How many seasons of Curry would you take over Peak Dirk

[Narigo]

How many seasons of Curry would you take over Peak Dirk?

Bonus Question: Who do you have higher on your ATL?

[No-more-rings]

Even peak wise, there’s at least a solid case for Dirk, but realistically i’d take 2016 and 2017 Curry slightly.

All time is Dirk, and I don’t think it’s that close yet.

[Colbinii]

Probably 2015-2018.

[Texas Chuck]

Seth or Dell? All due respect to two of the elite shooters of all-time, but no seasons....

Steph? Probably a couple at least. He was absurdly destructive at his best.

Career I still have Dirk, but I'm less of a peak guy. For those who put more emphasis on peak Curry is probably closing in on Dirk.

[feyki]

15/17, career is not close.

[falcolombardi]

dunno

[70sFan]

2015-17 probably, with 2018-19 and 2021 being very close.

[JN61]

2015-17 probably, with 2018-19 and 2021 being very close.

He missed the playoffs in 2021.

16-19 for me.

[No-more-rings]

I'll admit i have trouble seeing the arguments for 2018 or 2019. In 2018 he missed 31 games that should automatically disqualify that season imo, and in 2019 his performance just doesn't quite seem to stack up to peak Dirk.

[HeartBreakKid]

None really. Dirk is one of the sickest playoff performers of all time.

[No-more-rings]

None really. Dirk is one of the sickest playoff performers of all time.

Curry 2015-2019 playoffs:

37 mpg 27.2/5.7/5.9 3.5 tov 23.7 PER 61.6 ts% 7.5 BPM

Dirk 2006-2011 playoffs:

40.6 mpg 26.5/10.1/2.9 2.4 tov 26.2 PER 60.2 ts% 7.5 BPM

I mean sure, Dirk definitely has an argument for the better playoff performer. I think at the very least his scoring has been more consistent despite what the numbers might say, though Curry has the gravity thing going for him too though.

[70sFan]

2015-17 probably, with 2018-19 and 2021 being very close.

He missed the playoffs in 2021.

16-19 for me.

It's because of dumb format created for no reason. Warriors had decent record in RS actually. Curry was better in 2021 than in 2019 individually.

I'd take 1976 Kareem over any version of Dirk for the same reason.

[Doctor MJ]

15/17, career is not close.

So, wanted to chime in on this. In general I'm not really into questions like the ones in this thread - nothing condescending here, just not how I tend to think - but I am someone who thinks a lot about career achievement.

Here's something for folks to consider. This is the list of +/- leaders we have with all the RS & PS data on bkref back to '96-97:

1. Duncan 10,000
2. LeBron 8,436
3. Nowitzki 6,555
4. Ginobili 6,426
5. Parker 6,262
6. Curry 6,184

Essence of what I'm seeing: Curry already almost reached Dirk.

My question is this: What are we waiting to see from Curry's longevity in order to elevate Curry over Dirk?

Now, for anyone here who just thinks Dirk was just plain better, you can answer, but you're in a different category than what I'm looking at. I'm curious about the people who can acknowledge that Curry has been the better player, but who think longevity gives it to Dirk - and in particular I'm curious about those who think it's "not close".

Last thing: Some may recall that I rank Garnett above Duncan, so I'm not saying anyone needs to be a slave to the metric above, but I do think the data belies the notion that Curry's prime should be seen as a brief blip. When Curry's already racked up numbers like these, it means he's been doing this for a pretty long time.

To demonstrate it another way:

Curry's will soon move past the +500 mark for the season. This will be his 7th season like this (and this doesn't include '12-13 or '20-21 where to me he was a Top 5 player) . To my knowledge, the only players we have on record to top this that many times LeBron (9 times) and Duncan (8 times). This leads me to ask:

How many more times does Curry need to do something like this before we see him as having pretty solid longevity?

I can get behind using an ultra-long longevity along the lines that Dirk has as something of a tiebreaker for those who think Curry & Dirk are close at their best...but I really struggle with the idea that longevity should make the comparison a blowout when you're largely talking about Dirk's 10th best year and all the years weaker than that.

