How can Curry be compared to Magic if he hasn't passed Oscar?

[BigShotBob]

Is Curry even on Oscar Robertson's level?

Discuss.

[warriorfan]

Their eras are too different to compare properly

Curry would be better in this era, Oscar would be better in the past era.

Curry has the more accomplished resume out of the two.

[Stephonit]

http://bkref.com/tiny/K5yie

What exactly is Oscar's advantage? Westbrook did 3 straight years averaging a triple double. You still arguing he's better than Curry?

Curry's led his team to more top finishes, more finals and more rings in longer playoffs than Oscar ever came close to.

[warriorfan]

http://bkref.com/tiny/K5yie

What exactly is Oscar's advantage? Westbrook did 3 straight years averaging a triple double. You still arguing he's better than Curry?

Curry's led his team to more top finishes, more finals and more rings in longer playoffs than Oscar ever came close to.

Oscars statistics are great but the triple double thing along with players regularly recording 40 rebounds in a game...needs to be taken in perspective. There was at least 25% more possessions during those years. Yes they still did go out and accumulate those stats... however...more possessions = more opportunities to accumulate stats. That is why statistics are inflated from that era.

[Axe]

Curry, i see, only has two rings over him.

[BigShotBob]

Their eras are too different to compare properly

Curry would be better in this era, Oscar would be better in the past era.

Curry has the more accomplished resume out of the two.

Curry has more accolades for sure, but Oscar was flat out unstoppable at times. Jerry West called him the best basketball player he had ever seen for a long time.

[Stephonit]

Curry has more accolades for sure, but Oscar was flat out unstoppable at times. Jerry West called him the best basketball player he had ever seen for a long time.

And Curry never looked flat out unstoppable at times? Watch 2016 or any of the times the Warriors came back from 20 points down.

[warriorfan]

Curry has more accolades for sure, but Oscar was flat out unstoppable at times. Jerry West called him the best basketball player he had ever seen for a long time.

He was a beast. Extremely physical player and huge for a point guard. Super solid fundamentals on top of that. Jim Barnett used to drop his name as his GOAT every once in awhile during Warriors games.

[BigShotBob]

He was a beast. Extremely physical player and huge for a point guard. Super solid fundamentals on top of that. Jim Barnett used to drop his name as his GOAT every once in awhile during Warriors games.

He was seen as the GOAT for sure. I think what people don't understand is how elite of a scorer he was. Imagine a mixture of Jerry West's shooting with Elgin Baylor's finishing, that was Oscar Robertson.

Along with his physicality and his passing he was extremely dominant. People rarely know that though.

[Stephonit]

He was seen as the GOAT for sure. I think what people don't understand is how elite of a scorer he was. Imagine a mixture of Jerry West's shooting with Elgin Baylor's finishing, that was Oscar Robertson.

Along with his physicality and his passing he was extremely dominant. People rarely know that though.

Lots of impressions and opinions but rather lean on results. Appropriate you'd compare him to Baylor and West in this regard. I guess Curry is Bill Russell in this analogy?

[warriorfan]

Lots of impressions and opinions but rather lean on results. Appropriate you'd compare him to Baylor and West in this regard. I guess Curry is Bill Russell in this analogy?

Curry is kind of like the PG version of Bill Russell. He hasn’t lost a playoff series for 6 years when his team has been healthy.

[BigShotBob]

Lots of impressions and opinions but rather lean on results. Appropriate you'd compare him to Baylor and West in this regard. I guess Curry is Bill Russell in this analogy?

His stats speak for themselves. It's common knowledge at this point.

But no Curry is not Bill Russell. He's like Mahomoud Abdul-Rauf on steroids when it comes to play style.

[Axe]

Which also makes steve kerr a commendable head coach for that team in the last 5 years or so

[Stephonit]

His stats speak for themselves. It's common knowledge at this point.

But no Curry is not Bill Russell. He's like Mahomoud Abdul-Rauf on steroids when it comes to play style.

I look at the stats on that link I gave above and see Curry's numbers are better.

[warriorfan]

His stats speak for themselves. It's common knowledge at this point.

But no Curry is not Bill Russell. He's like Mahomoud Abdul-Rauf on steroids when it comes to play style.

Michael Jordan is like Jason Richardson on steroids.

[Whoah10115]

I love how Westbrook's three straight statpad seasons have somehow obscured Robertson.

