RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #21 (Charles Barkley)

[colts18]

People forget player Stockton because he's been out of the NBA for almost 2 decades now. People look at his stature and don't assume much. Stockton was one of the most physical guards ever. All of his contemporaries said that about him. He was also a heady player who knew all the little tricks.

Here is Stockton initiating contact with Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan fouls him and starts barking at his direction. What does Stockton do? He gets in MJ's face and jaws back at him. He doesn't hesitate or back down at all. Everyone was scared of MJ. Stockton wasn't afraid.

Watch on YouTube

Guys like Curry and Nash would never play physical against MJ despite being similar in size to Stockton. They would always shy away from contact which hurt their value. That's why teams routinely picked them apart in the playoffs (see Curry vs Cavs, Nash vs Tony Parker). Teams couldn't do that Stockton because he wasn't the type of player to shy away from a mismatch.

[Odinn21]

Stockton was sooo good in his career that he was never a top 5 player in the league. I'm sure his BPM ranks will be his case and that'll be it. Nothing more.

Top 5 by seasons;
1988; Jordan, Magic, Bird, Barkley and Olajuwon
1989; Jordan, Magic, Barkley, Olajuwon and Malone
1990; Jordan, Magic, Barkley, Ewing and Malone (it was an interesting postseason from Olajuwon, still Olajuwon was also better than Stockton)
1991; Jordan, Magic, Malone, Barkley, Robinson
1992; Jordan, Malone, Drexler, Ewing, Robinson (the list still goes on with Olajuwon, Barkley and Pippen)
1993; Jordan, Olajuwon, Barkley, Ewing, Robinson
1994; Olajuwon, Robinson, O'Neal, Ewing, Malone
1995; Olajuwon, O'Neal, Robinson, Malone, Barkley
1996; Jordan, Robinson, Malone, Penny, Payton (and Olajuwon)
1997; Jordan, Malone, Olajuwon, Hill, Pippen (then Payton and Ewing)
1998; Jordan, Malone, O'Neal, Payton, Robinson (then Duncan)

These are not only my opinion, they are the results of Retro PotY project (written down in order) and I can't name a single season as Stockton was better than that player.

Did we run out of good enough players to reward Stockton, who was never a top 5 player in the league, for his longevity? Barkley is still on the board, so are Pettit, Wade, Curry, Durant, Nash, Paul, Ewing.
Even ElGee himself has Stockton at #27 and Stockton's strongest suits are really favoured by his approach / evaluation.

[Doctor MJ]

This is all true... in the regular season. Curry's game just isn't resilient against tough playoff defenses, he goes from game-breaking to just a star. For me, it's not even a debate, even in 2016 when Currymania was at its peak, I'd still take Durant that year. Then of course if you care about longevity at all this becomes a non-debate even if you think Curry is better, they're both the same age and Durant's career totals pretty much lap Curry's.

I think Curry vs Harden is a much better debate and honestly without winning bias Harden probably takes that one. As great a RS scorer as Curry is, Harden has surpassed him on that front and is commanding double when he passes half court.

Alright, that gives us a starting point. I'll note and put to the side the stuff about off-ball gravity, evidence of impact statistically, and considerations of locker room effects. And I'll warn you that despite putting that to the side, Imma ramble a bit here.

Okay so, Steph Curry in general is averaging 25+ PPG in the playoffs, so I think it's important to ask what statistically we should be looking at to just Curry as categorically different than Durant. Here's what came to mind to me:

30 point playoff games. Durant's 2017 finals had 5 straight 30 point games. That's the image that's got to be emblazoned in your memory forever. When the big battle came against the team that beat Curry before, Durant was unstoppable.

Alright, so, how many 30 point games do you think Durant & Curry had that year?

Durant had 9, Curry had 7. Doesn't really seem like a huge difference, does it?

I ask this because there's no particular reason to think of the Cavaliers as the ultimate defensive test here, and it certainly doesn't make sense to act like Curry's situation in 2016 was anything remotely analogous to Durant's situation in 2017 given that Durant got to have Curry as his teammate sucking opponents away.

Regardless, here's a bit more data along these lines.

Durant's biggest year by this measure came in 2014 when he had 11 30 point games. His 9 in 2017 was tied with 2012 for his 2nd best ever.

Curry's biggest year by this measure came in 2019 when he had 10 30 point games. He had 9 in 2015, and his 7 in 2017 is his 3rd best showing.

I'm not trying to deny Durant has the edge here, and you can add in that Curry had more games in 2015 or 2016 than Durant did in 2014, but when you look at those numbers, do you really see a categorical difference?

For perspective, Jordan had 8 of these games in the 1991 playoffs. Now he also had 16 the next year so it's not that there isn't evidence of Jordan having a ton of these games, but I think the variance further hammers home the point. There's not a huge difference in the number of big scoring games Durant & Curry have had in the playoffs.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Durant. I'm just really looking to point out that the idea that Durant can just score 30 points every game at will is wrong. He did that in the 2017 Finals against Cleveland. He's never done it in any other series. It came at the perfect time, against an opponent that was literally built to try to stop Durant's teammate, and said teammate was on the floor with him.