[SHAQ32]

None really. Dirk is one of the sickest playoff performers of all time.

He's also more of a matchup nightmare at his size/position than Steph.

[falcolombardi]

15/17, career is not close.

So, wanted to chime in on this. In general I'm not really into questions like the ones in this thread - nothing condescending here, just not how I tend to think - but I am someone who thinks a lot about career achievement.

Here's something for folks to consider. This is the list of +/- leaders we have with all the RS & PS data on bkref back to '96-97:

1. Duncan 10,000
2. LeBron 8,436
3. Nowitzki 6,555
4. Ginobili 6,426
5. Parker 6,262
6. Curry 6,184

Essence of what I'm seeing: Curry already almost reached Dirk.

My question is this: What are we waiting to see from Curry's longevity in order to elevate Curry over Dirk?

Now, for anyone here who just thinks Dirk was just plain better, you can answer, but you're in a different category than what I'm looking at. I'm curious about the people who can acknowledge that Curry has been the better player, but who think longevity gives it to Dirk - and in particular I'm curious about those who think it's "not close".

Last thing: Some may recall that I rank Garnett above Duncan, so I'm not saying anyone needs to be a slave to the metric above, but I do think the data belies the notion that Curry's prime should be seen as a brief blip. When Curry's already racked up numbers like these, it means he's been doing this for a pretty long time.

To demonstrate it another way:

Curry's will soon move past the +500 mark for the season. This will be his 7th season like this (and this doesn't include '12-13 or '20-21 where to me he was a Top 5 player) . To my knowledge, the only players we have on record to top this that many times LeBron (9 times) and Duncan (8 times). This leads me to ask:

How many more times does Curry need to do something like this before we see him as having pretty solid longevity?

I can get behind using an ultra-long longevity along the lines that Dirk has as something of a tiebreaker for those who think Curry & Dirk are close at their best...but I really struggle with the idea that longevity should make the comparison a blowout when you're largely talking about Dirk's 10th best year and all the years weaker than that.

wouldnt career on/off be better here?

[HeartBreakKid]

None really. Dirk is one of the sickest playoff performers of all time.

Curry 2015-2019 playoffs:

37 mpg 27.2/5.7/5.9 3.5 tov 23.7 PER 61.6 ts% 7.5 BPM

Dirk 2006-2011 playoffs:

40.6 mpg 26.5/10.1/2.9 2.4 tov 26.2 PER 60.2 ts% 7.5 BPM

I mean sure, Dirk definitely has an argument for the better playoff performer. I think at the very least his scoring has been more consistent despite what the numbers might say, though Curry has the gravity thing going for him too though.

1) Dirk is 7 foot tall and is one of the goat shooters, he has plenty of gravity in his own right. I mean Dirk has never had very high scoring numbers, yet is associated with elite offense so obviously gravity is a big deal for him.

2) You don't have to do 06-11 for Dirk. You could go all the way from 02-11 and his numbers are nearly the exact same. His sample size of being a great playoff performer is much better than Curry's.

3) Curry's playoff run includes his time with Durant. Dirk was always his number one option and didn't have any one super player to play off of (and given Dirk's playstyle, he certainly could). Also, in that sample size it includes Dirk's playoff run in 07 which was obviously pitiful for him. Dirk has been a stud for nearly 10 straight years, going against tough opponents, as the number one option in all of them. You don't need to do a 5 year stretch with Dirk.

4) 60% TS% during Dirk's time was significantly more rare than 60 TS% in Curry's time. 60% TS is great, but should be relatively expected for an MVP player in the post season run - far below 60 TS% is a bit of a disappointment now. In the 00s, 60 TS% was legitimately rare.


Them having similar boxscore when they played in two different eras does mean they are equals necessarily.

Dirk is one of the best post season players of all time. Steph Curry definitely is not though he's good. Curry's sample size in the post season isn't very large either without Durant.