[Marchesk]

I love how Westbrook's three straight statpad seasons have somehow obscured Robertson.

I'm guessing Oscar wasn't fighting with his center over rebounds to keep a TPD streak going. It's funny how toward the end of one of those three seasons, Westbrook was down 17 rebounds from averaging 10 per game, and the next game he gets 17 boards. LOL.

[Sulico]

Robertson and Curry are not the best comparisons.

One is a natural talent that relied on his physique, the other was underestimated his whole career for the lack of size and athleticism and had to work harder than the others to compete.

Best comparison for Robertson, as we all know, is Westbrook, another physical specimen who relies on his athleticism.

And just like Westbrook, Robertson had some success in playoffs, but mostly he had to watch other players battle in the finals.

So I don't really understand in what way Curry needs to "pass" Robertson. He already won more and have more MVPs, their stats doesn't really compare, because they had absolutely different game and played 50 years apart. The closest present day comparison to Robertson - Westbrook, is clearly inferior to Curry. You need Curry to rebound more or what?

[Phoenix]

Westbrook has kind of cheapened the triple double, in fact crazy stats nowadays seems to have less meaning because the rules and pace facilitate it. A triple double at one point was a big deal, same as a 40 point game. Now they're barely newsworthy. Which has kind of retrospectively lessened the importance of Oscar's triple double prowess even though he was getting his stats organically, since from what I understand the triple double wasn't a thing as he was doing it. Westbrook quite clearly was taking rebounds away from guys like Steven Adams who should have been doing like 11-12 boards a night. Though Westbrook grabbing the board and starting the break himself does eliminate the middle man, so maybe there is a strategic argument for it.

Currys team impact is obvious and I feel like we need time to fully appreciate what his legacy will ultimately be in terms of historical rankings. I actually have a somewhat hard time figuring out the range he should be in at this point.

[Whoah10115]

I'm guessing Oscar wasn't fighting with his center over rebounds to keep a TPD streak going. It's funny how toward the end of one of those three seasons, Westbrook was down 17 rebounds from averaging 10 per game, and the next game he gets 17 boards. LOL.

Exactly. And whether or not Curry has passed Robertson or not is less relevant than whether or not Oscar is dropping for no good reason.

[r0drig0lac]

no one really believes that Curry has surpassed Magic and Oscar

[tpols]

oscar was nowhere near as good as steph curry. we have the tape, just watch it.

[Turbo Slayer]

oscar was nowhere near as good as steph curry. we have the tape, just watch it. Then why do ESPN and Backpicks typically rank Robertson higher than Curry?

Also saying that Oscar "was nowhere near as good as steph curry" is really underestimating Robertson's capabilities and value on what he brings to an random team.

[Stephonit]

Then why do ESPN and Backpicks typically rank Robertson higher than Curry?

Who knows? Why do they rank Magic ahead of Bird? Why do they have two players as top ten players who played on the same team yet that team isn't the one they call the best team of all-time?


Also saying that Oscar "was nowhere near as good as steph curry" is really underestimating Robertson's capabilities and value on what he brings to an random team.

Or it is underestimating what Curry has done and can do. What does a guy who wasn't even born when Oscar retired know about Robertson's capabilities?

[Turbo Slayer]

Because those sites are chock-full of low iq dipshits like yourself. Please try to act reasonable and not throwing out temper tantrums like a baby. It's taxing at this point. No one needs you to project your personal insecurities on someone else. Act like an adult. I don't take anything personal from you or somebody else. We are just here to talk about basketball.

Back to my main points.

1) Oscar Robertson was already a great player the moment he entered the league. Curry was just a slightly above average player in his 1st year while Oscar was a weak MVP candidate in his 1st year. The year before Oscar joined the Cincinnati Royals in 1961 the team was in the middle of pack offensively in 1960. The team was ranked 4th out of the 8 teams in the league. When Robertson went to the team in 1961, the team jumped up to be the #1 ranked offense. However the team remained piss-poor defensively ranked dead last the league.

When Curry was drafted by the Warriors, Curry didn't move the needle offensively for GSW rapidly.

The majority of blame goes to the Royals because they often fielded under sized lineups. It wasn't just Oscar. I have Curry and Oscar to be both fairly neutral on defense.

In his rookie year Oscar was 5th in MVP voting and was selected to the All-NBA First team. Curry was never considered to be in MVP discussion until he was 24 years old (2013) and even then he was 11th in MVP voting.

