RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #24 (Stephen Curry)

[eminence]

Not sure how to embed one of these here, so here's a link.

https://public.tableau.com/views/PeriodRAPM/EraRAPM?:language=en&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link

But basically I think any questions of Curry's impact numbers are absolutely absurd.

4 different 5 year eras ('97-'01, '02-'06, '07-'11, '12-'16). Curry's '12-'16 ranks:

Offensively
+9.2 Nash '07-'11
+8.2 LeBron '12-'16
+8.1 Dirk '02-'06/MJ '97-'01
5th +7.9 Curry '12-'16

Overall
+11.5 LeBron '12-'16
+11.2 LeBron '07-'11
+10.9 KG 02-'06
+9.9 MJ '97-'01
T-5th +9.8 Curry/CP3 '12-'16

So, doesn't this support the notion that it's not indefensible to have Curry and CP3 at a similar peak, and that Curry does indeed fall short of LeBron and Nash offensively?

Because those statements are what is "flooring" people...which I don't understand honestly.

No, that was directed at Trex and the post about best 5 year RAPMs and him being behind Wade, Stockton, Ginobili, etc.

And to note, I'd have a very tough time arguing '12-'16 as peak Curry, CP3 much easier, so it likely wouldn't be a very strong argument for CP3's prime/peak if he's tied with that version of Curry.

[Peregrine01]

On the topic of the Steph-KD Warriors not being as dominant as they should have been, I do think that they didn’t reach what they were capable of (surprisingly enough despite the two titles). But with all that’s come to light since, I think that was more attributed to KD’s unwillingness to really buy in to the Warriors’ approach and play style.

Should Curry be penalized for being put in a situation that wasn’t optimal from either an individual or team standpoint? I mean, we saw in the 19 playoffs just how differently Steph and the Warriors played once KD was injured, that is, like championship contenders.

[Cavsfansince84]

On the topic of the Steph-KD Warriors not being as dominant as they should have been, I do think that they didn’t reach what they were capable of (surprisingly enough despite the two titles). But with all that’s come to light since, I think that was more attributed to KD’s unwillingness to really buy in to the Warriors’ approach and play style.

Should Curry be penalized for being put in a situation that wasn’t optimal from either an individual or team standpoint? I mean, we saw in the 19 playoffs just how differently Steph and the Warriors played once KD was injured, that is, like championship contenders.

Was he put in that situation or was he one of the main guys who thought recruiting KD was a great idea after the 2016 finals loss? From what I've heard he was on board with it right away and if he wasn't in favor or came off as lukewarm to it I doubt KD would have gone there.

[Baski]

Wait a minute. Is the KD acquisition being painted as having some sort of negative effect on Curry? Yikes

[SpreeS]

Wait a minute. Is the KD acquisition being painted as having some sort of negative effect on Curry? Yikes

KD acquisition wasnt black or white, good or bad for GSW (I dont talk about SC). It was somewhere in the midle. Yes we won two time with him but 25ml in salary we could won and with someone else.

I quote one guy from forum who listened Green on Barnes/Jack podcast:

he most interesting parts of this episode revolve around KD. Draymond says he thought KD was a risk to leave in the summer of 2018, but the allure of the three peat kept him here. His take was that KD’s attitude changed during the 2017-18 season after he didn’t get crowned the best player in the world. Draymond talks at length about KD getting mad at Steph and Klay for taking shots and feeling like he was getting frozen out of the offense — which is of course, ridiculous. Dray says he and Andre would go out of their way to have Steph initiate sets that got KD touches. Kerr would do this as well, but KD would apparently get pissed at Kerr for breaking the offense and make what I can only assume are ironic remarks about not playing the right way. Dray also says straight up that KD quit on the Warriors in game 2 of the Clippers series in 2019, which was the game where he spent the bulk of the time sulking and passing up open shots with Beverly on him.

