Peaks project update: #13

[penbeast0]

1. 2016 Curry. I do believe in the value of the postseason, but also that the regular season matters a lot. This is the GOAT offensive regular season. With equivalent playoffs, I'd rank it higher.
2. 1977 Walton. Still missed a lot of games but was healthy for the postseason. Did a great job with below average NBA championship talent around him. Wish I could have seen more of him.
3. 1966 West? Great two way player that, together with Oscar, dominated his peers at guard the way prime Curry did and more than Kobe or Wade ever did (though I think the 21st century is a tougher league than the 60s, something I don't think is true of the 80s for example). I have him over Oscar because I think he did more with successfully getting his team to succeed around himself and Baylor than Oscar did around himself and Lucas (who I tend to rate very highly in his Cinncinnati days) and because of his superior defense though it's certainly arguable.

Can be talked off this and will keep reading for arguments.

[Mavericksfan]

1)1977 Bill Walton

Walton was ridiculously dominant when he played and honestly could’ve been closer to top 5 if he has offered more than 2000 regular season minutes. Anchored both ends and went through 9th,2nd,5th, and 3rd SRS teams in route to the championship. The fact that the team was 1st in SRS despite going 5-12 without Walton is a testament to his dominance.

2)Oscar Robertson -1964

I think everyone needs to acknowledge just how incredible this season was. Once Russell/Wilt started winning MVPs the only other person to get during that time was Oscar this year(edit: Double checked, Unseld had 1969 as well). He led the 2nd best offense and only fell to the ‘64 Celtics which may be one of their most stacked teams ever. The Celtics were an absolutely ridiculous -10.3 rel defense that year. So his drop off in efficiency / his team’s drop off is understandable.[/quote]

3) 1975 Bob McAdoo(thanks to whoever it was in the last topic that mentioned Macdoo. Made me take a closer look$
Won league MVP over Cowens by a significant margin(.567 MVP shares) Led his team to the 4th best offense (+5.1 rel)and average defense (-0.1).

Led the league in PPG,MPG, and was 5th in TS% despite having a 4ppg gap over the second highest volume scorer. He has a sizeable gap in OWS (12.7 second is Tiny Archibald at 9). His total WS are +5 over the second highest KAREEM(17.8 vs 12.9). Kareem missed 17 games that year but Mcadoo still had him beat in WS per 48(.242 vs .252)

BPM and vorp still rank him favorably overall(although lower than Kareem) at 4.7 and 6 (top 5).

For me he also had one of the greatest playoff series ever against one of the best defenses ever.

He went up against the Bullet frontcourt duo of Unseld and Hayes. As a team they had a -6.4 rel team D. They had the best SRS in the league and Mcadoo’s Braves forced it to 7.

McAdoo played 46.7 mpg and averaged 37 ppg. He saw a moderate drop in fg and TS% but he averaged an amazing 37% of his team’s offense as his scoring increased while the team’s overall average decreased by 5.

[WarriorGM]

I won't give my own opinion on this topic but want to comment on a few things.

In all of NBA history there have been only 13 teams which have produced a 67-win season. The Curry-led Warriors can claim 3 of them and they were done back-to-back-to-back. Was this all just regular season success? No. Curry won 2 championships and was 5 points away in another in a game 7 of a finals in the other. One of these seasons is the record for regular season wins. Another features the record for playoffs wins. The last and perhaps least impressive of the lot saw Curry lead a team of conference finals virgins to a title by knocking out in the playoffs all the other guys selected as First Team All-NBA that year.

You write all of this following this sentence.

Well to begin with this project is about peaks supposedly.

This should answer why all you wrote in the above paragraph is irrelevant except for the part that is related to the year you think is his peak.
Liam specifically asked about 16 and his concerns are absolutely right. The goal of basketball is to win a chip. You can't win a ring without succeeding in the PO's no matter how good your RS was.

An argument that might have some merit if this was called the greatest playoffs peak project. Of course there is also the fact this project has already selected KG despite him not even reaching the finals for his supposed peak year which makes a mockery of your premise.

Curry wasn't good in the PO in 16 and he missed games. It doesn't matter if he was injured or had other troubles, he didn't play well and missed games. When your best player is having such a PS your chances to succeed are really low. In Curry's case he was really fortunate to have a great team to make up for it. So his critique is absolutely justified. If you disagree show why and don't act insulted (you just pointed to narrative stuff and not really something that is showing his superiority on an individual basis, despite that there are a lot of hints to this [not necessarily in 16 but in other years]).

Curry despite coming off an injury took down the prior and succeeding MVPs after going down 1-3. That strikes me as a remarkable achievement. Is there something in this project that says we cannot factor in fortitude and resilience in our assessment of players? Sure he had a good team. That team still wasn't going any further without him.

That Curry has not been selected already makes this project a joke, a farce. Curry produced record wins and record statistics in the modern era. One could make an argument that he should be second on this list. The criticism directed at Curry is nothing next to what can be leveled at some of the players and years supposedly better than his.

At that point you just sound like a little boy/girl salty that his/her favorite player isn't already voted in. You could have just brought up good arguments in the 2nd thread if he has a case for it or all the other threads for that matter. If they would have been convincing, some would have followed your lead.

I'd give time for my words to sink in first before calling me salty. Let me repeat: Curry helped set the record for wins in a regular season. He set the record for wins in a playoffs. He is the first and only unanimous MVP. You even have detractors here admitting he is possibly on the greatest NBA team of all-time and produced statistics better than Bird and Magic at their peak. 3 of the 13 67-win seasons in NBA history have him behind it. Are you saying that was all a fluke? What exactly is not a good argument? What is unconvincing? If you think there are weaknesses in his accomplishments I would aver that I see giant gaping holes you could drive a truck through in the cases for others. I have confidence my arguments can stand for themselves and that trying to undermine them is going to expose those that try to embarrassment. But if you insist, feel free to embarrass yourselves.

KG? His supposedly best year didn't translate to record winning or team success, didn't even make the finals. Not really impressed with his overall career statistics either. Relies on longevity to make his mark. Oscar? Won once with Kareem in a newly expanded league; never won anything as the guy. Played in an era where playoffs were shorter. Dr. J? The year of his everyone here is raving about is one where the league was split and had a shorter playoffs. For KG and Oscar I may ask how do we know they aren't just producing a shiny looking Westbrook or Harden year? For Dr. J, how do we know he isn't just stomping on a D-league, or more favorably, a weak Eastern Conference the way LeBron did?

This first part of this paragraph just needs two words: 'team game'. You know why Curry's teams were record winning? Definitely partially because Curry was so good, but even more so because he had an impact monster in Dray, an off ball genius like Klay, another big time scorer like Durant, role players like Iggy, Bogut, Barnes and so on. Most of them all at once.

And my response is two words: "team game". Basketball is a team game and Curry is in the discussion for greatest of all-time at raising the level of his team. Curry's individual numbers are so great that many completely miss that isn't his whole game and that his effect on his team is sublime. His efficiency allows team construction that maximizes player strengths and value. The 2015 Warriors were a great defensive team but hopelessly outgunned without Curry's offense but with him their defense was telling. The 2017 Warriors were an offensive juggernaut because Curry is so efficient that adding another great scorer could fit in without being crowded out of the offense. Those teams could be constructed as they were because of Curry.

That's why saying Curry only won because he has had great teammates is silly. There's over 60 years of NBA history in which there has been opportunity for great rosters to form. A lot of great teams have come and gone yet as stated previously Curry still has a claim to 3 of the 13 67 or more win seasons in NBA history. It cannot even be claimed Curry was the most fortunate in teammates to start his career when even in this generation Durant, Westbrook, and Harden had 2 future MVPs in each other as teammates from near the get go. Meanwhile Curry had a 10th round pick in Klay and a second rounder in Draymond. Who was saying the Warriors were going to be a menace in 2013?

Just compare that to the other guys teams and you should know why they weren't breaking any records.

Then why didn't they break records when they were with better guys? I don't get starry-eyed when a player can put up big numbers. Anyone remotely familiar with NBA rejects putting up Jordan-like numbers in foreign leagues shouldn't be too impressed with big box score performances on losing teams.