Last thing I'll note:

It is of course interesting that Curry's best year came in 2019 where Durant and Thompson got injured, and Curry responded by 8 30 point games out of the next 11.

I've said before and I'll say again that I think players tend to hit their value-peak before their bulletproof-peak. I think with Curry the value-peak came in 2016 but the bulletproof-peak was basically on hold as long as Durant was there. If Curry's healthy I expect more of this.

And of course, I do understand a perspective of "And when I see that, I'll bump Curry up", but I suppose what I'm really getting here is that I don't think there's really much basis for assuming Curry won't improve his bulletproof armor over time like basically any other savvy scorer, and I think our perspective on him and Durant got skewed by an unusual set of circumstances that doesn't really reflect a clear difference between them as players like people tend to think it does.

[Doctor MJ]

I ask this because I think the reality is that what the Warriors did over this half decade not only isn't just the most dominant half decade since Russell's Celtics. It might be the most dominant run we ever get to see.

I think this might be an overstatement though.

Just a quick statistical comparison;

The Warriors from 2015 to 2019
62.8 W and 61.8 xW per season, +8.79 SRS (+0.70 gap to the next best values) and +9.0 NRtg (+0.4 gap to the next best values), 77-28 postseason record (.733), 5 NBA Finals, 3 NBA Titles

The Bulls from 1991 to 1998 in Jordan's full seasons *
64.7 W and 64.3 xW per season, +9.10 SRS (+1.71 gap to the next best values) and +10.1 NRtg (+1.9 gap to the next best values), 90-26 postseason record (.776), 6 NBA Finals, 6 NBA Titles

If you say not having 1994 and 1995 is not accurate, I might agree with that. Jordan's absence is really two edged sword, messes up with context. Even with those two seasons included, it's 6 NBA Finals in 8 seasons and 101-35 postseason record (.743) which is still better than what the Warriors had and it's 3 season longer.

I will concede that the Bulls from 1991 to 1998 in total had more success than the Warriors from 2012 to 2019.

I cannot let Jordan's baseball vacation go unmentioned though as we watch the Warriors try to pick themselves up after actually keeping up their run for 5 years instead of stopping their June performances after 3.

[Jaivl]

Guys like Curry and Nash would never play physical against MJ despite being similar in size to Stockton. They would always shy away from contact which hurt their value. That's why teams routinely picked them apart in the playoffs (see Curry vs Cavs, Nash vs Tony Parker). Teams couldn't do that Stockton because he wasn't the type of player to shy away from a mismatch.

Wow, this is probably the wrongest post ever made.

And I don't even know which part is more wrong: Nash getting exposed by Parker (you mean Game 3 in 2008? It certainly did not happen in 2005, 2007 or 2010) or Stockton never being picked apart (ask Terry Porter or Gary Payton).

[Joey Wheeler]

This is all true... in the regular season. Curry's game just isn't resilient against tough playoff defenses, he goes from game-breaking to just a star. For me, it's not even a debate, even in 2016 when Currymania was at its peak, I'd still take Durant that year. Then of course if you care about longevity at all this becomes a non-debate even if you think Curry is better, they're both the same age and Durant's career totals pretty much lap Curry's.

I think Curry vs Harden is a much better debate and honestly without winning bias Harden probably takes that one. As great a RS scorer as Curry is, Harden has surpassed him on that front and is commanding double when he passes half court.

Alright, that gives us a starting point. I'll note and put to the side the stuff about off-ball gravity, evidence of impact statistically, and considerations of locker room effects. And I'll warn you that despite putting that to the side, Imma ramble a bit here.

Okay so, Steph Curry in general is averaging 25+ PPG in the playoffs, so I think it's important to ask what statistically we should be looking at to just Curry as categorically different than Durant. Here's what came to mind to me:

30 point playoff games. Durant's 2017 finals had 5 straight 30 point games. That's the image that's got to be emblazoned in your memory forever. When the big battle came against the team that beat Curry before, Durant was unstoppable.

Alright, so, how many 30 point games do you think Durant & Curry had that year?

Durant had 9, Curry had 7. Doesn't really seem like a huge difference, does it?

I ask this because there's no particular reason to think of the Cavaliers as the ultimate defensive test here, and it certainly doesn't make sense to act like Curry's situation in 2016 was anything remotely analogous to Durant's situation in 2017 given that Durant got to have Curry as his teammate sucking opponents away.

Regardless, here's a bit more data along these lines.

Durant's biggest year by this measure came in 2014 when he had 11 30 point games. His 9 in 2017 was tied with 2012 for his 2nd best ever.

Curry's biggest year by this measure came in 2019 when he had 10 30 point games. He had 9 in 2015, and his 7 in 2017 is his 3rd best showing.

I'm not trying to deny Durant has the edge here, and you can add in that Curry had more games in 2015 or 2016 than Durant did in 2014, but when you look at those numbers, do you really see a categorical difference?

For perspective, Jordan had 8 of these games in the 1991 playoffs. Now he also had 16 the next year so it's not that there isn't evidence of Jordan having a ton of these games, but I think the variance further hammers home the point. There's not a huge difference in the number of big scoring games Durant & Curry have had in the playoffs.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Durant. I'm just really looking to point out that the idea that Durant can just score 30 points every game at will is wrong. He did that in the 2017 Finals against Cleveland. He's never done it in any other series. It came at the perfect time, against an opponent that was literally built to try to stop Durant's teammate, and said teammate was on the floor with him.