I’m not surprised Draymond was as honest as he was. We’ll see how the blogosphere reacts and I’m sure KD will come out guns blazing soon. But what Draymond says certainly lines up with the eye test and my memory of the 2018 playoffs, particularly the Houston series; KD clearly wanted the offense to cater to him and was hunting ISO’s to prove a point about his own ability, to the detriment to the team. That 2017-18 team is very obviously better than the 16-17 squad; Looney had become a key player and our best 5, Bell was a good small ball option, and we had more shooting than the year before, but there was one obviously volatile factor; KD. As he became more frustrated with not getting the validation he felt he deserved, KD became more difficult to play with and coach and he was clearly no longer buying into the team concept with the same enthusiasm as he did the year prior.

[Baski]

Wait a minute. Is the KD acquisition being painted as having some sort of negative effect on Curry? Yikes

KD acquisition wasnt black or white, good or bad for GSW (I dont talk about SC). It was somewhere in the midle. Yes we won two time with him but 25ml in salary we could won and with someone else.

I quote one guy from forum who listened Green on Barnes/Jack podcast:

he most interesting parts of this episode revolve around KD. Draymond says he thought KD was a risk to leave in the summer of 2018, but the allure of the three peat kept him here. His take was that KD’s attitude changed during the 2017-18 season after he didn’t get crowned the best player in the world. Draymond talks at length about KD getting mad at Steph and Klay for taking shots and feeling like he was getting frozen out of the offense — which is of course, ridiculous. Dray says he and Andre would go out of their way to have Steph initiate sets that got KD touches. Kerr would do this as well, but KD would apparently get pissed at Kerr for breaking the offense and make what I can only assume are ironic remarks about not playing the right way. Dray also says straight up that KD quit on the Warriors in game 2 of the Clippers series in 2019, which was the game where he spent the bulk of the time sulking and passing up open shots with Beverly on him.

I’m not surprised Draymond was as honest as he was. We’ll see how the blogosphere reacts and I’m sure KD will come out guns blazing soon. But what Draymond says certainly lines up with the eye test and my memory of the 2018 playoffs, particularly the Houston series; KD clearly wanted the offense to cater to him and was hunting ISO’s to prove a point about his own ability, to the detriment to the team. That 2017-18 team is very obviously better than the 16-17 squad; Looney had become a key player and our best 5, Bell was a good small ball option, and we had more shooting than the year before, but there was one obviously volatile factor; KD. As he became more frustrated with not getting the validation he felt he deserved, KD became more difficult to play with and coach and he was clearly no longer buying into the team concept with the same enthusiasm as he did the year prior.

I can appreciate that. What I'm reacting to is the notion that the reason the Steph-KD Warriors weren't as dominant as they were supposed to be is because Curry was placed in a "suboptimal" situation by playing next to KD. How do you even spin that?
Yes it's not black or white but there's no way to spin it as anything other than good.

[SpreeS]

Wait a minute. Is the KD acquisition being painted as having some sort of negative effect on Curry? Yikes

KD acquisition wasnt black or white, good or bad for GSW (I dont talk about SC). It was somewhere in the midle. Yes we won two time with him but 25ml in salary we could won and with someone else.

I quote one guy from forum who listened Green on Barnes/Jack podcast:

he most interesting parts of this episode revolve around KD. Draymond says he thought KD was a risk to leave in the summer of 2018, but the allure of the three peat kept him here. His take was that KD’s attitude changed during the 2017-18 season after he didn’t get crowned the best player in the world. Draymond talks at length about KD getting mad at Steph and Klay for taking shots and feeling like he was getting frozen out of the offense — which is of course, ridiculous. Dray says he and Andre would go out of their way to have Steph initiate sets that got KD touches. Kerr would do this as well, but KD would apparently get pissed at Kerr for breaking the offense and make what I can only assume are ironic remarks about not playing the right way. Dray also says straight up that KD quit on the Warriors in game 2 of the Clippers series in 2019, which was the game where he spent the bulk of the time sulking and passing up open shots with Beverly on him.

I’m not surprised Draymond was as honest as he was. We’ll see how the blogosphere reacts and I’m sure KD will come out guns blazing soon. But what Draymond says certainly lines up with the eye test and my memory of the 2018 playoffs, particularly the Houston series; KD clearly wanted the offense to cater to him and was hunting ISO’s to prove a point about his own ability, to the detriment to the team. That 2017-18 team is very obviously better than the 16-17 squad; Looney had become a key player and our best 5, Bell was a good small ball option, and we had more shooting than the year before, but there was one obviously volatile factor; KD. As he became more frustrated with not getting the validation he felt he deserved, KD became more difficult to play with and coach and he was clearly no longer buying into the team concept with the same enthusiasm as he did the year prior.

