shaq I think gets a better look today than after he retired (all that team hopping). I'm not sure it's right but eventually people will look back at Howard who took a team to the finals, beat a top 3 player in Lebron in the plaoyffs, and was the best defender peak wise maybe ever.

People forget about the small stuff with time and that seems to always favor the big men. Not sure why.

By the time Howard is done he's going to be a 15-12 career guy with a short peak/prime when he looks like a borderline franchise player. He's not going to go up, nor should he (well, depending of course on how far down he is currently). He was not at the level of any of the 90s giants except maybe Mourning (he was better than Deke, which I should not have to say, but will anyway because of Deke's mysterious rise into deityhood in some threads). Great defender, but then again so were all of them (except Shaq, who was in another league), and they were all elite offensive centerpieces the other way too. Dwight could just never get the offense going. Just lacked the talent for it, no matter how many Hakeem lessons he took. If anything, by the time it's done Dwight's legacy is going to resemble something like Nate Thrumond's.

[Clyde Frazier]

I have to say I still struggle with curry only having played 8 seasons being this high, even with his elite play over the last 3. He'd certainly be coming up soon for me, but as someone who values longevity, I don't quite consider this a full career. Even durant i'm more comfortable with having gotten in here, and i'm a big curry fan.

Will try to get a vote in for principle's sake, but I can't see it being for curry.

2 MVP's and 2 titles in 8 years. Is that not alone pretty insanely epic? The best player on two teams with over 65 wins as well. The best player on a 73 win team.

The more I think about it, the more I think if Walton is a top 100 guy with 1 or 1 and a half seasons, curry dwarf him! The more I think about it the more I think this is a fair spot for Curry. Of course I understand those who think he needs more years. It is odd but as long as he's outside the top 25, I feel much better even if it's just 4 spots.

Heh, well I'll make it easy for you, then: I don't have Walton in the top 100. Check out our peaks project in the sticky'd threads at the top of the forum. That's where Walton more than gets his due.

[Takes5]

^Clyde Frazier should be pimpin' Clyde Frazier.
Chris Paul, Wade, Durant, Curry already top 30 ahead of a dozen other legends. Y'all are afflicted with recency disease.

[scrabbarista]

Although Cowens was generally considered the primary (higher MVP shares, etc.) on those teams and Havlicek still the secondary.

True, but I think Havlicek was the primary on 1.5 teams with Russell.

Only if by primary you mean the guy who shot the most. If you mean the key player that makes the team work, that was still Russell even in 69. Look at 1970 for what happens without him.

They also lost Sam Jones, Bailey Howell fell off a cliff, and Tom Sanders declined. That was a pretty old team in '69. It wasn't just Russell who was ready to retire.