Was Steph Curry ever one of the 2 best players in the league.

[a8bil]

I don't get the "he's bad defensively" when the evidence is there that he was a key component on one of the league's best defensive teams/rotations over several years. GSW wasn't a #1 defense playing 4 defenders on five. He was part of it. I think the naysayers are validating their opinions based on the fact that Klay was usually given the perimeter defensive assignment...but that doesn't mean Curry was any less valuable on defense...he just had a different role. With his height, strength and lateral movement, Klay was simply the better, more versatile on ball defender. And, using Klay on the perimeter defense often allowed Curry to expend less energy on defense to keep his legs fresh for his offense. But, Curry is the better team defender, which accounts for his steals being near the top of the league every year. And, while contributions to team defense are often more difficult to assess, it is clear that team defense is more important than being a good on ball defender. Again, the evidence is all there that Steph was a key component of a top defensive team/rotation, so it baffles me that there are some who want to deny his impact defensively.

[Plain Old Josh]

yes, in 2016 he was 1-2 with lebron depending how you weight playoffs vs regular season, nobody else had an argument. this one is unarguably

he was top 2 in 2015 imo but lebron, chris Paul and maybe harden have cases over him

he has a top 2 case in 2017, 2018,2019,2021 with 2019 being his best shot at #1 aa he arguably was the best player of the playoffs up there with kawhi

Curry really doesn't have a case for being the best player in the 2019 playoffs. Curry had a 22.6 PER and was worth 1.5 VORP in the 2019 playoffs. Kawhi had a 27.9 PER and was worth 2.9 VORP in those same playoffs.

[WarriorGM]

There is a tremendous amount of evidence on peaks. Curry has no argument over LeBron for highest peak.

Led one of the most dominate teams in NBA history and revolutionized the sport. He absolutely has a case when you like at impact and value.

only if peak is RS. I like Curry more than most and think he's been top 2 this generation, but his peak is clearly below Lebron's if only because his playoffs has never been as great as his RS (which is accurate for almost very player)

What is this nonsense with Curry's playoffs not representing a peak? Not as great as his regular seasons is fair but his regular seasons are possibly the greatest of all-time and if that was the sole criteria it can possibly be argued he should be number 1 all-time.

Curry can win with a longshot team—he led a team of finals first-timers and a rookie head coach which had the longest odds of any championship team at the beginning of the season. Curry can win with a favored team—he led the team with the best playoffs record.

Curry went to 5 consecutive finals with the same franchise in the modern era coming from the tougher Western Conference. Not done since Russell's Celtics and it's nearly the same number of playoffs games as the Russell Celtics played in their streak.

Curry faced and defeated in consecutive series the rest of the First Team All-NBA.

Curry faced and defeated in a series a team that had both Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook.

Curry faced and defeated in a series a team that had both James Harden and Chris Paul.

Curry holds the record for average ppg in a 4-game playoffs sweep.

Curry is number 10 all-time in career playoffs average ppg—despite being a point guard.

Curry holds the record for raw +/- in the playoffs since it has been recorded.

There is nothing weak about that playoffs record. Indeed it is probably the most impressive since 2015 and arguably features the best 5 consecutive years of playoffs performance in NBA history.

[Jakay]

That 2016 team... no lead was safe. The Dubs could just go supernova with two minutes left and erase a dozen points just like that. it was electric.

so yeah.

[Stan]

What two players were better than him in '15 & '16?

[michaelm]

It amazes me how hard people work to deny Steph Currys greatness. The man had a top 10 all time peak. Higher than KD and arguably higher than Lebron.

I really think both Curry and Durant nurtured their own legacies by teaming up. Curry, despite being the centerpiece for a legit dynasty gets very little credit. He's treated almost as a support player now. And Durant gets very little credit for his rings and fmvps. But imagine of Steph came back on 2017 without Durant and avenged his loss to the Cavs and most likely nab the FMVP. That would have been HUGE for his legacy. Or imagine if Durant came back with the Thunder or some other team and pulled out a ring by himself.

But as it stands now I think neither of them really have a shot at top 10 all time specifically because they teamed up.

Do you mean nurtured or neutered?

It is a sign of the complete ridiculousness of the situation that Steph and KD teaming up supposedly harms their reputations despite creating what is likely the greatest NBA team of all-time but nearly all the other greats that joined forces doesn't. They were so objectively successful they invoke their own special category.

Yes neutered, my bad. I don't think that puts them in their own category. Take Shaq & Kobe for example. If Kobe never won those titles without Shaq do you think he would have a shot at the top 10? If Shaq didn't have consistent success outside of Kobe do you think he would be definite top 10?

I don't think so. It was vital for Shaq and Kobe's individual legacies for them to win apart from each other. And its just as vital for Steph & KD to do the same.