I can appreciate that. What I'm reacting to is the notion that the reason the Steph-KD Warriors weren't as dominant as they were supposed to be is because Curry was placed in a "suboptimal" situation by playing next to KD. How do you even spin that?
Yes it's not black or white but there's no way to spin it as anything other than good.

Ofcourse it was good. We won 2 thropies...but it was painfull to watch KD ISO against HOU in 2018 and 2019. It doesnt work against Harden/Paul. We were saved by two injuries Paul and KD. KD did exactly what HOU wanted to see - cooling GSW offense with own ISO.

2018 KD in 114 ORTG out 117 ORTG
2019 KD in 114 ORTG out 125 ORTG

Its very strange numbers for all time great player like KD against elite defence. GSW offense increase around 10% in last 14min of G5 and G6 after KD went down with injury. This is what Green was talking on podcast.

Yes KD was a beast against CAVS, but CAVS defense was plain awful two years in row. Huge respect to HOU, they diserved to win against us. We were really lucky....We had one elite year with Curry/KD, other were below expectation b/c of KD ego - this clown wanted to ride on not own dick to reach heaven.

[70sFan]

Although it's true that KD personality issues hurt Warriors in 2018 and 2019, shouldn't we also blame Curry for not being able to step up in these moments? I mean, most people criticize Wilt for a lot of things Curry gets a pass for. Wilt wasn't assertive enough in 1968, but Curry gets pass for 2018 and 2019 because his team won, this shouldn't work this way.

If you want to say that Curry isn't in conversation for top 10 then fair enough, but doesn't this mean that we shouldn't even have this debate?

[Peregrine01]

Although it's true that KD personality issues hurt Warriors in 2018 and 2019, shouldn't we also blame Curry for not being able to step up in these moments?

I agree with this idea to some extent but practically, I think that's a dangerous line to walk especially when dealing with someone of KD's psyche. We kinda saw what happened when the OG Warriors tried to imprint more of their old ways - KD withdrew. Kerr gently prodded KD during the 2018 Rockets series to pass more and it seemed like KD disengaged even more. And of course, the boiling point came when Draymond confronted him outright in a regular season game against the Clippers.

You can say that one of Curry's weaknesses is his agreeableness but it's also a big part of what makes him and the Warriors. We've seen just how bad things can get when an obstinate star is hell-bent on getting his own way.

[Cavsfansince84]

Although it's true that KD personality issues hurt Warriors in 2018 and 2019, shouldn't we also blame Curry for not being able to step up in these moments?

I agree with this idea to some extent but practically, I think that's a dangerous line to walk especially when dealing with someone of KD's psyche. We kinda saw what happened when the OG Warriors tried to imprint more of their old ways - KD withdrew. Kerr gently prodded KD during the 2018 Rockets series to pass more and it seemed like KD disengaged even more. And of course, the boiling point came when Draymond confronted him outright in a regular season game against the Clippers.

You can say that one of Curry's weaknesses is his agreeableness but it's also a big part of what makes him and the Warriors. We've seen just how bad things can get when an obstinate star is hell-bent on getting his own way.

My issue with Steph's agreeableness is that it works great when things are going well but I don't feel like he is the sort of guy who can straighten stuff out when its going bad. Such as with Draymond or KD. It seems like guys may not really respect him as a leader. So that's part what of what you get with him as a player.

[Warriors Analyst]

Wait a minute. Is the KD acquisition being painted as having some sort of negative effect on Curry? Yikes

KD acquisition wasnt black or white, good or bad for GSW (I dont talk about SC). It was somewhere in the midle. Yes we won two time with him but 25ml in salary we could won and with someone else.