For the bolded parts. We know it with KG since his +/- metrics always were GOAT like (within the +/- era). They far exceeded Curry's impact, although Curry was great in that departement in his own right.

Oscar is actually the WOWY darling of the 60 if I have this one right in my mind. It isn't something exact but it hints to Oscar having a huge impact on his teams success even if his teams weren't good.

Far exceeded? You sure? KG might have the best +/- numbers ever from what I've heard but Curry has dominated +/- this decade and has +/- records of his own. Curry is probably this era's WOWY darling and at least in Curry's case it has translated to victories so I don't see how either KG or Oscar have a clear case over Curry on this point, it may well be the reverse.

You can bring a lot of good indicators to why Curry should be voted in in this thread or should have already been voted in by now (+/- stats, good playoffs in 15, great playoffs in 17), but pointing to team success when he had such a stacked team like no one else (maybe in history) isn't a good indicator, neither is pointing to narrative like 'he was breaking the game' (which should be reflected in superiority of data anyways no need to make a fairytale out of it).

I consider team success an important dimension in assessing the value of a player since basketball is a team game and there are so many factors that go into winning that cannot be isolated and measured individually. If you don't consider it important it is no wonder we are in disagreement about this list, especially when it is Curry's outlier efficiency that arguably makes his teams so potent or even possible. In any event Curry is close to if not the best ever in several statistical measures. Curry has a far more solid all-around case with more corroborating evidence than most of the other players mentioned. That's why as I've said picking so many others ahead of him makes this project a joke.

[freethedevil]

Ah, just edited.

, but I also would not say impact metrics are the end-all consideration.

No they're not. We also have to look at skill set. Curry's off ball play also makes him more portable than the people on your list.

I value Wade and Kobe bringing proportionally more to their teams, so to speak, and I have a hard time demarcating Curry’s excellence in the 2017 postseason from Kobe’s excellence in the 2001 postseason. In other words, I think there is a lot of support, both statistical and logical, for how playing next to other ridiculously talented players can make it easier to dominate in your role.

I don't think you understand, RPM, is proportional. Playing with ridiculously talented players would lower your rpm because rpm adjusts for the teammates you have on the floor. Impacting a better team proportionally is harder, not easier.

[NbaAllDay]

I won't give my own opinion on this topic but want to comment on a few things.

In all of NBA history there have been only 13 teams which have produced a 67-win season. The Curry-led Warriors can claim 3 of them and they were done back-to-back-to-back. Was this all just regular season success? No. Curry won 2 championships and was 5 points away in another in a game 7 of a finals in the other. One of these seasons is the record for regular season wins. Another features the record for playoffs wins. The last and perhaps least impressive of the lot saw Curry lead a team of conference finals virgins to a title by knocking out in the playoffs all the other guys selected as First Team All-NBA that year.

You write all of this following this sentence.

Well to begin with this project is about peaks supposedly.

This should answer why all you wrote in the above paragraph is irrelevant except for the part that is related to the year you think is his peak.
Liam specifically asked about 16 and his concerns are absolutely right. The goal of basketball is to win a chip. You can't win a ring without succeeding in the PO's no matter how good your RS was.

An argument that might have some merit if this was called the greatest playoffs peak project. Of course there is also the fact this project has already selected KG despite him not even reaching the finals for his supposed peak year which makes a mockery of your premise.

Curry wasn't good in the PO in 16 and he missed games. It doesn't matter if he was injured or had other troubles, he didn't play well and missed games. When your best player is having such a PS your chances to succeed are really low. In Curry's case he was really fortunate to have a great team to make up for it. So his critique is absolutely justified. If you disagree show why and don't act insulted (you just pointed to narrative stuff and not really something that is showing his superiority on an individual basis, despite that there are a lot of hints to this [not necessarily in 16 but in other years]).

Curry despite coming off an injury took down the prior and succeeding MVPs after going down 1-3. That strikes me as a remarkable achievement. Is there something in this project that says we cannot factor in fortitude and resilience in our assessment of players? Sure he had a good team. That team still wasn't going any further without him.

That Curry has not been selected already makes this project a joke, a farce. Curry produced record wins and record statistics in the modern era. One could make an argument that he should be second on this list. The criticism directed at Curry is nothing next to what can be leveled at some of the players and years supposedly better than his.

At that point you just sound like a little boy/girl salty that his/her favorite player isn't already voted in. You could have just brought up good arguments in the 2nd thread if he has a case for it or all the other threads for that matter. If they would have been convincing, some would have followed your lead.

I'd give time for my words to sink in first before calling me salty. Let me repeat: Curry helped set the record for wins in a regular season. He set the record for wins in a playoffs. He is the first and only unanimous MVP. You even have detractors here admitting he is possibly on the greatest NBA team of all-time and produced statistics better than Bird and Magic at their peak. 3 of the 13 67-win seasons in NBA history have him behind it. Are you saying that was all a fluke? What exactly is not a good argument? What is unconvincing? If you think there are weaknesses in his accomplishments I would aver that I see giant gaping holes you could drive a truck through in the cases for others. I have confidence my arguments can stand for themselves and that trying to undermine them is going to expose those that try to embarrassment. But if you insist, feel free to embarrass yourselves.

KG? His supposedly best year didn't translate to record winning or team success, didn't even make the finals. Not really impressed with his overall career statistics either. Relies on longevity to make his mark. Oscar? Won once with Kareem in a newly expanded league; never won anything as the guy. Played in an era where playoffs were shorter. Dr. J? The year of his everyone here is raving about is one where the league was split and had a shorter playoffs. For KG and Oscar I may ask how do we know they aren't just producing a shiny looking Westbrook or Harden year? For Dr. J, how do we know he isn't just stomping on a D-league, or more favorably, a weak Eastern Conference the way LeBron did?

This first part of this paragraph just needs two words: 'team game'. You know why Curry's teams were record winning? Definitely partially because Curry was so good, but even more so because he had an impact monster in Dray, an off ball genius like Klay, another big time scorer like Durant, role players like Iggy, Bogut, Barnes and so on. Most of them all at once.

And my response is two words: "team game". Basketball is a team game and Curry is in the discussion for greatest of all-time at raising the level of his team. Curry's individual numbers are so great that many completely miss that isn't his whole game and that his effect on his team is sublime. His efficiency allows team construction that maximizes player strengths and value. The 2015 Warriors were a great defensive team but hopelessly outgunned without Curry's offense but with him their defense was telling. The 2017 Warriors were an offensive juggernaut because Curry is so efficient that adding another great scorer could fit in without being crowded out of the offense. Those teams could be constructed as they were because of Curry.

That's why saying Curry only won because he has had great teammates is silly. There's over 60 years of NBA history in which there has been opportunity for great rosters to form. A lot of great teams have come and gone yet as stated previously Curry still has a claim to 3 of the 13 67 or more win seasons in NBA history. It cannot even be claimed Curry was the most fortunate in teammates to start his career when even in this generation Durant, Westbrook, and Harden had 2 future MVPs in each other as teammates from near the get go. Meanwhile Curry had a 10th round pick in Klay and a second rounder in Draymond. Who was saying the Warriors were going to be a menace in 2013?

Just compare that to the other guys teams and you should know why they weren't breaking any records.

Then why didn't they break records when they were with better guys? I don't get starry-eyed when a player can put up big numbers. Anyone remotely familiar with NBA rejects putting up Jordan-like numbers in foreign leagues shouldn't be too impressed with big box score performances on losing teams.

For the bolded parts. We know it with KG since his +/- metrics always were GOAT like (within the +/- era). They far exceeded Curry's impact, although Curry was great in that departement in his own right.

Oscar is actually the WOWY darling of the 60 if I have this one right in my mind. It isn't something exact but it hints to Oscar having a huge impact on his teams success even if his teams weren't good.

Far exceeded? You sure? KG might have the best +/- numbers ever from what I've heard but Curry has dominated +/- this decade and has +/- records of his own. Curry is probably this era's WOWY darling and at least in Curry's case it has translated to victories so I don't see how either KG or Oscar have a clear case over Curry on this point, it may well be the reverse.