Which Curry has done, but best or second best team in NBA history is what it is in any case. If Curry and KD could make the 2017 team so good how does this downgrade them vs the Shaq/Kobe duo, not that the status of the latter two is in any dispute.

[Asianiac_24]

Aside from the lazy argument of KDs Finals MVPs, I’d like to see a valid statistical argument that KD was more essential to the Warriors than Curry.

[Marty McFly]

Curry is the second best player of this era just off of the basis of being the centerpiece of a Dynasty and the most influential player of his era. the gap between him and KD is not significant enough for me to consider KD greater, never mind that KD has less titles and has played with way more talented players through his career.

[trickshot]

He was in 16. Even though he didn't win a ring he came closer than any top 3 player not named Lebron so it's not like the names being nominated even surpassed his supposed failure in the playoffs.

[Saints14]

FWIW I ran I poll here after '16 asking if the "player of the year" (RS + PS) was LeBron or Curry. Curry with the unanimous MVP, LeBron with the title. LeBron won in a landslide. But Curry was clearly #2 at that point

[knicksNOTslick]

He wasnt, isnt and never be better than KD or Lebron, for me its no

Before KD joined Steph's 73-9 team after he and Westbrook got beat in the playoffs, it was clear as day he wasn't better than Curry.

If KD was better, why did he end up joining the team that embarrassed his team to get an easy ride to a championship?

[SomeBunghole]

At this point, he might have been the best player to ever touch a basketball.

Watch on YouTube

[dk1115]

2016, my opinion he was the best player.

[PistolPeteJR]

It amazes me how hard people work to deny Steph Currys greatness. The man had a top 10 all time peak. Higher than KD and arguably higher than Lebron.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence on peaks. Curry has no argument over LeBron for highest peak.

Led one of the most dominate teams in NBA history and revolutionized the sport. He absolutely has a case when you like at impact and value.

Like I said, there is a tremendous amount of evidence on peaks. Compared specifically to LeBron when it comes to peaks, Curry has no case.

[celticfan42487]

Obviously

[Stalwart]

There is a tremendous amount of evidence on peaks. Curry has no argument over LeBron for highest peak.

Led one of the most dominate teams in NBA history and revolutionized the sport. He absolutely has a case when you like at impact and value.

Like I said, there is a tremendous amount of evidence on peaks. Compared specifically to LeBron when it comes to peaks, Curry has no case.

Yes, he does. Sorry.

[dhsilv2]

Forgot that the MVP Trophy was for the third best player in the league

Lazy response. Probably under 5% of people on this board would consider Jokic a top-2 player right now.

Then 95% of the board needs to either think differently when it comes to these questions and understand ranges and margin for error in their thought process, or they're crazy people. You CAN argue for say Giannis, KD, and Curry over Jokic. But you can't with a straight face say he's not right there and that the gaps are too hard to accurately separate them.

[dhsilv2]

Everyone acknowledges that Durant was GS's best player while he was on the team so those years are eliminated from contention.

Prior to Durant joining, in order for Curry to be Top 2 that would have to mean Curry got worse Post Durant or Durant improved after joining. I see no evidence of that.

The most likely conclusion is that Durant was always better but his team's success made others think Curry was better until they joined up and it was obvious Durant was better once they were playing together.

Curry was the clear best player on the warriors. Every splice data an analysis we can do shows that. It's been posted here so many times it's down right maddening. It's really hard to figure out who's the best player when players are on different team, but it was pretty easy with those two being on the same team.

[_qubik]

He wasnt, isnt and never be better than KD or Lebron, for me its no

Before KD joined Steph's 73-9 team after he and Westbrook got beat in the playoffs, it was clear as day he wasn't better than Curry.

If KD was better, why did he end up joining the team that embarrassed his team to get an easy ride to a championship?

Because they were stacked as hell, well coached and deep, and could add him without losing all those things. They had prime Curry, Klay and Dray plus Iguodala and a great bench, they were the standard beares of the increase in 3pt and teams were having a hard time to figure it out.

People might say he was weak, or something like that because he joined the team that beat him in the past, I dont romanticize transactions and decisions, he had a great opportunity and won 2 times with the guys. I dont need to knock Curry to prop KD, and in my opinion KD is just better and I would want him instead of Curry leading my team

[Harry Garris]

Lazy response. Probably under 5% of people on this board would consider Jokic a top-2 player right now.

Then 95% of people are **** idiots, Jokic was the best player last season

Giannis was the Best player last year. Defense remains very important. Jokic was the most consistent/most reliable last year.

Giannis could have averaged 50/20/20 and wouldn't have won MVP after failing to make the Finals as MVP 2 years in a row.

Jokic was the best player in regular season last year, that's why he won MVP. The playoffs are a different story I know.