I quote one guy from forum who listened Green on Barnes/Jack podcast:

he most interesting parts of this episode revolve around KD. Draymond says he thought KD was a risk to leave in the summer of 2018, but the allure of the three peat kept him here. His take was that KD’s attitude changed during the 2017-18 season after he didn’t get crowned the best player in the world. Draymond talks at length about KD getting mad at Steph and Klay for taking shots and feeling like he was getting frozen out of the offense — which is of course, ridiculous. Dray says he and Andre would go out of their way to have Steph initiate sets that got KD touches. Kerr would do this as well, but KD would apparently get pissed at Kerr for breaking the offense and make what I can only assume are ironic remarks about not playing the right way. Dray also says straight up that KD quit on the Warriors in game 2 of the Clippers series in 2019, which was the game where he spent the bulk of the time sulking and passing up open shots with Beverly on him.

I’m not surprised Draymond was as honest as he was. We’ll see how the blogosphere reacts and I’m sure KD will come out guns blazing soon. But what Draymond says certainly lines up with the eye test and my memory of the 2018 playoffs, particularly the Houston series; KD clearly wanted the offense to cater to him and was hunting ISO’s to prove a point about his own ability, to the detriment to the team. That 2017-18 team is very obviously better than the 16-17 squad; Looney had become a key player and our best 5, Bell was a good small ball option, and we had more shooting than the year before, but there was one obviously volatile factor; KD. As he became more frustrated with not getting the validation he felt he deserved, KD became more difficult to play with and coach and he was clearly no longer buying into the team concept with the same enthusiasm as he did the year prior.

I can appreciate that. What I'm reacting to is the notion that the reason the Steph-KD Warriors weren't as dominant as they were supposed to be is because Curry was placed in a "suboptimal" situation by playing next to KD. How do you even spin that?
Yes it's not black or white but there's no way to spin it as anything other than good.

I don't have to spin it. The Warriors with KD are obviously an incredibly talented team with as high a ceiling as a team can possibly have. But KD was volatile. The reason that the 2016-17 team is widely considered the best team of all-time was that KD bought in and wasn't breaking the offense to go chase ISO's. As quoted above, KD got it into his head that Steph and Klay were freezing him out of the offense and Kerr/Andre were going out of their way to call plays for KD as not to offend him. I think for the most part that KD was a huge boon to Steph's career by taking some load off of him and giving the Warriors the best bailout option in the league when things got bogged down.

But the 2019 WCSF against Houston demonstrates the issues that KD presented for the Warriors. And to tie this back to a post a page back, I will concede that while the 2016-17 and 2017-18 Warriors were two of the most formidable teams to ever play, Houston was as difficult a matchup for them as you could find and I don't think that's necessarily a stain on the Warriors "supposed" dominance. That Houston team won 65 games. They are widely considered one of, if not the best team to never win a championship. They were also perfectly suited matchup against the Warriors. When they went small, their shooting was almost as good as the Warriors' and they had a switching scheme that mucked up things enough for the Warriors to lean into ISO ball. And that's the crux of the KD issue. KD wasn't happy with how public opinion of him didn't change after the 2017 Finals run, so in the 2018 playoff run he was more willing to lean into ISO's to prove himself.

I really though that the 2019 WCSF was a 50/50 series until KD went down. I know perfectly well that the Warriors are a more talented team with KD. But once he went down, I felt very confident the Warriors would win that series. Why? The Warriors would have no dispute about their offensive hierarchy. In the 4th quarter of Game 6, the Warriors spammed pick and rolls with Steph/Dray. They scored on all but two possessions with the Steph/Dray PNR, one of which Looney was fouled on and the other was probably a missed call on a lob. That simply wouldn't have happened if KD was healthy. There is no way that KD would have been content to watch Steph/Dray run pick and rolls for an entire quarter. Our fourth quarter offense would have probably devolved into KD mid post ISO's.

You might ask then, am I going to argue that KD's absence helped us against Toronto? No. There's a possibility that a fully healthy KD would have had the same issues with defying Kerr and demanding shots. But, I do believe that if KD hadn't torn his Achilles, we win that series. KD clearly wasn't 100%. And yet... that quarter and a half he played, KD mostly finished possessions. He wasn't initiating much. He just got the ball in the flow of the offense and shot it. That version of KD wins us the Finals, no questions asked. His role in that game 5 was a lot reminiscent of how he played in the 2016-17 season, in which KD went down at the end of the season and the Warriors ripped off a 14 game winning streak and went 17-5 to close out the season and then went 16-1 in the playoffs.