You can bring a lot of good indicators to why Curry should be voted in in this thread or should have already been voted in by now (+/- stats, good playoffs in 15, great playoffs in 17), but pointing to team success when he had such a stacked team like no one else (maybe in history) isn't a good indicator, neither is pointing to narrative like 'he was breaking the game' (which should be reflected in superiority of data anyways no need to make a fairytale out of it).

I consider team success an important dimension in assessing the value of a player since basketball is a team game and there are so many factors that go into winning that cannot be isolated and measured individually. If you don't consider it important it is no wonder we are in disagreement about this list, especially when it is Curry's outlier efficiency that arguably makes his teams so potent or even possible. In any event Curry is close to if not the best ever in several statistical measures. Curry has a far more solid all-around case with more corroborating evidence than most of the other players mentioned. That's why as I've said picking so many others ahead of him makes this project a joke.

Curry has a legitimate chance or argument for possibly top 10 peaks or at least a top 15 peak.

Yet you arguments, at face value are not very convincing at all.

Timmyy was clear about why lumping in team success as the evaluation of an an individual player is not a strong arguement, and you literally just repeated everything again as if it would be more convincing hearing it the second time?

You literally say there are "so many factors that go into winning" right after you talk about all those factors being because of Curry? Without anything to back that up other than +/-

And it's clear how much you are undervaluing the team he has around him.

I see you as someone who would say that Lebron looks better because the team is built around him, and he has inflated stats because of it, yet when Curry has a team that works almost perfectly around him, it's now because Curry is the reason for their success and I'm sure nothing of his is inflated.

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 64 Oscar
Ballot #2 - 16 Curry
Ballot #3 - 66 West

--------------------

Ballot #1 - 64 Oscar

Oscar's 64 season was very impressive on a number of levels:

RS: 31.4 PPG, 9.9 RPG, 11 APG, 48.3% FG, 85.3% FT (league leading on 11.9 FTAs per game), 57.6% TS (+9.1% vs. league avg), .278 WS/48

PS: 29.3 PPG, 8.9 RPG, 8.4 APG, 45.5% FG, 85.8% FT (12.7 FTAs per game), 56.8% TS, .245 WS/48

The royals ranked 2nd in SRS that season, losing in the playoffs to the #1 ranked SRS and eventual champion celtics. While his raw averages can certainly be attributed to the fast paced play during that era, his overall efficiency and ability to get to the line at will is pretty staggering.

Oscar's playoff #s do drop slightly across the board, but there's nothing there to suggest that he struggled. His best teammate Jerry Lucas had a serious drop off in scoring and efficiency come playoff time (17.7 PPG on 57.8% TS in RS vs. 12.2 PPG on 43.8% TS in PS). That very well could've been the difference in the series.

63-64 was his 4th season, so the below footage should be able to capture his style of play at the time:

Watch on YouTube

[Yeah... I could do without the music]

What stands out to me is his precision when he makes his moves as well as his strength when he gets inside. Reminds me of west, too, although he wasn't quite as powerful.

Oscar would win also win MVP that season in dominating fashion. Via NY Times:

Oscar Robertson, the Cincin­nati Royals' talented back‐court man, yesterday was voted the President's Trophy, the Na­tional Basketball Association's most valuable player award, by the biggest margin on record.

The voting is by N.B.A. play­ers, with the restriction that they cannot vote for members of their own teams. Robertson received 60 of a possible 85 first‐place votes. In the point scoring on a 5, 3, 1 basis, Robertson received a total of 362 points, a record.

Wilt Chamberlain of San Francisco, who won the trophy as a rookie in 1960, placed see­ond in the voting with 19 first­place votes and 215 points. Bill Russell of Boston, the winner for the last three years, was third with 11 firsts and 167 points.

64 slightly edges out 63 to me overall due to a better individual regular season and team performance.

Ballot #2 - 16 Curry

Arguably the greatest offensive regular season ever, or at least in the modern era, say since 1980? Even purely as a volume scorer he tops the list: http://bkref.com/tiny/9jxSr The finals "collapse" doesn't kill the season for me. It literally came down to the last minute to decide the championship. This wasn't a 4-1 trouncing or something ala pistons lakers in 04. I have to take a closer look at 2017 because it's certainly close, but that 2016 season was a sight to see. Appointment television every night and curry was the center of it. It was special.

Ballot #3 - 66 West

Going with West here sort of in the same vein as magic / bird putting him close to oscar. West was a master volume scorer on great efficiency (especially for his era), not to mention an excellent playmaker, falling somewhere between a PG and SG throughout his career.

RS: 31.3 PPG, 7.1 RPG, 6.1 APG, 47.3% FG, 86% FT (12.4 FTAs per game), 57.3% TS (+8.6% vs. league avg), .256 WS/48

PS: 34.2 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 5.6 APG, 51.8% TS, 87.2% FT, 58.1% TS, .237 WS/48

He had the poor luck of coming up during the russell celtics era, losing to them several times in the finals. He would lead the lakers to the finals in 66, again losing in game 7 by 2 to the celtics in heart breaking fashion. This would come after putting up 33.9 PPG, 6.4 RPG and 5.1 APG on 51.5% from the field and 87.1% from the line in the series.

Purely as a fan, I think Oscar and West would really thrive in today's game, and it would be a pleasure to watch.

1966 Finals Highlights

Watch on YouTube

[Timmyyy]

An argument that might have some merit if this was called the greatest playoffs peak project. Of course there is also the fact this project has already selected KG despite him not even reaching the finals for his supposed peak year which makes a mockery of your premise.

Moot point, since it is also not the greatest RS peak project. KG never reached the finals but played excellent in the PO's in 2004 despite his shooting struggles, because he impacted the game big time in a lot of other ways. Curry still had his gravity impact but his actual scoring impact was heavily limited and he wasn't able to make up for that with other stuff. Far too much orientation on team results when one had a solid team and the other had an ATG team.

Curry despite coming off an injury took down the prior and succeeding MVPs after going down 1-3. That strikes me as a remarkable achievement. Is there something in this project that says we cannot factor in fortitude and resilience in our assessment of players? Sure he had a good team. That team still wasn't going any further without him.

'Despite coming from an injury' is irrelevant, the season lost value no matter if caused by injury or other stuff. He didn't take down anything, his team as a whole did, and he was part of that (succeeding MVP stuff is just pointless narrative).

I'd give time for my words to sink in first before calling me salty. Let me repeat: Curry helped set the record for wins in a regular season. He set the record for wins in a playoffs. He is the first and only unanimous MVP. You even have detractors here admitting he is possibly on the greatest NBA team of all-time and produced statistics better than Bird and Magic at their peak. 3 of the 13 67-win seasons in NBA history have him behind it. Are you saying that was all a fluke? What exactly is not a good argument? What is unconvincing? If you think there are weaknesses in his accomplishments I would aver that I see giant gaping holes you could drive a truck through in the cases for others. I have confidence my arguments can stand for themselves and that trying to undermine them is going to expose those that try to embarrassment. But if you insist, feel free to embarrass yourselves.

Let me repeat that you continue crediting Curry for everything his team did, when he had the greatest team you could ask for. This isn't taking away his own contribution to these ATG teams, as I agree that his RS might have been better than Magic and Bird. But since I value PO's high and he dropped significantly there, I don't think that year compares all that well to the guys you mentioned. You are really stubbornly arguing that his team performances are undeniable proof for him being better than player X, when this flat out isn't how it works (since it is a team game and not everybody had as good a team as Curry). You can talk about embarrassment all you want, that doesn't make your points 'right', whatever that would mean.

And my response is two words: "team game". Basketball is a team game and Curry is in the discussion for greatest of all-time at raising the level of his team. Curry's individual numbers are so great that many completely miss that isn't his whole game and that his effect on his team is sublime. His efficiency allows team construction that maximizes player strengths and value. The 2015 Warriors were a great defensive team but hopelessly outgunned without Curry's offense but with him their defense was telling. The 2017 Warriors were an offensive juggernaut because Curry is so efficient that adding another great scorer could fit in without being crowded out of the offense. Those teams could be constructed as they were because of Curry.