Last thing I'll note:

It is of course interesting that Curry's best year came in 2019 where Durant and Thompson got injured, and Curry responded by 8 30 point games out of the next 11.

I've said before and I'll say again that I think players tend to hit their value-peak before their bulletproof-peak. I think with Curry the value-peak came in 2016 but the bulletproof-peak was basically on hold as long as Durant was there. If Curry's healthy I expect more of this.

And of course, I do understand a perspective of "And when I see that, I'll bump Curry up", but I suppose what I'm really getting here is that I don't think there's really much basis for assuming Curry won't improve his bulletproof armor over time like basically any other savvy scorer, and I think our perspective on him and Durant got skewed by an unusual set of circumstances that doesn't really reflect a clear difference between them as players like people tend to think it does.

That's a strange route to go, points per game. Surely I didn't claim Curry can't score 30 in playoff games. That said, if you want to go ppg, his best season is still below Durant's career average, Durant is clearly a more consistent volume scorer in the playoff. He's just clearly superior as a scorer and this holds up on the biggest stage, the 3 most efficient high scoring Finals series in history are Durant's 3 appearances.

But even if you think, Curry is a better player (which I couldn't disagree with more):

Points:

RS:

Durant - 22940
Curry - 16419

PS:

Durant - 4043
Curry - 2968

Other stats tell the same stories. All-NBA teams if you care about that, Durant has 9 (6 first team), Curry has 5 (3 first team).

Durant has a very clear longevity advantage, also more accolades with his scoring titles and 2 FMVPs. You'd have to either completely ignore longevity or think Curry is better by a really large margin (which strikes me as a very out there position to hold) to have Curry ahead.

Can we talk about why Curry is even ahead of Harden btw? Same draft, Harden is clearly ahead by most cumulative numbers and has had clearly more MVP-level seasons. No titles, but let's be real the reason the Warriors beat the Rockets was not Curry being superior to Harden, if they switched teams the results would most likely remain the same.

[Dutchball97]

1. Kevin Durant - I've been voting him since well inside the top 15 and I hope I can move on to the next pick after this round. My criteria are about someone's prime (seasons that are clearly below prime level add value but not much compared to other All-Time greats), I see the play-offs much more important than regular season and I do have a form of "winning bias" (not so much number of titles but making consistent deep post-season runs isn't something I'll just give to guys like KG or D-Rob based on what they might've done with better teammates).

I think KD's prime is very good and better than several players ahead of him. His peak performances in the regular season and play-offs are both elite and he has more than enough years close to these peaks to show it wasn't a fluke. I've also given arguments for KD as a very consistent play-off performer based on achieving similar WS and VORP in the play-offs as Karl Malone, in much less games.

2. Steph Curry - I think the KD against Curry comparison is worthwhile and before this project I was actually leaning towards Curry. I also still believe Curry, like KD, should've been higher. Relative dominance is also very important to me and Curry probably has the best case on that front as well. I've been adamant about not putting too much value on longevity but with Curry it does make me more cautious. He's pretty much had about 5 years on top now, which isn't bad but it's closer to Kawhi level longevity instead of Bird/Magic/KD.

3. Charles Barkley - I didn't even consider Kawhi but when looking at it, he really doesn't have much worse longevity than Curry with a higher play-offs peak. I think 2019 Kawhi is better than any KD or Curry play-off run, his 2017 run was on an even greater trajectory before getting injured. The 2016 and 2020 runs are also prime level runs, which puts him at 4 strong runs compared to Curry's 5. However, Kawhi also has the 2013 and 2014 finals where he played a valuable role. Nobody else has even mentioned him yet so I'll wait before he gets a bit more traction before championing him.

The guy I actually went for here is Barkley. He might not have won a title but like I said in the KD part, it's less about winning titles than it is making deep play-off runs. Barkley has pretty much everything you could want out of a player. He has a long prime, strong peak, consistent play-off performer, etc.

[70sFan]

Yeah, even though I view Curry as better player peak-wise than KD - Durant has singificant longevity advantage. Both have health issues so Curry doesn't close the gap even in this aspect.

[The-Power]

That said, if you want to go ppg, his best season is still below Durant's career average, Durant is clearly a more consistent volume scorer in the playoff. He's just clearly superior as a scorer and this holds up on the biggest stage, the 3 most efficient high scoring Finals series in history are Durant's 3 appearances.

Is he? Playoffs per 100 possession numbers:

Durant: 36.9 on 59.7% TS (139 Games)
Curry: 34.8 on 60.9% TS (112 Games)

Seems pretty comparable to me. Now, you can argue that Durant would look a bit better if we excluded his two first playoff years where he was pretty young, and that him playing more minutes per game is something to not neglect – that's fine. Maybe he's a bit more consistent; I'm not sure but it's possible, I'd have to take a look at game-to-game variation over their playoff careers. Of course there are good reasons for arguing that Curry's superior playmaking and gravitational impact meant that the could leverage the threat of his scoring better compared to Durant who's a different type of scorer (more individual match-up focused).