[SpreeS]

Although it's true that KD personality issues hurt Warriors in 2018 and 2019, shouldn't we also blame Curry for not being able to step up in these moments? I mean, most people criticize Wilt for a lot of things Curry gets a pass for. Wilt wasn't assertive enough in 1968, but Curry gets pass for 2018 and 2019 because his team won, this shouldn't work this way.

If you want to say that Curry isn't in conversation for top 10 then fair enough, but doesn't this mean that we shouldn't even have this debate?

Maybe it is weakness, maybe not. I dont know, but I prefer Curry/Duncan type players, than Kobe, Harden, Irving, KD. You could build dinasty for long period with these type of players. Now look at "alpha" guys

Kobe conflicted with O'Neal, Malone, Bynum, Howard
Harden - Howard, Paul, Westbrook, HOU FO
Durant - Westbrook, Green/Kerr
Irving - LBJ, whole BOS team
LJB - SPO/Riley, Cavs owner/Blatt, LAL FO/Walton
Paul - Griffin/Harden

If I was owner or HC, Curry/Duncan/Dirk would be my dream to build around a contender for many years.

[KTM_2813]

Although it's true that KD personality issues hurt Warriors in 2018 and 2019, shouldn't we also blame Curry for not being able to step up in these moments?

I agree with this idea to some extent but practically, I think that's a dangerous line to walk especially when dealing with someone of KD's psyche. We kinda saw what happened when the OG Warriors tried to imprint more of their old ways - KD withdrew. Kerr gently prodded KD during the 2018 Rockets series to pass more and it seemed like KD disengaged even more. And of course, the boiling point came when Draymond confronted him outright in a regular season game against the Clippers.

You can say that one of Curry's weaknesses is his agreeableness but it's also a big part of what makes him and the Warriors. We've seen just how bad things can get when an obstinate star is hell-bent on getting his own way.

My issue with Steph's agreeableness is that it works great when things are going well but I don't feel like he is the sort of guy who can straighten stuff out when its going bad. Such as with Draymond or KD. It seems like guys may not really respect him as a leader. So that's part what of what you get with him as a player.

Playing devil's advocate here: Do we have solid evidence of less agreeable players actually being able to straighten out bad situations better than Curry? Take LeBron, for example. A lot of teammates were unhappy, and the situation was pretty toxic in 2018. He ultimately wasn't able to get guys like Irving, Crowder, or Thomas to buy in, and eventually each player was traded, despite LeBron being less agreeable and more forceful than Curry.

At the end of the day, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't expect individual players to be world-class basketball players and world-class sports psychologists. It's also very easy to find examples that prove your point if you're on the outside looking in. We can all point to examples where Curry's leadership style clearly worked, and examples where maybe it didn't. The same with virtually every other player. I dunno... I think we overrate this stuff sometimes, especially when it comes to strong personalities like Durant. Even Bill Russell couldn't get that guy's head straight.

[Cavsfansince84]

Playing devil's advocate here: Do we have solid evidence of less agreeable players actually being able to straighten out bad situations better than Curry? Take LeBron, for example. A lot of teammates were unhappy, and the situation was pretty toxic in 2018. He ultimately wasn't able to get guys like Irving, Crowder, or Thomas to buy in, and eventually each player was traded, despite LeBron being less agreeable and more forceful than Curry.

At the end of the day, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't expect individual players to be world-class basketball players and world-class sports psychologists. It's also very easy to find examples that prove your point if you're on the outside looking in. We can all point to examples where Curry's leadership style clearly worked, and examples where maybe it didn't. The same with virtually every other player. I dunno... I think we overrate this stuff sometimes, especially when it comes to strong personalities like Durant. Even Bill Russell couldn't get that guy's head straight.