[mikejames23]

wouldnt career on/off be better here?

Think Dirk has around 7 seasons of +10 on/off or higher while Curry has 8, according to B-Ref. Numbers wise it isn't super clear. However, Dirk is clearly ahead in stats like VORP and Win Shares.

Peak Dirk is very hard to beat because what he did in terms of degree of difficulty is really, really, hard, compared to Curry who has like a Tim Duncan type luck with building franchises. However, both had unstoppable peaks. Would you take Curry's 73 win dominant absurdity or Dirk's playoff runs in 06 or 11. Pretty hard to tell.

[Cavsfansince84]

15/17, career is not close.

So, wanted to chime in on this. In general I'm not really into questions like the ones in this thread - nothing condescending here, just not how I tend to think - but I am someone who thinks a lot about career achievement.

Here's something for folks to consider. This is the list of +/- leaders we have with all the RS & PS data on bkref back to '96-97:

1. Duncan 10,000
2. LeBron 8,436
3. Nowitzki 6,555
4. Ginobili 6,426
5. Parker 6,262
6. Curry 6,184

Essence of what I'm seeing: Curry already almost reached Dirk.

My question is this: What are we waiting to see from Curry's longevity in order to elevate Curry over Dirk?

Now, for anyone here who just thinks Dirk was just plain better, you can answer, but you're in a different category than what I'm looking at. I'm curious about the people who can acknowledge that Curry has been the better player, but who think longevity gives it to Dirk - and in particular I'm curious about those who think it's "not close".
.

Why is career +/- the definitive measure of longevity though? I mean its one stat and its also taking into account that Steph played on one of the most talented/stacked teams of all time for a 3 year stretch. I think there's other ways to look at the difference in longevity between them that would say that Dirk still has a major advantage. Its very based more on seasons imo than any somewhat arbitrary career totals.

[Doctor MJ]

15/17, career is not close.

So, wanted to chime in on this. In general I'm not really into questions like the ones in this thread - nothing condescending here, just not how I tend to think - but I am someone who thinks a lot about career achievement.

Here's something for folks to consider. This is the list of +/- leaders we have with all the RS & PS data on bkref back to '96-97:

1. Duncan 10,000
2. LeBron 8,436
3. Nowitzki 6,555
4. Ginobili 6,426
5. Parker 6,262
6. Curry 6,184

Essence of what I'm seeing: Curry already almost reached Dirk.

My question is this: What are we waiting to see from Curry's longevity in order to elevate Curry over Dirk?

Now, for anyone here who just thinks Dirk was just plain better, you can answer, but you're in a different category than what I'm looking at. I'm curious about the people who can acknowledge that Curry has been the better player, but who think longevity gives it to Dirk - and in particular I'm curious about those who think it's "not close".

Last thing: Some may recall that I rank Garnett above Duncan, so I'm not saying anyone needs to be a slave to the metric above, but I do think the data belies the notion that Curry's prime should be seen as a brief blip. When Curry's already racked up numbers like these, it means he's been doing this for a pretty long time.

To demonstrate it another way:

Curry's will soon move past the +500 mark for the season. This will be his 7th season like this (and this doesn't include '12-13 or '20-21 where to me he was a Top 5 player) . To my knowledge, the only players we have on record to top this that many times LeBron (9 times) and Duncan (8 times). This leads me to ask:

How many more times does Curry need to do something like this before we see him as having pretty solid longevity?

I can get behind using an ultra-long longevity along the lines that Dirk has as something of a tiebreaker for those who think Curry & Dirk are close at their best...but I really struggle with the idea that longevity should make the comparison a blowout when you're largely talking about Dirk's 10th best year and all the years weaker than that.

wouldnt career on/off be better here?

How would that speak to longevity?

[eminence]

When healthy I'll generally side with Curry. '16 was so dominant in the RS that it deserves consideration even with the injured/weak ending. '13/'14 I think I'd go narrowly with Dirk.

So '15/'17/'19/'21 for now for me.