But even if we disregard that and give Durant some additional plus points for playing higher MPG and a higher share of games when he was younger, there's by no means a gulf between them as scorers. They are also pretty comparable scorers by the numbers for the RS during their respective primes (with Durant, however, starting scoring at higher levels earlier than Curry did, i.e. Durant certainly has longevity advantages as a scorer).

Also, while I understand the value of the Finals, they tend to be overemphasized quite a bit. Or are you implying that the stakes in the Western Conference Finals are not high, and that someone that's absolutely elite in WCF series suddenly struggles in the Finals because defenses tighten up or stakes become higher? That's not at all plausible to me. And Curry is probably one of the GOAT WCF performers, for that matter.

2015: 31/5/6/2 with 3 TOV on 68% TS vs. Houston (4–1)
2016: 28/6/6/2 with 4 TOV on 61% TS vs. OKC (4–3)
2017: 32/6/5/3 with 4 TOV on 73% TS vs. Spurs (4–0)
2018: 25/7/6/2 with 2.5 TOV on 58% TS vs. Houston (4–3)
2019: 37/8/7/1 with 3.5 TOV on 66% TS vs. Blazers (4–0)

And when we (rightfully) give Durant credit for his Finals with the Warriors, we must at the same time acknowledge Curry's Finals performances during the same timespan – anything else wouldn't be justifiable. The 2017 Finals MVP could have easily gone to Curry with his numbers and impact, I'd argue, although Durant's ATG scoring numbers made him an obvious choice for voters. 2018 wasn't as efficient but still very good overall, and not something a lot of players do in the Finals.

In 2017: 27/8/9/2 with 4 TOV on 62% TS
In 2018: 28/6/7/2 with 3 TOV on 56% TS

And of course in 2019, with Durant injured at the very beginning of the series and against an elite defensive team, Curry put up a fight that is much more impressive than usually acknowledged:

2019: 31/5/6/2 with 3 TOV on 60% TS

Even the 2015 Finals are better than people who cite it as evidence that Curry's performance drops at the highest stage are generally willing to admit, even though he certainly didn't quite play up to his high RS standard. So that leaves 2016, where he was hobbled but still very clearly underperformed. That's on him, no doubt.

Still, there's nothing to suggest that Curry's game doesn't translate pretty well into the playoffs.Yes, it's a step down from the RS (GOAT-level) but that's true for most players, including Durant, for obvious reasons; namely that you tend to face higher ranked, more prepared and more energetic defenses. Some players, that also established elite baselines for the RS performances, are not impacted by this to the same extent but it's not something to focus on with Curry in particular either.

There are also a number of instances in which Curry's performance within a series improved when the stakes got higher (2015 Memphis after being down 2-1, 2016 OKC after being down 3-1, 2018 Houston after being down 3-2). In other words, defenses trying even harder or being able to scout him more intensively didn't lead to drop-offs towards the end of playoff series, indicating relative resilience (or even the ability to raise his game in tougher moments) even though Curry's game will always have some more fluctuation in terms of individual numbers from game to game by virtue of him taking shots with higher degrees of variance. If you prefer more steady players, in terms of scoring, that's fine – but there's not a fundamental issue with Curry's scoring game dropping off consistently when it matters.

On a last note, I'll say that this only looks at box score numbers. There's a lot more to Curry, and every other player, than this. With Curry, you have the unique situation that his off-ball game and the type of gravity he generates is unlike anything we've seen before (not to say that other players weren't elite off the ball, or had extreme gravity – but they did it differently). It's incumbent on each of us to decide how valuable that is and how it is to be factored in the evaluation, and if the playoffs setting takes some of his regular season gravitational impact away or not. You may want to consider leadership and impact on winning cultures, too, as well as ability to play well next to other good players. There are also things to consider that can hurt Curry beyond the boxscore, such as health and being a possible target on defense.

Hence, this isn't to argue that Curry is flawless or that there aren't legitimate arguments for other players to be ranked ahead of him even beyond longevity (which, of course, is a very valid point depending on your criteria). However, I want to emphasize that as far as I can see it, a lot of the arguments against Curry as a playoff performer are based more on constructed narratives than observable facts in addition to important context. This especially relates to the Finals, where Curry has indeed shown that he can play at FMVP-level on multiple occasions by now despite not having won one, and the notion that the Finals are so much more indicative of a player's ability to perform when it really matters than the WCF or highly competitive 1st/2nd round series.

[Joey Wheeler]

Yeah, even though I view Curry as better player peak-wise than KD - Durant has singificant longevity advantage. Both have health issues so Curry doesn't close the gap even in this aspect.

How do you view Curry vs Harden?

I don't understand why we're just assuming Curry is ahead, let alone by a significant margin; both began their prime at around the same time and Harden has certainly accrued more RS value and is the more durable player by a distance; both have struggles in the playoffs, but Curry has had a team that can win entire series without him.

Points:

RS:

Harden - 20962
Curry - 16419

PS:

Harden - 3009
Curry - 2968

All-NBA selections:

Harden - 7 (6 first team)
Curry 5 (3 first team)

Harden has also had another elite season in 2020 while Curry basically missed the entire season.