2) MVP voting. We are going to look at top 5 MVP finishes. Note: It's in chronological order.

Oscar: 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th

Curry: 1st, 1st, 5th

3) All-NBA

Oscar (1962-1966): 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

Curry (2015-2019): 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st

4) Longevity

Obviously Curry's career is not done yet but as of right now Oscar Robertson has better longevity than Curry. Oscar was durable, never missing more than 20 games while Curry had to sit out most of 2012 and 2020 due to injuries. Oscar didn't have that weakness.


It isn't far-fetched for someone to choose Robertson over Curry. I mean, Robertson was a ball-dominant quarterback capable of scoring and giving out great playmaking. He was a mean triple double machine. Personally, I would choose Robertson over Curry.

It's close.

[Hey Yo]

Why is a SG like Curry being compared to true PG's like Magic and Oscar??

[BigShotBob]

oscar was nowhere near as good as steph curry. we have the tape, just watch it.

Pure hyperbole

[warriorfan]

Please try to act reasonable and not throwing out temper tantrums like a baby. It's taxing at this point. No one needs you to project your personal insecurities on someone else. Act like an adult. I don't take anything personal from you or somebody else. We are just here to talk about basketball.

Back to my main points.

1) Oscar Robertson was already a great player the moment he entered the league. Curry was just a slightly above average player in his 1st year while Oscar was a weak MVP candidate in his 1st year. The year before Oscar joined the Cincinnati Royals in 1961 the team was in the middle of pack offensively in 1960. The team was ranked 4th out of the 8 teams in the league. When Robertson went to the team in 1961, the team jumped up to be the #1 ranked offense. However the team remained piss-poor defensively ranked dead last the league.

When Curry was drafted by the Warriors, Curry didn't move the needle offensively for GSW rapidly.

The majority of blame goes to the Royals because they often fielded under sized lineups. It wasn't just Oscar. I have Curry and Oscar to be both fairly neutral on defense.

In his rookie year Oscar was 5th in MVP voting and was selected to the All-NBA First team. Curry was never considered to be in MVP discussion until he was 24 years old (2013) and even then he was 11th in MVP voting.

2) MVP voting. We are going to look at top 5 MVP finishes. Note: It's in chronological order.

Oscar: 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th

Curry: 1st, 1st, 5th

3) All-NBA

Oscar (1962-1966): 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

Curry (2015-2019): 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st

4) Longevity

Obviously Curry's career is not done yet but as of right now Oscar Robertson has better longevity than Curry. Oscar was durable, never missing more than 20 games while Curry had to sit out most of 2012 and 2020 due to injuries. Oscar didn't have that weakness.


It isn't far-fetched for someone to choose Robertson over Curry. I mean, Robertson was a ball-dominant quarterback capable of scoring and giving out great playmaking. He was a mean triple double machine. Personally, I would choose Robertson over Curry.

It's close.

Well this autistic drivel is pretty bad but at least it’s better than posting “but these people on this other site said so!” :lol

With your narrow sighted rankings of first teams you are failing to realize that.... There are almost 4 times the amount of teams and players in today’s NBA

For Oscars all NBA teams he had to compete with Larry Costello and Gene Shue, Curry had to compete for slots with Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Chris Paul.

More players, same amount of first team slots, equals tougher selections.

Your “bigger number better than smaller number!” arguments are very simplistic and low iq btw.

[Stephonit]

2) MVP voting. We are going to look at top 5 MVP finishes. Note: It's in chronological order.

Oscar: 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th

Curry: 1st, 1st, 5th


First of all MVP voting is biased and subjective. It favors big statpadders on losing teams over team-oriented winners. It's limited by the prevalent fashion and dogma and whoever the media may want to push at a given moment.

On top of these drawbacks you still feel the need to arbitrarily draw the line at top 5 when the information is available to show more complete voting tallies.

Curry from 2013 on would show: 11th, 6th, 1st, 1st, 6th, 10-11th, 5th

There's yet another wrinkle. It is widely known that Curry and Durant were penalized in votes of this nature after Durant joined the Warriors for being on an unfair superteam. It didn't matter in 2017 that the Warriors had a 67-win season even with Durant getting injured and the Warriors maintaining that pace without him going on a 13-0 run at the end of the season in which Curry faced other MVP candidates on their home floors. Nope the story was Curry had a "down year" and it was unfair for him to be on such a stacked team. Curry finished 6th in MVP voting despite leading the team with the best record and his fellow superstar being injured towards the end of the season.