I agree with nearly everything you said. But that still doesn't change the fact the Warriors had a huge team around Curry, which makes it incomplete to credit him for all what his teams did.

That's why saying Curry only won because he has had great teammates is silly. There's over 60 years of NBA history in which there has been opportunity for great rosters to form. A lot of great teams have come and gone yet as stated previously Curry still has a claim to 3 of the 13 67 or more win seasons in NBA history. It cannot even be claimed Curry was the most fortunate in teammates to start his career when even in this generation Durant, Westbrook, and Harden had 2 future MVPs in each other as teammates from near the get go. Meanwhile Curry had a 10th round pick in Klay and a second rounder in Draymond. Who was saying the Warriors were going to be a menace in 2013?

I never said 'he only won...'. I do not live in extremes. I am not willing to credit him for everything what his team did. You are the one with the extreme stance that we have to credit Curry for all of that and that isn't defensibly, because there are 5 guys on the court and even 9-12 in the rotation.

Bolded would be a great point if it wasn't the same team (basically) for all these years. If you have the best team ever and you can keep them together and even improve, then you more than likely will have more than one ATG team. If it would be 3 times on three completely different teams, I guess that would be a clearly better indicator.
Curry was fortunate with the situation he had and how the guys on his teams panned out. You can't measure someones luck based on the draft position of the guys playing with him. Draymond became a monster, that was lucky no matter where he was picked (just as an example).

Far exceeded? You sure? KG might have the best +/- numbers ever from what I've heard but Curry has dominated +/- this decade and has +/- records of his own. Curry is probably this era's WOWY darling and at least in Curry's case it has translated to victories so I don't see how either KG or Oscar have a clear case over Curry on this point, it may well be the reverse.

Yes Garnett looks like one of the very best guys along with Lebron and Duncan (and the best Shaq years) in the +/- category with adjustment (like RAPM or RPM), maybe even the best. Curry seems a step below these guys, although of this generation he is the closest to these guys pretty clearly, since only Lebron matches and exceeds him the last few years (sometimes CP3 looked comparable).

But yes Curry is great in that category in his own right like I said in my first post already.
But again pointing how it 'translated to winning' with Curry is just giving him the credit for a luxury these other guys didn't have, a better team, since individual contribution to point differentials points to all of those guys being highly impactful.

I consider team success an important dimension in assessing the value of a player since basketball is a team game and there are so many factors that go into winning that cannot be isolated and measured individually. If you don't consider it important it is no wonder we are in disagreement about this list, especially when it is Curry's outlier efficiency that arguably makes his teams so potent or even possible. In any event Curry is close to if not the best ever in several statistical measures. Curry has a far more solid all-around case with more corroborating evidence than most of the other players mentioned. That's why as I've said picking so many others ahead of him makes this project a joke.

Team success is very important but only highly contextualized. And you do not apply the needed context.

I want to again say that I didn't even give my own personal opinion on the matter. I just have a problem when someone isn't able to look beyond the self picked facts that support his claim and act offended when someone dares to question his favorite player. Liam brought up justified concerns, that you waved off with incomplete analysis. This is what I responded to.

I can tell you I feel like I am high on Curry and even if I felt like he should have been voted in already I wouldn't say it's a joke when guys that have clear advantages compared to Curry (like KG for example) are in front of him even if I feel these advantages aren't as important.

[WarriorGM]

Curry has a legitimate chance or argument for possibly top 10 peaks or at least a top 15 peak.

Yet you arguments, at face value are not very convincing at all.

Well if my arguments are unconvincing which have referenced team records, individual records, notable victories, historic statistical numbers, statistically anomalous achievements, there are no words to describe how unconvincing I find some of the arguments I've seen on behalf of other players.

Timmyy was clear about why lumping in team success as the evaluation of an an individual player is not a strong arguement, and you literally just repeated everything again as if it would be more convincing hearing it the second time?

Maybe it is not a strong argument for you but then I don't know what you'd consider a strong argument. As far as I'm concerned not taking it into account is baloney. The basketball I am referencing is the five-on-five version not one-on-one. You can go on believing Westbrook was the best player in 2017 if you wish though I'm not going to stop you.

You literally say there are "so many factors that go into winning" right after you talk about all those factors being because of Curry? Without anything to back that up other than +/-

You mean aside from all the winning? And not just plain vanilla winning, we're talking about historically outlier winning. Anyway what is wrong with just pointing to +/-? It's not as if I've seen better arguments from others using something else. But hey if you want another I didn't mention it but Curry's teammates also have a remarkable tendency to see TS% increases when he's on the floor.

And it's clear how much you are undervaluing the team he has around him.

Am I undervaluing his teammates or are you undervaluing Curry? Did anyone on his team win a ring before joining Curry? There have been many great teams in history, but the Warriors have managed to make themselves stand out. What makes the Warriors stand out? I'd say it is Curry.

I see you as someone who would say that Lebron looks better because the team is built around him, and he has inflated stats because of it, yet when Curry has a team that works almost perfectly around him, it's now because Curry is the reason for their success and I'm sure nothing of his is inflated.

Not every discussion needs to be about LeBron. I don't know why you brought him up. You'd be wrong, however, if you think the above is what I believe about him or his teams.

[liamliam1234]

Ah, just edited.

, but I also would not say impact metrics are the end-all consideration.

No they're not. We also have to look at skill set. Curry's off ball play also makes him more portable than the people on your list.

I value Wade and Kobe bringing proportionally more to their teams, so to speak, and I have a hard time demarcating Curry’s excellence in the 2017 postseason from Kobe’s excellence in the 2001 postseason. In other words, I think there is a lot of support, both statistical and logical, for how playing next to other ridiculously talented players can make it easier to dominate in your role.

I don't think you understand, RPM, is proportional. Playing with ridiculously talented players would lower your rpm because rpm adjusts for the teammates you have on the floor. Impacting a better team proportionally is harder, not easier.

Alright, side-stepping that, given that I do not think we are being especially clear on the comparative numbers (generally speaking, if something is not immediately available on a player’s basketball-reference page, I would prefer a link), what do you make of this (http://www.backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/)?

As for portability/scalability or whatever, I do not think that should be confused with actual ability.

Quickly, the Warriors as a whole are very portable (using your word). Klay is highly portable, Draymond is highly portable (notsomuch in scoring, but he has an argument to be one of the two or three most scalable defenders and passing forwards), Durant is highly portable, Iguodala is reasonably portable... That is part of the beauty of the team. Curry has the advantage there, sure, but it is not something he alone carries.

More importantly, I think we have plenty of intuitive reason that should show us that scalability is not the ultimate measure. Garnett is more scalable than Duncan, but that does not make him a better player (or at least not in the playoffs). Really, Garnett is more scalable than basically every other top guy from Kareem to Curry. But that does not make him by default the best. Dirk has incredibly scalable offence, as does Nash. Not immediately top tier guys because of it. But maybe I need to make this more disparate. Davis is probably more scalable than either Malone; is he better than them? Going back to Draymond, is he right to say he is maybe the greatest defender ever because of how scalable he is? I mean, if we gave Russell a top eight spot for his defence and smart offence, how soon will we see Draymond?

Scalability is nice to a point, but the idea of Curry’s value stemming in large part from how he helps his teammates works in large part because his teammates are awesome. We have watched plenty of players get nowhere despite opening things up for their offensively inept teammates; Curry has never had that test in any meaningful sample size. So we compare him to peak Wade and peak Kobe, who maintained consistent scoring production (in a way Curry has often failed to do in the playoffs, especially in 2016) while carrying a large load on defence (as guards, sure, but obviously doing more than Curry) and being the main passing engine (Curry splits with Draymond). And in the playoffs, I think that matters.

I am not getting into the Curry/Garnett thing because I think a proper appreciation of Garnett’s defence should kill that conversation at its start. Robertson versus Curry is a fun hypothetical, but we should be careful to acknowledge the large data void in Robertson’s case.