For Curry to be ahead, you'd have to argue the reason for the Warriors playoff success over the Rockets was Curry being better/outplaying Harden and that's a very difficult and far fetched argument to make, in fact in a couple of those series Harden was clearly better (namely 2019).

[Joey Wheeler]

That said, if you want to go ppg, his best season is still below Durant's career average, Durant is clearly a more consistent volume scorer in the playoff. He's just clearly superior as a scorer and this holds up on the biggest stage, the 3 most efficient high scoring Finals series in history are Durant's 3 appearances.

Is he? Playoffs per 100 possession numbers:

Durant: 36.9 on 59.7% TS (139 Games)
Curry: 34.8 on 60.9% TS (112 Games)

Seems pretty comparable to me. Now, you can argue that Durant would look a bit better if we excluded his two first playoff years where he was pretty young, and that him playing more minutes per game is something to not neglect – that's fine. Maybe he's a bit more consistent; I'm not sure but it's possible, I'd have to take a look at game-to-game variation over their playoff careers. Of course there are good reasons for arguing that Curry's superior playmaking and gravitational impact meant that the could leverage the threat of his scoring better compared to Durant who's a different type of scorer (more individual match-up focused).

But even if we disregard that and give Durant some additional plus points for playing higher MPG and a higher share of games when he was younger, there's by no means a gulf between them as scorers. They are also pretty comparable scorers by the numbers for the RS during their respective primes (with Durant, however, starting scoring at higher levels earlier than Curry did, i.e. Durant certainly has longevity advantages as a scorer).

Also, while I understand the value of the Finals, they tend to be overemphasized quite a bit. Or are you implying that the stakes in the Western Conference Finals are not high, and that someone that's absolutely elite in WCF series suddenly struggles in the Finals because defenses tighten up or stakes become higher? That's not at all plausible to me. And Curry is probably one of the GOAT WCF performers, for that matter.

2015: 31/5/6/2 with 3 TOV on 68% TS vs. Houston (4–1)
2016: 28/6/6/2 with 4 TOV on 61% TS vs. OKC (4–3)
2017: 32/6/5/3 with 4 TOV on 73% TS vs. Spurs (4–0)
2018: 25/7/6/2 with 2.5 TOV on 58% TS vs. Houston (4–3)
2019: 37/8/7/1 with 3.5 TOV on 66% TS vs. Blazers (4–0)

And when we (rightfully) give Durant credit for his Finals with the Warriors, we must at the same time acknowledge Curry's Finals performances during the same timespan – anything else wouldn't be justifiable. The 2017 Finals MVP could have easily gone to Curry with his numbers and impact, I'd argue, although Durant's ATG scoring numbers made him an obvious choice for voters. 2018 wasn't as efficient but still very good overall, and not something a lot of players do in the Finals.

In 2017: 27/8/9/2 with 4 TOV on 62% TS
In 2018: 28/6/7/2 with 3 TOV on 56% TS

And of course in 2019, with Durant injured at the very beginning of the series and against an elite defensive team, Curry put up a fight that is much more impressive than usually acknowledged:

2019: 31/5/6/2 with 3 TOV on 60% TS

Even the 2015 Finals are better than people who cite it as evidence that Curry's performance drops at the highest stage are generally willing to admit, even though he certainly didn't quite play up to his high RS standard. So that leaves 2016, where he was hobbled but still very clearly underperformed. That's on him, no doubt.

Still, there's nothing to suggest that Curry's game doesn't translate pretty well into the playoffs.Yes, it's a step down from the RS (GOAT-level) but that's true for most players, including Durant, for obvious reasons; namely that you tend to face higher ranked, more prepared and more energetic defenses. Some players, that also established elite baselines for the RS performances, are not impacted by this to the same extent but it's not something to focus on with Curry in particular either.

There are also a number of instances in which Curry's performance within a series improved when the stakes got higher (2015 Memphis after being down 2-1, 2016 OKC after being down 3-1, 2018 Houston after being down 3-2). In other words, defenses trying even harder or being able to scout him more intensively didn't lead to drop-offs towards the end of playoff series, indicating relative resilience (or even the ability to raise his game in tougher moments) even though Curry's game will always have some more fluctuation in terms of individual numbers from game to game by virtue of him taking shots with higher degrees of variance. If you prefer more steady players, in terms of scoring, that's fine – but there's not a fundamental issue with Curry's scoring game dropping off consistently when it matters.

On a last note, I'll say that this only looks at box score numbers. There's a lot more to Curry, and every other player, than this. With Curry, you have the unique situation that his off-ball game and the type of gravity he generates is unlike anything we've seen before (not to say that other players weren't elite off the ball, or had extreme gravity – but they did it differently). It's incumbent on each of us to decide how valuable that is and how it is to be factored in the evaluation, and if the playoffs setting takes some of his regular season gravitational impact away or not. You may want to consider leadership and impact on winning cultures, too, as well as ability to play well next to other good players. There are also things to consider that can hurt Curry beyond the boxscore, such as health and being a possible target on defense.