But look at other superteams in history, none of them had their stars penalized in such a way. Both Kareem and Magic finished in top 5 MVP voting for three straight years. Moses and Dr. J both finished top 5 in MVP voting when they teamed up. LeBron was 3rd and Wade 7th their first year together and now even playing with Davis he's probably going to be 2nd. Kareem and Oscar were both top 5 too their first year. The point? Curry was penalized for being too good in a way other players supposedly better than him never were. The more shocking conclusion? Curry is so good that pairing him with Durant truly was unfair in a way all those other superstar pairing did not match so maybe the penalty was justified! A case where the lower vote total indicates a better player.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Please try to act reasonable and not throwing out temper tantrums like a baby. It's taxing at this point. No one needs you to project your personal insecurities on someone else. Act like an adult. I don't take anything personal from you or somebody else. We are just here to talk about basketball.

Back to my main points.

1) Oscar Robertson was already a great player the moment he entered the league. Curry was just a slightly above average player in his 1st year while Oscar was a weak MVP candidate in his 1st year. The year before Oscar joined the Cincinnati Royals in 1961 the team was in the middle of pack offensively in 1960. The team was ranked 4th out of the 8 teams in the league. When Robertson went to the team in 1961, the team jumped up to be the #1 ranked offense. However the team remained piss-poor defensively ranked dead last the league.

When Curry was drafted by the Warriors, Curry didn't move the needle offensively for GSW rapidly.

The majority of blame goes to the Royals because they often fielded under sized lineups. It wasn't just Oscar. I have Curry and Oscar to be both fairly neutral on defense.

In his rookie year Oscar was 5th in MVP voting and was selected to the All-NBA First team. Curry was never considered to be in MVP discussion until he was 24 years old (2013) and even then he was 11th in MVP voting.

2) MVP voting. We are going to look at top 5 MVP finishes. Note: It's in chronological order.

Oscar: 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th

Curry: 1st, 1st, 5th

3) All-NBA

Oscar (1962-1966): 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

Curry (2015-2019): 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st

4) Longevity

Obviously Curry's career is not done yet but as of right now Oscar Robertson has better longevity than Curry. Oscar was durable, never missing more than 20 games while Curry had to sit out most of 2012 and 2020 due to injuries. Oscar didn't have that weakness.


It isn't far-fetched for someone to choose Robertson over Curry. I mean, Robertson was a ball-dominant quarterback capable of scoring and giving out great playmaking. He was a mean triple double machine. Personally, I would choose Robertson over Curry.

It's close.
High IQ user, great post. :cheers:

[BigShotBob]

Numbers wise was never apart of my argument. Take away the triple doubles, and let's just focus on just how shear dominant Oscar was, and compare that to Curry's run.

It's hard to rank Curry because he's more of a combo guard than a true point, hard to talk about handles because of the rule changes (carrying is allowed a lot more now), no three point line when Oscar played so he's literally just shooting contested jumpers over the top of people or running the break, more possessions during his time and faster pace, etc.

It's just an interesting debate because they are so different, but I wonder if the consensus has changed or not, and if not then why, and what are the actual arguments.

[tpols]

Pure hyperbole

not really...

Oscar never produced a dynasty like Curry did... hell the only title he ever won he was the third leading scorer on the team behind Bob Dandridge and KAJ.

:oldlol:

He simply doesnt have the team success Curry did. That he spurred it all with Klay & Dray is nothing short of amazing.

[warriorfan]

Numbers wise was never apart of my argument. Take away the triple doubles, and let's just focus on just how shear dominant Oscar was, and compare that to Curry's run.

It's hard to rank Curry because he's more of a combo guard than a true point, hard to talk about handles because of the rule changes (carrying is allowed a lot more now), no three point line when Oscar played so he's literally just shooting contested jumpers over the top of people or running the break, more possessions during his time and faster pace, etc.

It's just an interesting debate because they are so different, but I wonder if the consensus has changed or not, and if not then why, and what are the actual arguments.

If you take away the triple doubles and focus on “sheer dominance” you are talking about at best losing to the Celtics half the time. If you are stanning this dude then you are on thin ice, you might be a LeBron fan and not even know it.

[BigShotBob]

If you take away the triple doubles and focus on “sheer dominance” you are talking about at best losing to the Celtics half the time. If you are stanning this dude then you are on thin ice, you might be a LeBron fan and not even know it.