[FrogBros4Life]

3) 1975 Bob McAdoo(thanks to whoever it was in the last topic that mentioned Macdoo. Made me take a closer look$
Won league MVP over Cowens by a significant margin(.567 MVP shares) Led his team to the 4th best offense (+5.1 rel)and average defense (-0.1).

Led the league in PPG,MPG, and was 5th in TS% despite having a 4ppg gap over the second highest volume scorer. He has a sizeable gap in OWS (12.7 second is Tiny Archibald at 9). His total WS are +5 over the second highest KAREEM(17.8 vs 12.9). Kareem missed 17 games that year but Mcadoo still had him beat in WS per 48(.242 vs .252)

BPM and vorp still rank him favorably overall(although lower than Kareem) at 4.7 and 6 (top 5).

For me he also had one of the greatest playoff series ever against one of the best defenses ever.

He went up against the Bullet frontcourt duo of Unseld and Hayes. As a team they had a -6.4 rel team D. They had the best SRS in the league and Mcadoo’s Braves forced it to 7.

McAdoo played 46.7 mpg and averaged 37 ppg. He saw a moderate drop in fg and TS% but he averaged an amazing 37% of his team’s offense as his scoring increased while the team’s overall average decreased by 5.

Great post. Love seeing "forgotten" guys like McAdoo getting a nod in projects like these, as he's kind of gotten lost in the shuffle over the years. I don't personally think he should be quite this high up the list, but I don't think it's an indefensible stance based on single/1 year peaks either. I'm glad he's gotten a few mentions either way. Also, I'm not sure it is properly appreciated just how difficult it is to achieve something like the portion of your quote I've bolded. Almost all #1 options see a reduction in FG% in the playoffs as defenses are honing in on them with more perseverance, and better game planning/team coverage. 37% is indeed impressive.

[penbeast0]

3) 1975 Bob McAdoo(thanks to whoever it was in the last topic that mentioned Macdoo. Made me take a closer look$
Won league MVP over Cowens by a significant margin(.567 MVP shares) Led his team to the 4th best offense (+5.1 rel)and average defense (-0.1).

Led the league in PPG,MPG, and was 5th in TS% despite having a 4ppg gap over the second highest volume scorer. He has a sizeable gap in OWS (12.7 second is Tiny Archibald at 9). His total WS are +5 over the second highest KAREEM(17.8 vs 12.9). Kareem missed 17 games that year but Mcadoo still had him beat in WS per 48(.242 vs .252)

BPM and vorp still rank him favorably overall(although lower than Kareem) at 4.7 and 6 (top 5).

For me he also had one of the greatest playoff series ever against one of the best defenses ever.

He went up against the Bullet frontcourt duo of Unseld and Hayes. As a team they had a -6.4 rel team D. They had the best SRS in the league and Mcadoo’s Braves forced it to 7.

McAdoo played 46.7 mpg and averaged 37 ppg. He saw a moderate drop in fg and TS% but he averaged an amazing 37% of his team’s offense as his scoring increased while the team’s overall average decreased by 5.

Great post. Love seeing "forgotten" guys like McAdoo getting a nod in projects like these, as he's kind of gotten lost in the shuffle over the years. I don't personally think he should be quite this high up the list, but I don't think it's an indefensible stance based on single/1 year peaks either. I'm glad he's gotten a few mentions either way. Also, I'm not sure it is properly appreciated just how difficult it is to achieve something like the portion of your quote I've bolded. Almost all #1 options see a reduction in FG% in the playoffs as defenses are honing in on them with more perseverance, and better game planning/team coverage. 37% is indeed impressive.

How do you feel about McAdoo v. 1969 Wes Unseld? MVP (and rookie of the year) non-scorer but took basically the same team that was last in the East the year before and despite having HOF PF Gus Johnson miss 33 games (he had missed 22 games the year before), took it to the best record in the league. Unseld is a tough guy for boxscore stats because the two areas where he is arguably the GOAT, outlet passing and screen setting, don't show up very well.

[trex_8063]

1st ballot - '95 David Robinson
The near-reality as I see is that David Robinson was asked [by the Spurs] to be Bill Russell on defense and simultaneously be Shaquille O'Neal on offense.......and he kinda takes some flack for not being up to the task [primarily in the playoffs]. But realistically, if he'd been consistently capable of maintaining his rs standard of offensive performance and efficiency during the playoffs, we'd have been discussing him in the top 3 positions of this project. So I don't think it's off base to give him some consideration now around #12. This version of Robinson anchored a -2.9 rDRTG (5th/27) with a principle cast [in descending order of minutes played] of Avery Johnson (scrappy and energetic, but seriously undersized even for a PG; mediocre defender overall), Sean Elliott (mediocre defender), Vinny Del Negro (probably slightly weak defensively, iirc), Chuck Person (a pinch past prime, never a good defender anyway), Dennis Rodman (erratic defensively [awful in the Houston series, fwiw], and missed 33 games), and JR Reid, Terry Cummings, post-prime Doc Rivers (Rivers probably the only one of those three I'd say was passable good defensively [edit: +/- maybe Cummings]).
This version of Robinson simultaneously anchored a +3.4 rORTG (5th/27) with the aforementioned cast; they won 62 games (+5.90 SRS) overall. Made it to the WCF where Dennis Rodman had a total [and very public] meltdown, and the Spurs lost the series to Houston (with Hakeem in God-mode) in six games (outscored by a grand total of 10 pts in the entire series). Typically stated as Hakeem owning DRob and making him a helpless play-thing, though it's rarely acknowledged that Hakeem [because of how their offense and roster was structured] largely enjoyed single coverage (by Robinson), while Robinson was largely guarded by Olajuwon + 1-2 friends.
It's rarely acknowledged that DRob's cast [which had shot 37.5% from beyond the arc in the rs] somewhat crapped the bed shooting just 31.9% in this series (and did I mention they were only outscored by 10 points total in the entire series?); and again Rodman's meltdown and poor play is rarely given light of day in the construction of the usual narrative.
jsia, I think he deserves a look around now.


2nd ballot - '16 Stephen Curry
Arguably the GOAT offensive rs. Though his style of play is heavily reliant on the existence of a 3pt line, that's still awfully damn impressive. Playoff slump is noted, though as should be apparent from discussions pertaining to other players, I am decidedly NOT a playoff > rs person in my evaluations. And at any rate we're still talking about a guy that averaged >25 ppg on decent efficiency in the playoffs.


3rd ballot - '77 Bill Walton
Just a marvelous two-way player. Tremendous defensive presence, maybe the 2nd-best outlet passer of all-time and definitely one of the better half-court passing big-men too. Fair/decent scorer to boot. My gut is he's extremely portable, able to mesh easily with just about any cast due to his defense, passing, and unselfish style of play. If there's a ding on this season, it's his health [often limited minutes as result] and the 17 missed games.

[No-more-rings]

1. 64' Oscar Robertson- The arguments have already been made. He was like a 6'6 Magic Johnson, or a 6'6 Chris Paul, probably the best offensive player left for peaks, and held his own on defense.

2. 09' Wade- Carried a putrid supporting cast to 43 wins, with Wade on court they ran a 110.5 ORTG which would've been tied for 5th best in the league that year, which is actually something considering the Heat ran a slow defense-first type of pace. Without Wade, they were playing with the worst offense in the league by far.(99.4 ORTG). The Heat were -3.2 DRTG better with Wade on the court also. Heavy lifting on both ends of the court. Playoff performance could've been better(though 29/5/5 on 57 ts% and 26.3 PER is nothing to sneeze at), but Wade dealt with back spasms in the series and had to play nearly 39 mpg on high usage over the season just so his team could be competitive. I believe if Wade had a legit supporting cast in 09 and 10 these seasons would be viewed more highly than they are.

3. 06' Wade- In 06 with Wade on court the Heat ran a 112.3 ORTG which would've been the best in the league. With Wade sitting, they were again the worst offense in the league. Wade led the league in RAPM, NPI RAPM, and had an historical championship playoff run for a guard. I don't think anyone left quite had a title run like Wade's considering both numbers and competition.

