If Curry leads the Warriors to the best single season record of all time...

[You Cant Ban Me]

and they win the championship this year is there any logical way you can still rank LeBron and kobe over him all time?

If he 3 peats + greatest regular season record of all time i think that will vault him all the way up the rankings to #2 all time no question.He will be on the same tier as Jordan.

[Inferno]

2x Rings
2x MVP
2x All-NBA First Team
1x Scoring Champion
1x FMVP (presumably)

Pretty solid resume :applause: Would need more longevity though i.e. more All-Star and First Team appearances (and maybe more scoring titles too) :confusedshrug:

[warriorfan]

U all playing catch up

[Im Still Ballin]

He'll be on par or just behind Kobe if he does so

He'll need 3 Rings 3 MVPs and 2 FMVPs to get on the Lebron level/top 5 level

Definitely not out of the realm of possibilities

[Gileraracer]

He'll be on par or just behind Kobe if he does so

He'll need 3 Rings 3 MVPs and 2 FMVPs to get on the Lebron level/top 5 level



He needs 4 finals losses and 2 collusions to get on the Lebron level

[DMAVS41]

If he finishes the regular season and playoffs playing at this level and adds the best record ever, a title, and finals MVP to his resume.

He's in the conversation for top 15 all time assuming he has somewhat decent longevity. With the chance to go much higher.

People aren't understanding just how good his season has been. It is on the short list for best regular season ever.

You do stuff like that and it sometimes outweighs longevity arguments in some ways.

The guy is simply one of the best players ever now and Magic is the only point it even makes sense about taking over him...

[Jameerthefear]

lol f*ck kobe. this season shits on anything kobe has ever done in his life

[Ca$H]

He'll be on par or just behind Kobe if he does so

He'll need 3 Rings 3 MVPs and 2 FMVPs to get on the Lebron level/top 5 level

Definitely not out of the realm of possibilities

Bran has 2 rings. Curry will surpass him next year- 3 rings, 3 MVPs, 2 FMVPs, 3/3 in the Finals with 3 wins over Bran head to head > 2 rings, 4 MVPs, 2 FMVPs, 2/8 in the Finals with 3 losses to Curry head to head.

[highwhey]

We're all gonna look back at how great this season was for the Warriors. Legendary season for sure.

[DMAVS41]

We're all gonna look back at how great this season was for the Warriors. Legendary season for sure.

What if I told you...

That an old German who had his title hopes crushed in his MVP season, came back to life for a playoff series and crushed the title hopes of the same franchise that sent him home years before...

:pimp:

[highwhey]

What if I told you...

That an old German who had his title hopes crushed in his MVP season, came back to life for a playoff series and crushed the title hopes of the same franchise that sent him home years before...

:pimp:
That Mavs team had every gear in sync and was operating at tip top shape and as a result, it would be difficult to replicate that, but they're no 2015-2016 Warriors.

[DMAVS41]

That Mavs team had every gear in sync and was operating at tip top shape and as a result, it would be difficult to replicate that, but they're no 2015-2016 Warriors.

Of course not. The 07 Mavs were maybe half as good as the current Warriors.

I just hope we get to see that in the first round if the Mavs make the playoffs.

Just for the history of it...Mavs would get swept of course, but just like beating the Heat in the finals to make that come full circle...perhaps there is a magical playoff series in Rick/Dirk if Curry rolls his ankle or something.

Just would be a lot more fun than watching yet another Spurs vs Mavs series.

[DatAsh]

The best player is the player who has the best chance of winning the most championships, on average, given a random distribution of teams. That's my general criteria for ranking players. A few things I like to consider when trying to rank players by this criteria:

1. Net offense + Net defense is what I'm looking at when looking at a single year. A +3 offense/+3 defense player is equal to a +6 offense/+0 defense player, given the same team. That said, a +0 offense/+6 defense player will usually be better than a +6 offense/+0 defense player because they will hold up better on my next two points. For similar reasons, players who need the ball very little will usually be better than players who need the ball a lot.

When looking at differences in value, I imagine it as somewhat of an exponential curve. When it comes to increasing a player's chances of winning a championship, the difference between a +6 and +9 player is far greater than the difference between a +0 and +3 player.

2. A +6 player on a 50 win team is far more valuable than a +6 player on a 40 win team, and a +6 player on a 60 win team is far more valuable than that. It's harder to improve a good team than a bad one, and improving a good team increases your championship odds far more than improving a bad one. Basically, how does your value scale up to better teams?

3. Related to 2, but somewhat different - how well does your value hold across teams of similar quality? If you're a +6 player on one team and a +1 on another similar quality team, then that's not as good as being +6 on both. Does your style of basketball limit other types of players, or is does it fit in basically anywhere?

4. Longevity matters, a lot. A player with ten +6 seasons will win more championships on average than a player with one +6 season. One factor I consider when looking at longevity - one that I hardly ever seen anyone else mention - is that longevity is not equal across time. Money, college expectations, more clearly defined all time goals, nutrition, medicine, access to better health procedures, ect., there are many reasons why it's far easier to have better longevity today than it was 50 years ago. This is true when looking at any time frame - later is better. I'll generally use some sort of poorly defined handicap to account for this. So, for example, 10 year longevity in 1960 is better than 10 year longevity in 2016.

Those are some of the main criteria I try to consider when evaluating player all time rankings. If Steph does what you say, he's in the running for best peak ever. I think he fares quite well in most of my criteria above. Where he falls - very - short is in his longevity. He has one season at that all time Jordan, Lebron, Shaq like level, two to three seasons a couple levels below that, and 3 to 4 more quite a bit lower. For that reason, I can't agree with him being anywhere near #2 all time.

[jstern]

I really can't rank him as high as Kobe, because despite being the GOAT shooter, the rules are perfectly made for him, as well as his team. Would he be having the same success 14 years ago at his size?

I like to see players fighting hard going up against the world. Curry's game, with the rules, and so many 3s, and illegal picks, it's too relax.

[DatAsh]

Would he be having the same success 14 years ago at his size?


That's a great question. It is something I consider when ranking players, I just didn't mention it in my previous post.

How well does a player's game translate forwards and backwards across eras?

Also, are we ranking on talent or absolute skill? Knowledge of the game increases over time, and for that reason players of any era are at an advantage to the players that came before them when looking at absolute skill.

Is Curry a more skilled 3 point shooter than Bird? Absolutely, that's a dumb question.

Is Curry or more talented 3 point shooter than Bird? That's a slightly tougher question(still the answer is yes imo). Bird grew up in a time without a 3 point shot, and spent his career in a league that thought the 3 point shot was a bad shot. Curry grew up in a time with a 3 point shot, and has spent his career in a league that understands that not only is the 3 pointer not a bad shot, it's arguably the best shot in basketball, right up there with at-rim shots. 1986 Curry - having entered the league in 1980 - is no where near the 3 point shooter that 2016 is. It's simply unfair to judge them by the same standard.

[tmacattack33]

That would give him a peak year better than any of Kobe's.

And depending on just how well he plays in the playoffs, possibly a better peak year than 2012 Lebron.

How you want to rank him on the legacy list after that is up to you...based on how much you value longevity vs peak years.

[aquaadverse]

We're talking 2 seasons versus more than a decade of excellence. Slow your roll.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Even 2016 Curry isn't better individually than either of those guys. Come on.

[Cali Syndicate]

Curry will also go down as the few who have won a championship as the scoring leader. And possibly alongside a regular season mvp and fmvp. This season is on route to be so great.