I would like if we stayed away from personal insults, thank you.

Though I have always been somewhat of an Oscar fan, mainly because of again his dominance. He was skilled and talented, but again it's hard to compare him to Curry because they are so different. Even comparing him to Magic is hard.


not really...

Oscar never produced a dynasty like Curry did... hell the only title he ever won he was the third leading scorer on the team behind Bob Dandridge and KAJ.

:oldlol:

He simply doesnt have the team success Curry did. That he spurred it all with Klay & Dray is nothing short of amazing.

He was past his prime then. He only played 2-3 more seasons (through injuries) before retiring. Kareem said that Oscar was better than Magic, and he played with an old Oscar.

Not trying to get into hypotheticals though, based on what we know can we say that Curry passed Oscar without a doubt, and is it based on playing with a great team and being the engine, is it based on how dominant Oscar was as said by his contemporaries, MVPs, stats, accolades, three point shooting, passing, rebounding......etc, etc.

That's what I want to see.

[Roundball_Rock]

Isiah>Oscar and Cousy is the GOAT PG then if it is all about team success. :facepalm

The funny thing about team success is the people who invoke it the most are awfully selective as to when it counts. :lol I've seen the same people praise people who never won anything in other threads.

[tpols]

I would like if we stayed away from personal insults, thank you.

Though I have always been somewhat of an Oscar fan, mainly because of again his dominance. He was skilled and talented, but again it's hard to compare him to Curry because they are so different. Even comparing him to Magic is hard.



He was past his prime then. He only played 2-3 more seasons (through injuries) before retiring. Kareem said that Oscar was better than Magic, and he played with an old Oscar.

Not trying to get into hypotheticals though, based on what we know can we say that Curry passed Oscar without a doubt, and is it based on playing with a great team and being the engine, is it based on how dominant Oscar was as said by his contemporaries, MVPs, stats, accolades, three point shooting, passing, rebounding......etc, etc.

That's what I want to see.

thats just former players & teammates rubbing elbows and supporting each other. we see it all the time.

Big O may have been a great player but when you watch the tape and measure the winning it's pretty clearly Chef.

The game and talent wasn't the same in the 60s especially on the perimeter. The 80s is when things really started to round into modern shape.

I mean hell... Curry was able to engine a better dynasty than Lebron ever could and Lebron is basically a taller better big O.

So we've seen the experiment already.

[warriorfan]

Isiah>Oscar and Cousy is the GOAT PG then if it is all about team success. :facepalm

The funny thing about team success is the people who invoke it the most are awfully selective as to when it counts. :lol I've seen the same people praise people who never won anything in other threads.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/949f42b13894d3865614b1e08d7177db/tenor.gif?itemid=5245718

[tpols]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/949f42b13894d3865614b1e08d7177db/tenor.gif?itemid=5245718

the guy is perenially making awful analogies.

Red Auerbach coached Cousy and the squad for 6 years. First round exit every year. Never won anything.

Bill Russell shows up in 1957? Dynasty for a decade.

Bob Cousy was pure 2nd option on his title teams. The Klay, and later, the dray on his team. 3rd option for a lot of it.

This roundball fella is just straight allergic to making apples to apples comparisons. :lol

He hunts for outliers at every turn but still falls short.

[Turbo Slayer]

^deleted for character space^




It favors big statpadders on losing teams over team-oriented winners. It's limited by the prevalent fashion and dogma and whoever the media may want to push at a given moment.


First of all MVP voting is biased and subjective. Debatable. Up until 1980, players comprised the voting bloc. In 1981 that soon changed transferring the power to vote to the media. Solid narratives soon began to take over and thus the term "voter fatigue" was born. In 2017 the NBA took away votes from local broadcasters to combat bias for their home teams.


It favors big statpadders on losing teams over team-oriented winners. It's limited by the prevalent fashion and dogma and whoever the media may want to push at a given moment. So you are basically saying that MVPs are usually given out more to the lead player on losing teams over lead players that are on winning teams. That's incorrect. Winning has always been a essential criterion. Infact only twice has a MVP has been given out to a player on a losing team. Bob Petit (The award introduction year) and Kareem with the 1975 Lakers.

Moses and Westbrook are the lone dudes since 1976 to win MVP while on a team that failed to reach 50 wins. So your statement is hyperbolic and incorrect. The award is usually given out to a great player on a great team.