So during Wade's playoff run he played the 7th ranked defense, 3rd ranked defense, 5th ranked defense and 11th best in that order. Aside from the bulls in the first round, absolutely destroyed the other 3 teams. In the ECF against the 5th ranked defense, 64 win, fresh off a finals trip Pistons, Wade averaged 26.7/5.2/5.5 on 68.4 ts%, and helped hold Rip Hamilton to 37.8% from the field and just 46.6 ts%(see videos below). In the finals, Wade put up a carry job-victory that was emulated by perhaps only Lebron, Duncan and Shaq. It doesn't make it necessarily better than all the others, just the load carried+lack of offensive help.

Footage is not the best of quality, but you can see it's him.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

The argument for 06 is probably stronger than 09, but i think 09 could've gave you all that 06 did with more precise passing and better decision making.

[E-Balla]

1. 63 Oscar - Top 2 offensive player ever, dominated the regular season with a bad team and dominated against the Celtics in the playoffs.
2. 64 Oscar - Basically the same as 63. Slightly better regular season, league MVP, but unlike in 63 he didn't dominate Boston, he just played well.

3. 83 Moses - Next post will get into the nitty gritty but the short version is that Moses was the best player in the league, on an historically great team, with great +/- estimates, and a gamebreaking ability on the offensive boards (averaged 6.5 offensive rebounds a game from 79 to 83). The gap between him and Curry who has that same argument (replace rebounding with 3 point shooting) is that outside of that one amazing ability Moses was still well above average at everything else. His jumper, defense (in 83 at least), and post game was already solid. His one weakness was his weak passing ability but it didn't hinder his chance to lead great or mediocre teams so I don't know how much it concerns me.

[freethedevil]

Alright, side-stepping that, given that I do not think we are being especially clear on the comparative numbers (generally speaking, if something is not immediately available on a player’s basketball-reference page, I would prefer a link), what do you make of this (http://www.backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/)?

That covers thee year stetches, not single season ones. As a result, injuries in 18 and 16, have taken out his 16-18 stretch and replaced it with his 13-15 stretch, so the list really doesn't say much regarding his 2017 playoffs, which backpicks rates much higher than any of the other three post seasons. In fact if you look at the visual, you'll see curry's 2017 postseason is a +6(purple). The people you voted for are had lower peaks per that graph. And that graph measures impact, it does not take into account portability,

As for portability/scalability or whatever, I do not think that should be confused with actual ability.

Right which is why I mentioned his portability after i noted he broke impact stats. "Ability" is relevant as to how high you can raise a team, portability is relevant, is to how well you can raise better and better teams. Curry's 2017 was more impactful AND was of a more portable player. Hence why i dont' see the case for those three.

Quickly, the Warriors as a whole are very portable (using your word). Klay is highly portable, Draymond is highly portable (notsomuch in scoring, but he has an argument to be one of the two or three most scalable defenders and passing forwards), Durant is highly portable, Iguodala is reasonably portable... That is part of the beauty of the team. Curry has the advantage there, sure, but it is not something he alone carries.

Actually, draymond green is not portable. His impact is that of one of the best players ever(he too has broken +/-), but his game doesn't scale well in most circumstances. Impact would tell you he's better than kd, but his game doesn't fit as well on a variety of teams because he isn't a great scoring threat(which greatly limits the effect of his passing), and his defense wouldn't be as valuable on most teams as he isn't that great at rim protection. Impact #'s say he's a top 7 player, but he isn't really top ten in most contexts. That's a definition of a less portable player.

More importantly, I think we have plenty of intuitive reason that should show us that scalability is not the ultimate measure.

Which is why I mentioned both imapct AND scalability Curry was both more imapctful AND more scalable. I don't see the argument for less imapctful AND less portable players.

Garnett is more scalable than Duncan, but that does not make him a better player (or at least not in the playoffs). Really, Garnett is more scalable than basically every other top guy from Kareem to Curry. But that does not make him by default the best.

Yes, because he's not as imapctful. This is not the case for curry.

Dirk has incredibly scalable offence, as does Nash. Not immediately top tier guys because of it. But maybe I need to make this more disparate.

Actually it isn't. He's a non factor defensively and isn't a great passer, so compare3d to atg, he's not a very scalable player.

Davis is probably more scalable than either Malone; is he better than them? Going back to Draymond, is he right to say he is maybe the greatest defender ever because of how scalable he is? I mean, if we gave Russell a top eight spot for his defence and smart offence, how soon will we see Draymond?

Draymond's impact is literally not even in the stratosphere of Russell's. No one's is:

The celtics were meh offensively despite russell being surrounded with offense first players, But their defense was nearly twice as good as any defense ever. The team had a -srs without him and was atg with him. Also, russell doesn't have scalability issues. Because of there being n three point shot defense was more important than offense in the 60's.

Scalability is nice to a point, but the idea of Curry’s value stemming in large part from how he helps his teammates works in large part because his teammates are awesome. We have watched plenty of players get nowhere despite opening things up for their offensively inept teammates; Curry has never had that test in any meaningful sample size. So we compare him to peak Wade and peak Kobe, who maintained consistent scoring production (in a way Curry has often failed to do in the playoffs, especially in 2016) while carrying a large load on defence (as guards, sure, but obviously doing more than Curry) and being the main passing engine (Curry splits with Draymond). And in the playoffs, I think that matters.

Except again, his awsome teammates all play worse without him. And if you think it's a system thing, we can just look at kd whose effiency without curry are comprable to his okc effiency while his effiency with curry blows it out of the park. It is harder to make better players play much better than worse players. And yet curry's improvement on these players was more than any of the udes you listed. It is harder to raise a three story building up than a two story buildign and yet curry lifted the three story building by more. That is BOTH an edge in quality AND scalability.

[WarriorGM]

An argument that might have some merit if this was called the greatest playoffs peak project. Of course there is also the fact this project has already selected KG despite him not even reaching the finals for his supposed peak year which makes a mockery of your premise.

Moot point, since it is also not the greatest RS peak project. KG never reached the finals but played excellent in the PO's in 2004 despite his shooting struggles, because he impacted the game big time in a lot of other ways. Curry still had his gravity impact but his actual scoring impact was heavily limited and he wasn't able to make up for that with other stuff. Far too much orientation on team results when one had a solid team and the other had an ATG team.

Curry despite coming off an injury took down the prior and succeeding MVPs after going down 1-3. That strikes me as a remarkable achievement. Is there something in this project that says we cannot factor in fortitude and resilience in our assessment of players? Sure he had a good team. That team still wasn't going any further without him.

'Despite coming from an injury' is irrelevant, the season lost value no matter if caused by injury or other stuff. He didn't take down anything, his team as a whole did, and he was part of that (succeeding MVP stuff is just pointless narrative).

Curry's season lost value for only making it to the finals but for some reason KG not even getting that far gets a pass because he "impacted the game big time" whatever that means. And despite this ambiguous at best state of affairs in the post-season we should just ignore the regular season. So to sum up Curry advanced further in the post season and Curry had a better regular season despite it being KG's only MVP season but it was KG's year. I count at least two logical inconsistencies there. But great we have confidence in KG being superior anyway because he was able to have another MVP year right? Uh no. More titles? Nope. More finals appearances? No again. Well...at least KG has longevity.

Let me repeat that you continue crediting Curry for everything his team did, when he had the greatest team you could ask for. This isn't taking away his own contribution to these ATG teams, as I agree that his RS might have been better than Magic and Bird. But since I value PO's high and he dropped significantly there, I don't think that year compares all that well to the guys you mentioned. You are really stubbornly arguing that his team performances are undeniable proof for him being better than player X, when this flat out isn't how it works (since it is a team game and not everybody had as good a team as Curry). You can talk about embarrassment all you want, that doesn't make your points 'right', whatever that would mean.

Pffft. As if Magic and Bird didn't have the greatest teams you could ask for. You also seem to miss that Curry can claim not only a higher regular season peak but also a higher playoffs peak than Magic and Bird.

http://bkref.com/pi/shareit/EQ3Qy

Curry is currently in the top two for playoffs TS% among all top scorers in NBA history. He is also currently in the top ten all-time for playoffs ppg in a career as well as in finals ppg in a career. That's higher than Kobe, Nowitzki, Kareem, Malone, Shaq, Dr.J, etc. as well as Magic and Bird.