Hence, this isn't to argue that Curry is flawless or that there aren't legitimate arguments for other players to be ranked ahead of him even beyond longevity (which, of course, is a very valid point depending on your criteria). However, I want to emphasize that as far as I can see it, a lot of the arguments against Curry as a playoff performer are based more on constructed narratives than observable facts in addition to important context. This especially relates to the Finals, where Curry has indeed shown that he can play at FMVP-level on multiple occasions by now despite not having won one, and the notion that the Finals are so much more indicative of a player's ability to perform when it really matters than the WCF or highly competitive 1st/2nd round series.

2.1 points per 100 possessions is not such a small difference + yes Durant started his playoff career much earlier, which is tied into his longevity advantage of course. If we compare the 3 years they played together, this advantage is clear as well. Of course Curry himself is an all-time scorer so the gap isn't going to be colossal, but Durant is ahead. Plus, Durant is super efficient on shots that teams can't really take away, the value of making tough contested shots increases the deeper you go into the playoffs; Curry's primary mode of scoring is open 3s, which become harder and harder to come by as you progress into the playoffs.

I agree Curry is not a bad playoff performer per se and he has had great series. But the drop is relevant; he goes from looking like an offensive GOAT to just being a great offensive player, who can be shut down for significant stretches, even entire series. But yes, overall based on offense you could still argue Curry on this range or higher ignoring longevity. He's still a strong scorer with gravity provided by his shooting threat. But in the playoffs due to his size Curry is also a defensive target, he can be exploited on that end in a way someone like Durant can't.

That said, the reason why this comparison should be a non-starter is the gap in longevity; you'd have to think Curry is better by a large margin to have him ahead and I don't see that as remotely arguable. They were closeish whatever way you look at it from 2016 to 2019; before that it was Durant by a large margin overall. If we're going to ignore longevity, we might as well bring up Anthony Davis, who's just had a more dominant playoff run than either Durant or Curry are capable of considering two-way dominance, or Kawhi Leonard, who's shown a higher level in the playoffs than Curry as well.

[70sFan]

Yeah, even though I view Curry as better player peak-wise than KD - Durant has singificant longevity advantage. Both have health issues so Curry doesn't close the gap even in this aspect.

How do you view Curry vs Harden?

I don't understand why we're just assuming Curry is ahead, let alone by a significant margin; both began their prime at around the same time and Harden has certainly accrued more RS value and is the more durable player by a distance; both have struggles in the playoffs, but Curry has had a team that can win entire series without him.

Points:

RS:

Harden - 20962
Curry - 16419

PS:

Harden - 3009
Curry - 2968

All-NBA selections:

Harden - 7 (6 first team)
Curry 5 (3 first team)

Harden has also had another elite season in 2020 while Curry basically missed the entire season.

For Curry to be ahead, you'd have to argue the reason for the Warriors playoff success over the Rockets was Curry being better/outplaying Harden and that's a very difficult and far fetched argument to make, in fact in a couple of those series Harden was clearly better (namely 2019).

I'd have to think about it a bit more. To me Curry, KD and Harden are quite close and I may underrate Harden if anything. I do think that Curry peaked higher and I like his impact more overall, but Harden is another one with better longevity and comparable overall prime.

[Odinn21]

Yeah, even though I view Curry as better player peak-wise than KD - Durant has singificant longevity advantage. Both have health issues so Curry doesn't close the gap even in this aspect.

I'd like to see your top 5 seasons lists for Wade, Curry, Durant, Paul and Harden. And an overall 20 seasons list among them.

The thread about top 10 seasons between Durant and Harden made me realize that even though Durant's prime was/is longer, it just didn't stack enough.

[trex_8063]

1st vote: Charles Barkley
One of the greatest offensive forwards ever, imo. Led THE LEAGUE in TS% for four consecutive years while averaging anywhere from 23-28.3 ppg. Multiple other high scoring seasons at ~60+% TS, and a career 12.5% OREB% (once led the league in this as well [in the same year he led the league in TS%]), as well as being a more than capable passing forward. Just a tremendous [GOAT-tier] foul-draw capacity, devastating finisher (both in the half-court and in transition), excellent at passing out of doubles, and capable of taking the point on the fast-break.
You watch young Barkley and you see one of the most uniquely athletic players of all-time. Only 6'5", but long arms, strong as a bull, fast in the open court, and able to explode almost effortlessly from a two-footed jump.

Barkley ticks most of the "accomplishment" boxes, except for having a title; but that's hardly a requisite [imo] at this stage of the list.
His biggest weaknesses are that he didn't take care of himself tremendously well (but he still played >39,000 minutes in 16 seasons), and his defensive shortcomings by the mid-point of his career and after are at times glaring.
But still a worthy candidate at this stage.


2nd vote: John Stockton
I'll keep it short 'cause I'm out of time. Yeah, meaningful longevity matters to me: Stockton was valuable (almost a borderline All-Star calibre player) even in his 19th and final season (every metric, including the impact variety, bare this to be true).
So clever (and dirty), particularly defensively, excellent shooter, fantastic [if a touch overly "safe"] passer; and bloody tough as nails.
While I don't think he attained the offensive heights of Steve Nash, he so thoroughly trumps Nash as a defender AND in terms of longevity that I have him comfortably ahead in an all-time sense.
Vs Chris Paul: I feel Paul was a similar offensive engine in the rs, and a bit better where the playoffs are concerned. He's also every bit Stockton's peer (probably a bit better, actually) defensively. This is what pulls him roughly even, despite lesser longevity. I could [and have] flip their order relative to each other.
I imagine I'll be championing him for awhile before others are willing to give him votes, so I'll have to work up some more extensive arguments at a later time.