It is true that the MVPs can be based on narrative. In 2017 Westbrook didn't have Durant on OKC but many were surprised by his triple-double season. The media and people in general said that LeBron and Durant had the benefit of good help. Also Davis, Thomas, and even Harden had good help. However Westbrook was surrounding by average/poor talent. Oladipo, Kanter, and Adams. If the Cavs did not have James and if GSW did not have KD both teams would still be playoff contenders. Take off Westbrook off that OKC team and that team is going for the lottery. The media reasoned this logic.


On top of these drawbacks you still feel the need to arbitrarily draw the line at top 5 when the information is available to show more complete voting tallies.

Curry from 2013 on would show: 11th, 6th, 1st, 1st, 6th, 10-11th, 5th 10th, 11th? :lol I choose top 5 as my criteria because it indicates outstanding play. Anyway, it is pointless of you listing those because Robertson still has more consistent, better MVP finishes than Curry when comparing primes. So what's your point?

Fine, I can play your game.

Curry (2013-present): 11th, 6th, 1st, 1st, 6th, 10-11th, 5th

Robertson (63'-70'): 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 16th

Robertson wins 4-3 against Curry in MVP finishes regardless.


There's yet another wrinkle. It is widely known that Curry and Durant were penalized in votes of this nature after Durant joined the Warriors for being on an unfair superteam. It didn't matter in 2017 that the Warriors had a 67-win season even with Durant getting injured and the Warriors maintaining that pace without him going on a 13-0 run at the end of the season in which Curry faced other MVP candidates on their home floors. Nope the story was Curry had a "down year" and it was unfair for him to be on such a stacked team. Curry finished 6th in MVP voting despite leading the team with the best record and his fellow superstar being injured towards the end of the season. Voter fatigue is also a part.

[Turbo Slayer]

Isiah>Oscar and Cousy is the GOAT PG then if it is all about team success. :facepalm

The funny thing about team success is the people who invoke it the most are awfully selective as to when it counts. :lol I've seen the same people praise people who never won anything in other threads. Exactly. Fools still take Stockton over Paul. Paul is clearly is the better player even if Stockton made the Finals multiple times and Paul didn't. :lol

The "rangz" argument and involving team success in an argument purely about the players are such erroneous ways to put a player over another player for convenience. Posters will just throw away individual success and instead will look for team success.

[Turbo Slayer]

High IQ user, great post. :cheers: Thanks.

[Turbo Slayer]

With your narrow sighted rankings of first teams you are failing to realize that.... There are almost 4 times the amount of teams and players in todayÂ’s NBA

For Oscars all NBA teams he had to compete with Larry Costello and Gene Shue, Curry had to compete for slots with Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Chris Paul.

More players, same amount of first team slots, equals tougher selections. - Warriorfan


There are almost 4 times the amount of teams and players in todayÂ’s NBA Not really. More players and teams does not equate to tougher competition. The fact there is 30 teams today means that the great players are spread out more. Some on great teams and some on bad teams. More expansion equals a more diluted, watered down league. Jerry Sloan once said this about the expansion issue.


"You look at the overall picture, it is diluted to some extent," said Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, whose team is in Los Angeles preparing to meet the Lakers on Friday night. "You can get by with three great players on a team, and have a chance to win it all. Before, you had to have four or five great players, and some good players around them."


For Oscars all NBA teams he had to compete with Larry Costello and Gene Shue
Oscar also had to compete with Hal Greer, Jerry West, Don Ohl, Guy Rodgers, Wilkens, and Bing over the course of his career. You are just cherrypicking 2 guys when you are not looking at the totality of the package.

[Stephonit]

Not really. More players and teams does not equate to tougher competition. The fact there is 30 teams today means that the great players are spread out more. Some on great teams and some on bad teams. More expansion equals a more diluted, watered down league.

In an 8 or 9-team league it is far easier to get noticed and appease all interest groups. Indeed a top 10 could be filled with the best player on each team in the league with room to spare for a second best player on a team. In a 30-team league around 2/3 of the league won't be represented. Curry in 2013 was just behind the likes of Dwyane Wade and ahead of Kevin Garnett in voting. Finishing in the same spot in 1963 one would be in the company of Red Kerr, Tom Dischinger, and John Barnhill.

The time Curry finished tied 10th-11th in voting he was injured and didn't play for a third of the season. Despite that he was still 7th in plus-minus in the regular season and even finished first when including the playoffs.