One thing holding Curry back from being properly appreciated from what I can gather is that by being so good over a three year span and doing his thing in different circumstances Curry's splitting the vote among the three years as it were. In 2015 he straight up led his team to a championship. In 2016 he produced an unbelievable year but had to deal with adversity. In 2017 we saw what he could do when the conditions were favorable. And in each case you have people b****ing about stuff answered in one of the other years.

And my response is two words: "team game". Basketball is a team game and Curry is in the discussion for greatest of all-time at raising the level of his team. Curry's individual numbers are so great that many completely miss that isn't his whole game and that his effect on his team is sublime. His efficiency allows team construction that maximizes player strengths and value. The 2015 Warriors were a great defensive team but hopelessly outgunned without Curry's offense but with him their defense was telling. The 2017 Warriors were an offensive juggernaut because Curry is so efficient that adding another great scorer could fit in without being crowded out of the offense. Those teams could be constructed as they were because of Curry.

I agree with nearly everything you said. But that still doesn't change the fact the Warriors had a huge team around Curry, which makes it incomplete to credit him for all what his teams did.

Then Magic, Bird, Russell and maybe even Wilt shouldn't be ahead of him.

That's why saying Curry only won because he has had great teammates is silly. There's over 60 years of NBA history in which there has been opportunity for great rosters to form. A lot of great teams have come and gone yet as stated previously Curry still has a claim to 3 of the 13 67 or more win seasons in NBA history. It cannot even be claimed Curry was the most fortunate in teammates to start his career when even in this generation Durant, Westbrook, and Harden had 2 future MVPs in each other as teammates from near the get go. Meanwhile Curry had a 10th round pick in Klay and a second rounder in Draymond. Who was saying the Warriors were going to be a menace in 2013?

I never said 'he only won...'. I do not live in extremes. I am not willing to credit him for everything what his team did. You are the one with the extreme stance that we have to credit Curry for all of that and that isn't defensibly, because there are 5 guys on the court and even 9-12 in the rotation.

Bolded would be a great point if it wasn't the same team (basically) for all these years. If you have the best team ever and you can keep them together and even improve, then you more than likely will have more than one ATG team. If it would be 3 times on three completely different teams, I guess that would be a clearly better indicator.
Curry was fortunate with the situation he had and how the guys on his teams panned out. You can't measure someones luck based on the draft position of the guys playing with him. Draymond became a monster, that was lucky no matter where he was picked (just as an example).

Basically you're saying Curry was lucky that a team fell into his lap that was better than all the other teams in history including teams that were planned and constructed with the goal of being a superteam. Such luck!

Far exceeded? You sure? KG might have the best +/- numbers ever from what I've heard but Curry has dominated +/- this decade and has +/- records of his own. Curry is probably this era's WOWY darling and at least in Curry's case it has translated to victories so I don't see how either KG or Oscar have a clear case over Curry on this point, it may well be the reverse.

Yes Garnett looks like one of the very best guys along with Lebron and Duncan (and the best Shaq years) in the +/- category with adjustment (like RAPM or RPM), maybe even the best. Curry seems a step below these guys, although of this generation he is the closest to these guys pretty clearly, since only Lebron matches and exceeds him the last few years (sometimes CP3 looked comparable).

In raw +/- Curry seems to be superior.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7wepu0X4AAJfsz.jpg
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stephen-curry-changed-the-game-by-changing-every-game-11559140592

But yes Curry is great in that category in his own right like I said in my first post already.
But again pointing how it 'translated to winning' with Curry is just giving him the credit for a luxury these other guys didn't have, a better team, since individual contribution to point differentials points to all of those guys being highly impactful.

But as noted some of those other guys did have the luxury even longer than Curry and others eventually did get the luxury and still weren't able to produce more or better.

I consider team success an important dimension in assessing the value of a player since basketball is a team game and there are so many factors that go into winning that cannot be isolated and measured individually. If you don't consider it important it is no wonder we are in disagreement about this list, especially when it is Curry's outlier efficiency that arguably makes his teams so potent or even possible. In any event Curry is close to if not the best ever in several statistical measures. Curry has a far more solid all-around case with more corroborating evidence than most of the other players mentioned. That's why as I've said picking so many others ahead of him makes this project a joke.

Team success is very important but only highly contextualized. And you do not apply the needed context.

I want to again say that I didn't even give my own personal opinion on the matter. I just have a problem when someone isn't able to look beyond the self picked facts that support his claim and act offended when someone dares to question his favorite player. Liam brought up justified concerns, that you waved off with incomplete analysis. This is what I responded to.

I can tell you I feel like I am high on Curry and even if I felt like he should have been voted in already I wouldn't say it's a joke when guys that have clear advantages compared to Curry (like KG for example) are in front of him even if I feel these advantages aren't as important.

I am responding to clear logical inconsistencies. I'm providing statistics and facts in response to general feelings. Someone above referred to how a "proper appreciation of KG's defense" should quickly dismiss any Curry comparisons for example.
I would note a proper appreciation of KG's defense saw him defeated in short order while a proper appreciation of Curry's offense on the other hand has required the development of new defensive tactics that have seen big men like KG looking less and less important. I will respond to contempt in equal measure.

[FrogBros4Life]

3) 1975 Bob McAdoo(thanks to whoever it was in the last topic that mentioned Macdoo. Made me take a closer look$
Won league MVP over Cowens by a significant margin(.567 MVP shares) Led his team to the 4th best offense (+5.1 rel)and average defense (-0.1).

Led the league in PPG,MPG, and was 5th in TS% despite having a 4ppg gap over the second highest volume scorer. He has a sizeable gap in OWS (12.7 second is Tiny Archibald at 9). His total WS are +5 over the second highest KAREEM(17.8 vs 12.9). Kareem missed 17 games that year but Mcadoo still had him beat in WS per 48(.242 vs .252)

BPM and vorp still rank him favorably overall(although lower than Kareem) at 4.7 and 6 (top 5).

For me he also had one of the greatest playoff series ever against one of the best defenses ever.

He went up against the Bullet frontcourt duo of Unseld and Hayes. As a team they had a -6.4 rel team D. They had the best SRS in the league and Mcadoo’s Braves forced it to 7.

McAdoo played 46.7 mpg and averaged 37 ppg. He saw a moderate drop in fg and TS% but he averaged an amazing 37% of his team’s offense as his scoring increased while the team’s overall average decreased by 5.

Great post. Love seeing "forgotten" guys like McAdoo getting a nod in projects like these, as he's kind of gotten lost in the shuffle over the years. I don't personally think he should be quite this high up the list, but I don't think it's an indefensible stance based on single/1 year peaks either. I'm glad he's gotten a few mentions either way. Also, I'm not sure it is properly appreciated just how difficult it is to achieve something like the portion of your quote I've bolded. Almost all #1 options see a reduction in FG% in the playoffs as defenses are honing in on them with more perseverance, and better game planning/team coverage. 37% is indeed impressive.

How do you feel about McAdoo v. 1969 Wes Unseld? MVP (and rookie of the year) non-scorer but took basically the same team that was last in the East the year before and despite having HOF PF Gus Johnson miss 33 games (he had missed 22 games the year before), took it to the best record in the league. Unseld is a tough guy for boxscore stats because the two areas where he is arguably the GOAT, outlet passing and screen setting, don't show up very well.

That's a tough, but good question. Unseld is another one of my favorite "forgotten" guys, and he may be the most unique player to ever play the game in terms of how he impacted a game in ways that didn't show up on the stat sheet. You normally see those types of under the radar contributions from your role players, not your cornerstones. I think Unseld was deserving of ROY that year, but was one of the most spurious MVP selections of all time (slightly mitigated by the fact this was a pretty weak MVP race and none of the top 5 guys were particularly eye popping this year -- even still, I have a hard time justifying Unseld as the winner over someone like Wilt, who wasn't even top 5 that year, or Baylor, who I think probably had the strongest overall case for the top 5 guys -- though I think Wilt, West and Baylor playing together all got in each other's way, so to speak, when it came time to vote for the award).