With regard to the Lebron situation, guys weren't pulling their weight, they get traded for basically just a slew of cast offs that noone was high on and then they go on to make a run to the finals while most everyone in the media was saying that the Cavs were headed nowhere. So LeBron took those guys on during midseason and then is able to mold them into a highly competitive team while also obviously doing an all time carry job to get them there. He has a history though of taking guys on which other teams don't want and even have reputations as team cancers and getting them to play at a high level. Its not that Steph is a bad chemistry guy. He's a great chemistry guy. I just don't view him as a leader. Which is partly why I think GS sort of fell apart with issues between Draymond, KD and others. Iggy I think also referenced that there was a lot of turmoil going on behind the scenes in GS those last two years.

[Peregrine01]

I agree with this idea to some extent but practically, I think that's a dangerous line to walk especially when dealing with someone of KD's psyche. We kinda saw what happened when the OG Warriors tried to imprint more of their old ways - KD withdrew. Kerr gently prodded KD during the 2018 Rockets series to pass more and it seemed like KD disengaged even more. And of course, the boiling point came when Draymond confronted him outright in a regular season game against the Clippers.

You can say that one of Curry's weaknesses is his agreeableness but it's also a big part of what makes him and the Warriors. We've seen just how bad things can get when an obstinate star is hell-bent on getting his own way.

My issue with Steph's agreeableness is that it works great when things are going well but I don't feel like he is the sort of guy who can straighten stuff out when its going bad. Such as with Draymond or KD. It seems like guys may not really respect him as a leader. So that's part what of what you get with him as a player.

Playing devil's advocate here: Do we have solid evidence of less agreeable players actually being able to straighten out bad situations better than Curry? Take LeBron, for example. A lot of teammates were unhappy, and the situation was pretty toxic in 2018. He ultimately wasn't able to get guys like Irving, Crowder, or Thomas to buy in, and eventually each player was traded, despite LeBron being less agreeable and more forceful than Curry.

It seems that throughout history, it wasn't the prototypical alphas (Jordan, Kobe, etc) that straightened out situations or held volatile environments together but the calmer influences (Phil Jackson). I think the conventional view about strong leadership (top-down, authoritarian) is quite misguided in just how effective it actually is.

[Cavsfansince84]

It seems that throughout history, it wasn't the prototypical alphas (Jordan, Kobe, etc) that straightened out situations or held volatile environments together but the calmer influences (Phil Jackson). I think the conventional view about strong leadership (top-down, authoritarian) is quite misguided in just how effective it actually is.

I don''t disagree with that but it also depends on the leader. Comparing MJ to Russell for instance, I think MJ's style tended to create more drama on his team's than Russell's did which is why I consider Russell to be the better leader. I also am not sure that MJ's style would work without a guy like Phil over the long haul. Not all leaders are equally good at leading. Teams still tend to need a strong leader though or else you end up in a situation like the Clippers had last season where everyone is just pointing the finger at everyone else.

[Peregrine01]

It seems that throughout history, it wasn't the prototypical alphas (Jordan, Kobe, etc) that straightened out situations or held volatile environments together but the calmer influences (Phil Jackson). I think the conventional view about strong leadership (top-down, authoritarian) is quite misguided in just how effective it actually is.

I don''t disagree with that but it also depends on the leader. Comparing MJ to Russell for instance, I think MJ's style tended to create more drama on his team's than Russell's did which is why I consider Russell to be the better leader. I also am not sure that MJ's style would work without a guy like Phil over the long haul. Not all leaders are equally good at leading. Teams still tend to need a strong leader though or else you end up in a situation like the Clippers had last season where everyone is just pointing the finger at everyone else.

Generally agree and we have to remember: Russell is probably the standard of what superstar leadership looks like. I can't recall another player like him. As for the Clippers, they turned out to be a complete basket case.

[trex_8063]

Not sure how to embed one of these here, so here's a link.

https://public.tableau.com/views/PeriodRAPM/EraRAPM?:language=en&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link

But basically I think any questions of Curry's impact numbers are absolutely absurd.