Then of course there's the difference between MVPs. Curry won it unanimously and back-to-back. One gets the feeling voters were fatigued by him. Oscar on the other hand won his because it seemed players were tired of giving it to Bill Russell.



Oscar also had to compete with Hal Greer, Jerry West, Don Ohl, Guy Rodgers, Wilkens, and Bing over the course of his career. You are just cherrypicking 2 guys when you are not looking at the totality of the package.

I don't know why you bring up Bing. He has a reputation for being one of the most overrated players in history.

[warriorfan]

Not really. More players and teams does not equate to tougher competition. The fact there is 30 teams today means that the great players are spread out more. Some on great teams and some on bad teams. More expansion equals a more diluted, watered down league. Jerry Sloan once said this about the expansion issue.



Oscar also had to compete with Hal Greer, Jerry West, Don Ohl, Guy Rodgers, Wilkens, and Bing over the course of his career. You are just cherrypicking 2 guys when you are not looking at the totality of the package.

So yes. In summary you are trying to tell me guard competition was better in the 60’s then in today’s modern game.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f8cae265542ac29aa6d00dcbeab7bfd9/tenor.gif?itemid=7178438

Get the f.uck out of here kid. You are a clown.

[Roundball_Rock]

Bob Cousy was pure 2nd option on his title teams. The Klay, and later, the dray on his team. 3rd option for a lot of it.

:facepalm He literally was league MVP when Boston won in 57' (same as Curry in 15'--Curry was the second option in 17', 18' as was Oscar in 71'). He was all-NBA 1st team from 57'-61' and then second team in 62' and 63'. When he retired a lot of people thought they wouldn't win anymore.

If we play the "first option rings" game then Isiah is second at PG ahead of Oscar, Curry and ringless players like Kidd, Stockton, and Paul. People need to own the consequences of (poor) logic.


First round exit every year.

Yeah, except the time they made 3 straight conference finals. :lol

You have zero command of the facts yet sadly think you do.


Curry (2013-present): 11th, 6th, 1st, 1st, 6th, 10-11th, 5th

Robertson (63'-70'): 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 16th

Also factor in Robertson was competing with Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor for MVP's; Curry had LeBron, Durant, Harden. The former is more impressive, especially when LeBron has not won since 2013 due to voter fatigue/low RS win totals.


The "rangz" argument and involving team success in an argument purely about the players are such erroneous ways to put a player over another player for convenience. Posters will just throw away individual success and instead will look for team success.

Yup. Just look at how different posters approach the issue from thread to thread. For instance, one of the big advocates for winning in this thread praises Reggie Miller who won absolutely nothing in 18 years (losing in the conference finals is an achievement--except when Cousy does it, I guess).


Not really. More players and teams does not equate to tougher competition. The fact there is 30 teams today means that the great players are spread out more. Some on great teams and some on bad teams.

Exactly. Less teams means tougher competition as each roster is stronger and the quality of starting players is much better. Oscar had to face a top 8 or top 10 player every game. We have seen Curry have issues when he has faced tougher competition (the big knock on him).


Jerry Sloan once said this about the expansion issue.

Rodman made a similar comment around then speaking about his own team that was en route to setting the wins record.


In an 8 or 9-team league it is far easier to get noticed and appease all interest groups.

Curry is one of the most marketed/hyped superstars ever; Oscar was not. Oscar played his prime in Cincinnati; Curry in the San Francisco market. If anyone had the advantage in getting noticed, it is Curry.

[warriorfan]

:facepalm He literally was league MVP when Boston won in 57' (same as Curry in 15'--Curry was the second option in 17', 18' as was Oscar in 71'). He was all-NBA 1st team from 57'-61' and then second team in 62' and 63'.

If we play the "first option rings" game then Isiah is second at PG ahead of Oscar, Curry and ringless players like Kidd, Stockton, and Paul.



Yeah, except the time they made 3 straight conference finals. :lol

You have zero command of the facts yet sadly think you do.



Also factor in Robertson was competing with Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor for MVP's; Curry had LeBron, Durant, Harden. The former is more impressive, especially when LeBron has not won since 2013 due to voter fatigue/low RS win totals.



Yup. Just look at how different posters approach the issue from thread to thread. For instance, one of the big advocates for winning in this thread praises Reggie Miller who won absolutely noting in 18 years.