3rd vote: Chris Paul
I think Paul suffers severely in the esteems of the media and casual fans alike because he's a pass-first PG (which limits ppg), because he's not been to the finals, and a relative lack of flash.
But this is a player who is 9th all-time in career PER (despite a career lasting 15 seasons, >1000 games, >35,000 minutes), 14th in WS (12th in NBA-only careers), and 7th in VORP.
In the playoffs he's got the 10th-best career PER of all-time (ahead of contemporaries like Dirk, Kawhi, Steph Curry, and James Harden), as well as being 34th in WS and 24th in VORP (despite never making a run as deep as the finals).

In terms of impact, his best 10 years RAPM added is 5th among those players we have the data for. Only Lebron, Garnett, Duncan, and Shaq exceed him in this (all of them already voted in, the nearest being 8 places ago)......which means he's AHEAD of contemporaries like Dirk and Wade. He's also ahead of the best 10-years of Charles Barkley, fwiw (and we have some pseudo-RAPM going back as far as '88 for Barkley).

While I think Paul's fallen slightly short of the offensive peaks attained by Nash or Magic (I think his relative conservatism holds him back), it's notable that he combines the offense he does provide [GOAT-tier mid-range shooting, GOAT-tier turnover economy] with frequently being one of the best defensive PG's of his generation: he's short, but thick, strong, and aggressive. He's not easily abused even by bigger guards, doesn't die on screens, is persistently pesky on ball [with quick hands], and is impeccable in his positioning to interfere with the slip pass on pnr defense. Rebounds reasonably well for his size, too (obviously well shy of Magic in this regard, not that Magic is on the table for comparison presently).


I'll again go with this order for now, although as I stated previously: these three feel very fluid to me, so I'm not married to a specific order permanently. Kinda feeling Barkley right now. Between Stockton and Paul, some criticisms of Paul's leadership intangibles have come to mind, as well as slight concerns over sort of underwhelming [relative to rs expectation] playoff rORTG's on his teams. Combined with Stockton's solid longevity edge, I'm still opting to go with Stockton in front for now, even though I obviously feel Paul peaked higher overall.

If, by chance, I'm ghosted and this comes down to a decision between Durant and Curry, I'm gonna have to go with Durant [sorry Doc]. It's mostly a longevity edge. I do think Curry peaked [marginally] higher, but he's missed a similar amount of time [in both playoffs and rs] as Durant, despite his career being two years shorter. At this point Durant has played 150 extra rs games and >7,300 extra rs minutes.....he has larger playoff totals played, too.
I also note that Durant "got good" slightly quicker in his NBA career too. I all adds up to a pretty substantial edge in terms of value added [because I only think Curry was very slightly better].

[Hornet Mania]

I do understand longevity as an argument, but a thought to consider on the subject, which I'm not saying applies to you Hornet Mania:

Suppose this is the end of the Warriors' run. Suppose both Steph & Klay seem wrecked going forward. All used up, achieving what they did.

Curry's probably already played more basketball than Mikan ever did.

If it was enough for Mikan to do what he did only as long as he did because circumstances used up his body, and Curry's got used up a bit later because circumstances, why isn't that enough for Curry?

I'm not whining here, I'm asking, what precisely are we missing that would fundamentally change how we see his longevity?

Surely we're not talking about another dynasty because if he does that, then we're talking about a GOAT candidate.

We've got to be talking about something impressive but not so impressive that it fundamentally changes are notion of what he was capable of. Maybe we're talking a Damian Lillard impression for...how long? How long would it be before it shifted your sense of what Curry accomplished?

I ask this because I think the reality is that what the Warriors did over this half decade not only isn't just the most dominant half decade since Russell's Celtics. It might be the most dominant run we ever get to see.

And if you're a franchise, isn't that what you're after? Do you really think a few more years of Dame level success would fundamentally change what Curry's time meant for you?

I'm not asking these questions trying to play "Gotcha" and trick y'all into coming over to the other side, I'm just asking you to really think about why what matters to you matters to you, and why others might see it differently.

No worries, I don't mind the questions at all and the discussion helps me understand what everyone else values. Personally I'm always struggling to weigh peak and longevity and somehow find a happy medium, it's tough to be consistent though with these candidates having such different resumes. I'm up front about the fact I give longevity a slight edge when push comes to shove, and ultimately that's what holds Curry back a bit in my own estimation.

When it comes down to it if I can have a top 3 player in the world for 7 years (Curry) or a top 5-7 player in the world for 12+ seasons I'd rather have the player who gives me a bigger window to build. The more shots you get at making a run with a legitimate championship-caliber player the more likely you are to come away with titles. I tend to rate longevity freaks like Kareem, Malone and Stockton higher than most as a result.

I can completely understand the other side of the coin though, it's not unreasonable to counter that the absolute best player in the world gives you a better title chance than anything else. From that point of view those seasons are so significantly more valuable it outweighs the potential at more total attempts from a lesser superstar. I can't quite come around to that view, but I get it and I wouldn't begrudge anyone for looking at it that way.