4 different 5 year eras ('97-'01, '02-'06, '07-'11, '12-'16). Curry's '12-'16 ranks:

Offensively
+9.2 Nash '07-'11
+8.2 LeBron '12-'16
+8.1 Dirk '02-'06/MJ '97-'01
5th +7.9 Curry '12-'16

Overall
+11.5 LeBron '12-'16
+11.2 LeBron '07-'11
+10.9 KG 02-'06
+9.9 MJ '97-'01
T-5th +9.8 Curry/CP3 '12-'16

So, doesn't this support the notion that it's not indefensible to have Curry and CP3 at a similar peak, and that Curry does indeed fall short of LeBron and Nash offensively?

Because those statements are what is "flooring" people...which I don't understand honestly.

No, that was directed at Trex and the post about best 5 year RAPMs and him being behind Wade, Stockton, Ginobili, etc.

And to note, I'd have a very tough time arguing '12-'16 as peak Curry, CP3 much easier, so it likely wouldn't be a very strong argument for CP3's prime/peak if he's tied with that version of Curry.

Your source [which the link didn't work, btw] is different. I cited my sources (which are primarily Jeremias Engelmann) in post #189.
From those sources, Curry's best five years are behind the best five years of those I mentioned.
EDIT: Also worth noting I was NOT going with consecutive 5 years, but ANY 5 years from their respective careers.

EDIT2: Should also be clear [because of your wording] that I did not "question" Curry's impact. I was speaking to occasional insinuations that his impact goes FAR [more than most/any other players] beyond his box-metrics, or that it's other worldly compared to just about anyone).

[Owly]

It seems that throughout history, it wasn't the prototypical alphas (Jordan, Kobe, etc) that straightened out situations or held volatile environments together but the calmer influences (Phil Jackson). I think the conventional view about strong leadership (top-down, authoritarian) is quite misguided in just how effective it actually is.

I don''t disagree with that but it also depends on the leader. Comparing MJ to Russell for instance, I think MJ's style tended to create more drama on his team's than Russell's did which is why I consider Russell to be the better leader. I also am not sure that MJ's style would work without a guy like Phil over the long haul. Not all leaders are equally good at leading. Teams still tend to need a strong leader though or else you end up in a situation like the Clippers had last season where everyone is just pointing the finger at everyone else.

Generally agree and we have to remember: Russell is probably the standard of what superstar leadership looks like. I can't recall another player like him. As for the Clippers, they turned out to be a complete basket case.

I don't know if I completely disagree but some of the warts with Russell seem ... less focused upon, and more what a great mind he was emphasized.

If the refusal to sign stuff was a principled absolute it would be easier, but even at the time it seems he made exceptions (https://www.psacard.com/autographfacts/basketball/bill-russell/58) p92-93 of The Rivalry has he being kind of an ass to Heinsohn (refused an autograph to Heinsohn's cousin - details are unclear ... whether him doing it meaning he'd have to do it for others would be just an inconvenience or breaking a hard rule he had at the time (at a glance he seems to have stopped signing in '64 and resumed in '92 and it sounds like this was rookie year ... but I am not confident on this and the event is open to interpretation) - left the "rookie duties" to Heinsohn and told Heinsohn he should give him half the RotY money and "he wasn't smiling". His practice habits later aren't impeccable (I think this is later career) and I think he was late to a game (can't find a good source on this one at the moment) whilst he was the coach (this is all otoh, can't locate a good source so comes with that caveat ...I think he was the only one, Red had to coach, might have been snow related?, might have been preseason [or I'm thinking it would be a bigger deal ... maybe not]). Even him being picked as coach ... part of that included people (I think Heinsohn at least) thinking he wouldn't defer to anyone else after Red.

All this is nitpicking (and obviously a tough context ... racism etc) he was a good leader, but to my eyes, the Russell as leader angles is sometimes a touch rose-tinted.

[Cavsfansince84]

All this is nitpicking (and obviously a tough context ... racism etc) he was a good leader, but to my eyes, the Russell as leader angles is sometimes a touch rose-tinted.

I don't doubt that it is to some degree. More so given that Red also deserves some credit when we talk about the amazing run of 11 titles in 13 years. Its not like Russell was the only leader on that team. Its similar to the MJ/Phil dynamic imo because Russell could be kind of emotionally distant with people if not standoffish.