Even though rookie Unseld had his best box score stats, I'd probably go with McAdoo here on a paint by numbers approach. I'm slightly hesitant to do this since we don't have block or steal data for Unseld this year, but since the rebounding and assists are comparable, McAdoo's scoring just looks like it's too far ahead for Wes to make ground in other areas. I can see a case for possibly going with a more seasoned version of Unseld over McAdoo if we are building a contender from scratch, and I think Unseld was a "plug and play" guy who would do well on any team (Unseld is one of the most lauded teammates of anyone I can recall off the top off my head), while I can't say that to the same degree for McAdoo. But McAdoo at his peak, I think, was the overall better player. Maybe not when you take their entire careers into account (in fact, I definitely have Unseld ahead for total career value), but for a single season, I'd roll the dice on Mac.

[Timmyyy]

Curry's season lost value for only making it to the finals but for some reason KG not even getting that far gets a pass because he played "great" whatever that means. And despite this ambiguous at best state of affairs in the post-season we should just ignore the regular season. So to sum up Curry advanced further in the post season and Curry had a better regular season despite it being KG's only MVP season but it was KG's year. I count at least two logical inconsistencies there. But great we have confidence in KG being superior anyway because he was able to have another MVP year right? Uh no. More titles? Nope. More finals appearances? No again. Well...at least KG has longevity.

Yeah exact, CURRY'S value is his TEAM'S result , we ignore that he played significantly worse in the PO's because he is Stephen Curry (you won't understand it I guess).
You should not ignore RS, you should evaluate both RS and PO, but you don't, you only look at RS for 16.
Curry advanced further because of his team not because of him alone.
Where do you get that Curry had the better RS? KG is better according to every RAPM number there is. KG literally had to anchor both defense and offense and still had the higher impact. I don't care about MVP's. KG was MVP level multiple times (2003 though Duncan deserved it and 2008).
What inconsistencies? KG was better in the RS and in the PO's for me resulting in a higher peak. Sorry that I do not look at the team success only to evaluate single players, but inconsistent? Nah.
MVP? Narrative. Titles and Finals? Team accomplishments.

Pffft. As if Magic and Bird didn't have the greatest teams you could ask for. You also seem to miss that Curry can claim not only a higher regular season peak but also a higher playoffs peak than Magic and Bird.

http://bkref.com/pi/shareit/EQ3Qy

Curry is currently in the top two for playoffs TS% among all top scorers in NBA history. He is also currently in the top ten all-time for playoffs ppg in a career as well as in finals ppg in a career. That's higher than Kobe, Nowitzki, Kareem, Malone, Shaq, Dr.J, etc. as well as Magic and Bird.

Yeah ok, since it is your favorite player we are allowed to mix 17 and 16 in a peaks project, alright.

Then Magic, Bird, Russell and maybe even Wilt shouldn't be ahead of him.

You are only black and white, aren't you? I want to extract the impact a guy has on his team. Curry had a great one, but it is not 'he had the best team = he is the best player' like you want it to be. The exact same standard I apply for the other guys.

Basically you're saying Curry was lucky that a team fell into his lap that was better than all the other teams in history including teams that were planned and constructed with the goal of being a superteam. Such luck!

Nope. I said he was fortunate with the situation he had and how certain things played out, but I have the biggest respect for him taking advantage of the situation. Opposed to you who just want to give all the credit to Curry (hey, Dray developed into a monster player! Let's credit Curry for it since Dray was only a 2nd round pick ).

In raw +/- Curry seems to be superior.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7wepu0X4AAJfsz.jpg
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stephen-curry-changed-the-game-by-changing-every-game-11559140592

Ok so we rather take the raw data, since the superior adjusted data doesn't show your favorite player in front.

But as noted some of those other guys did have the luxury even longer than Curry and others eventually did get the luxury and still weren't able to produce more or better.

Teams aren't grouped in good or bad. It is a continuum and Curry had the luck to be on the absolute elite side of things. The others may have had good teams at some point but 1-12 the Warriors from 15-19 might be the best team ever. Curry was part of it, not all of it (for the 1000's time).

I am responding to clear logical inconsistencies. I'm providing statistics and facts in response to general feelings. Someone above referred to how a "proper appreciation of KG's defense" should quickly dismiss any Curry comparisons for example.
I would note a proper appreciation of KG's defense saw him defeated in short order while a proper appreciation of Curry's offense on the other hand has required the development of new defensive tactics that have seen big men like KG looking less and less important. I will respond to contempt in equal measure.

There are no logical inconsistencies no matter how much you would like to see them. I see things different, I don't judge players based on how their teams do, I apply context look at +/-, on/off, WOWY , on court ratings, team ratings, analyze with my eye.
Sometimes my results don't align with the PURE TEAM RESULTS, you are using. So it's no wonder it is inconsistent according to your criteria since I apply a completely different criteria.
You provided team statistics and facts. You would make a great argument for the Warriors being the best team of all time, not for Curry being the best.
I did mostly use my general feeling because I didn't argue my own points and I just wanted you to be a bit more open minded for the other side. But if you want numbers look how KG is way better in the RAPM category than Curry while having a clearly bigger load to handle being the best offensive and defensive player for his team. But hey he didn't even reach the finals right?

I want to let you know that I will drop this. I had such discussions multiple times. Guys with obvious screen names, not willing to give an inch even if it is sooo obvious that their player has flaw x or y, arguing with narratives, MVP's, rings and whatever.

I gave you a lot of thought processes why someone could see Curry lower than you see him, I gave you data that supports KG over Curry. I tried to give you a POV outside of team results and I tried to show you that I am not here to talk down Curry, that there isn't only black and white regarding the team results and who we are supposed to give credit.

All I took away from you is that you repeated the same points 3 times.

Such a discussion isn't giving me anything.

[cecilthesheep]

1. 1964 Oscar Robertson - by far the most complete offensive player remaining; elite floor general in what we now think of as the Chris Paul mold, but also had the size for a Dirk-esque scoring game.

2. 1966 Jerry West - would be my first vote if his scoring and playmaking had peaked at the same time; 1966 is probably the best combo year, plus a ridiculously dominant playoff run (one of many). Great defensive player too, used his length to hawk the ball and bother/block opponents' shots.

3. 1963 Oscar Robertson - same reasoning, second-best year; West's second-place vote between two Oscar years should tell you how close I think they are

[WarriorGM]

Curry's season lost value for only making it to the finals but for some reason KG not even getting that far gets a pass because he played "great" whatever that means. And despite this ambiguous at best state of affairs in the post-season we should just ignore the regular season. So to sum up Curry advanced further in the post season and Curry had a better regular season despite it being KG's only MVP season but it was KG's year. I count at least two logical inconsistencies there. But great we have confidence in KG being superior anyway because he was able to have another MVP year right? Uh no. More titles? Nope. More finals appearances? No again. Well...at least KG has longevity.

Yeah exact, CURRY'S value is his TEAM'S result , we ignore that he played significantly worse in the PO's because he is Stephen Curry (you won't understand it I guess).
You should not ignore RS, you should evaluate both RS and PO, but you don't, you only look at RS for 16.
Curry advanced further because of his team not because of him alone.
Where do you get that Curry had the better RS? KG is better according to every RAPM number there is. KG literally had to anchor both defense and offense and still had the higher impact. I don't care about MVP's. KG was MVP level multiple times (2003 though Duncan deserved it and 2008).
What inconsistencies? KG was better in the RS and in the PO's for me resulting in a higher peak. Sorry that I do not look at the team success only to evaluate single players, but inconsistent? Nah.
MVP? Narrative. Titles and Finals? Team accomplishments.

In raw +/- Curry seems to be superior.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7wepu0X4AAJfsz.jpg
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stephen-curry-changed-the-game-by-changing-every-game-11559140592

Ok so we rather take the raw data, since the superior adjusted data doesn't show your favorite player in front.

Oh how lovely! We have an RAPM lover! Can you give me the formula? Can you explain to me why it is superior to +/-? Do you think it actually ranks players accurately with good enough precision to matter especially in the context of this discussion?