I think the other difference between you and I on Curry (not trying to be combative, just explaining where I'm at) is that I don't see his peak as quite as GOAT-like. It's certainly high for me, but still outside my top 5. I attribute Golden State's success pre-Durant to a confluence of several happy accidents that came together beautifully to create a team larger than the sum of its parts. Curry is obviously the GOAT shooter, but Klay Thompson is also a top 5 shooter all-time and it's the two of them together that just make every game seem like an onslaught. In addition Green was one of the best possible connecting pieces on offense while also allowing them to play a lineup that milked the Curry/Klay advantage for all it's worth without getting killed defensively.

I also don't see view the Dubs run as quite as historically incredible. I do rate them highly (for example, I simply cannot understand the folks who somehow believe the Cavs were a better team when healthy pre-Durant), but among dynastic runs I'd put them below Shaq/Kobe in this century and then below the 90s Bulls and Russell's Celtics also. They were never quite as dominant in the playoffs as they were in the RS, and while I laugh off the claims that means they were somehow fraudulent I do think it points to their style being blunted a bit with the additional defensive intensity.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Steve Nash
2. Charles Barkley
3. Steph Curry

Nash is the best Offensive Player and Engine left out of the remaining pool. His ability to up his game in the post-season is unique and his consistency is at the level of Magic/Oscar as an offensive force.

Charles is another consistent post-season performer who routinely delivered on Sundays. His offensive rebounding allowed him to be one of the most efficient scorer in NBA History and his defensive rebounding helped cover up his weaknesses as a defender. His longevity puts him ahead of the rest of his "tier" for me.

Steph Curry is different than my last couple of #3's but I have been wavering between 6 or 7 players. His peak is up there with Nash/Barkley and it is sustained throughout his prime unlike others. I'm still unsure on Pettit and feel as if I can't get a good read on him (Likely closer to #25).

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
1. Kevin Durant
2. Steph Curry
3. John Stockton

I'm taking KD here for the reasons I've told.

Superb peak, great scorer, can get his shot over anyone, good longevity, among the best left in accodales.

There is a reason why everyone felt it was cheating with him going to the Warriors - they were a very good team and because he's such an easy fit next to anyone it made em unbeatable.

Longevity over Steph, peak and prime over Stockton. KD has been a top 5 player in the league since 2012 at least with the exception of last year. That is a lot.

[Bidofo]

Been busy with some real life stuff that's prevented me from voting for most of the project. I couldn't find the time to make analysis like I did in the beginning, and I probably still won't have time in the near future, so I'll just be watching from the sidelines and chime in here and there. I've been reading along the whole way though and the discussion in these threads have been superb.

[Joey Wheeler]

Yeah, even though I view Curry as better player peak-wise than KD - Durant has singificant longevity advantage. Both have health issues so Curry doesn't close the gap even in this aspect.

How do you view Curry vs Harden?

I don't understand why we're just assuming Curry is ahead, let alone by a significant margin; both began their prime at around the same time and Harden has certainly accrued more RS value and is the more durable player by a distance; both have struggles in the playoffs, but Curry has had a team that can win entire series without him.

Points:

RS:

Harden - 20962
Curry - 16419

PS:

Harden - 3009
Curry - 2968

All-NBA selections:

Harden - 7 (6 first team)
Curry 5 (3 first team)

Harden has also had another elite season in 2020 while Curry basically missed the entire season.

For Curry to be ahead, you'd have to argue the reason for the Warriors playoff success over the Rockets was Curry being better/outplaying Harden and that's a very difficult and far fetched argument to make, in fact in a couple of those series Harden was clearly better (namely 2019).

I'd have to think about it a bit more. To me Curry, KD and Harden are quite close and I may underrate Harden if anything. I do think that Curry peaked higher and I like his impact more overall, but Harden is another one with better longevity and comparable overall prime.

So we agree it's close. I see no reason for Curry to get traction in this list before Harden.

I see Durant a tier ahead of both with his more playoff resilient skillset and historic Finals performances, better accolades, etc...

I see, however, no meaningful separation between Curry and Harden. In fact I find it much easier to make the argument for Harden tbh. Curry's main advantage is playoff success at the team level, but again I don't think anyone would argue the Warriors beat the Rockets in those series and won titles because of Curry's superiority.

[eminence]

It is 7 total but in the sense of an all time level only 5-6 really count. I don't see how a case can be made for him as top 20-22 based on those 5-6 seasons but to each his own. Mikan got in on 8 seasons but he is kind of a special case given his level of dominance/titles.

Which seasons would you say don't count on an Alltime level?

2013 but it would also probably be good to set some sort of parameters on what would really qualify as all time level if we're going to bother to debate it. I think of all time level as something like top 3 in the league or close to what a top 10-15 player generally did in their prime.

That seems like a really high bar for relevancy (and arguably Curry even met it in '13, finishing 4th in our RPOY voting that season). A simple average of MVP/RPOY shares as a proxy, for guys I've seen with some support in the last few threads.

Pettit 3.57
Durant 3.08
Harden 2.87
Curry 2.58
Barkley 2.23
CP3 2.11
Baylor 1.92
Nash 1.87
Wade 1.70
Stockton 0.14