Exactly. Less teams means tougher competition as each roster is stronger and the quality of starting players is much better. Oscar had to face a top 8 or top 10 player every game. We have seen Curry have issues when he has faced tougher competition (the big knock on him).



Rodman made a similar comment around then speaking about his own team that was en route to setting the wins record.



Curry is one of the most marketed/hyped superstars ever; Oscar was not. Oscar played his prime in Cincinnati; Curry in the San Francisco market. If anyone had the advantage in getting noticed, it is Curry.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/949f42b13894d3865614b1e08d7177db/tenor.gif?itemid=5245718

[Stephonit]

Also factor in Robertson was competing with Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor for MVP's; Curry had LeBron, Durant, Harden. The former is more impressive, especially when LeBron has not won since 2013 due to voter fatigue/low RS win totals.

Your framing makes it look that way but when you alter the perspective I think it changes: Westbrook had to compete against Curry, Durant, LeBron, Harden, Kawhi and Giannis. Oscar had to compete against Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor for MVPs. The absence of Curry himself and some of the other MVP candidates of this era is what makes your arbitrary list seem more impressive at first.




Exactly. Less teams means tougher competition as each roster is stronger and the quality of starting players is much better. Oscar had to face a top 8 or top 10 player every game. We have seen Curry have issues when he has faced tougher competition (the big knock on him).

A theory unsupported by any facts and a ridiculous angle to claim any advantage for Oscar. Robertson's best record with the Royals was a 55-win season and had sub-50 win seasons otherwise. Curry led his team to three 67+ win seasons. Even if we are to assume this theory is correct and it explains lower season win totals during Oscar's day relatively speaking Oscar still didn't outperform Curry. Oscar never led the Royals to the best record in the league. When Oscar finally did have a team that led the league in wins on the 66-win Bucks it was with Kareem in an expansion era.

Curry has issues when facing tougher competition? Don't you mean Oscar has those issues? Curry's Warriors faced Durant and Westbrook. Faced Harden and Chris Paul. Curry won. When did Oscar have a victory against similar opposition as the best player?



Curry is one of the most marketed/hyped superstars ever; Oscar was not. Oscar played his prime in Cincinnati; Curry in the San Francisco market. If anyone had the advantage in getting noticed, it is Curry.

From an overall world population view because of the NBA's reach in the current era? Sure. But from within the NBA? Balderdash. Curry forced the league to take notice of him despite an entire generation of stars ahead of him (Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Duncan, KG, CP3, LeBron) and more highly touted contemporaries (KD, Westbrook, Harden, Griffin) saturating attention spans. On the other hand who was Oscar competing with for attention?

[Roundball_Rock]

Westbrook had to compete against Curry, Durant, LeBron, Harden, Kawhi and Giannis. Oscar had to compete against Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor for MVPs. The absence of Curry himself and some of the other MVP candidates of this era is what makes your arbitrary list seem more impressive at first.

I excluded Oscar and Curry since we are talking their competition. Here is the difference:

60's: Wilt (GOAT candidate), Russell (GOAT candidate), West (borderline top 10), Baylor (top 15), Cousy, Petit
10's: LeBron (GOAT candidate), Durant (top 15), Harden (top 25-30?), Kawhi (top 25-35?), Giannis (?)

For the 10's speculation is required since we don't know how careers would finish. The 60's probably were the toughest era to win MVP's. You had two GOAT candidates, four arguable top 10 all-time players, five top 15, and that doesn't even get to players like Petit, Cousy.


A theory unsupported by any facts and a ridiculous angle to claim any advantage for Oscar

I have been called anti-Oscar. I go wherever the facts lead me.


Robertson's best record with the Royals was a 55-win season and had sub-50 win seasons otherwise. Curry led his team to three 67+ win seasons

Curry clearly had>>>>>>>team success than Oscar. Oscar arguably had the worst team success of any top 15 player. My point was about individual match ups.


Curry has issues when facing tougher competition? Don't you mean Oscar has those issues?

Oscar was old by the time he made the finals so I don't see what we can read into that. Curry has underachieved (relative to his talent) in the finals.


On the other hand who was Oscar competing with for attention?

You have to factor in markets. Cincinnati isn't San Francisco. Look at Cincinnati on this graph in 1960 and 1970 (he then went to Milwaukee, another small market). Compare that to SF today:

https://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/HistMetroPop2010.jpg

Oscar was competing with Wilt, Russell, Cousy, West, Baylor, Petit as the other big names.


Curry forced the league to take notice of him despite an entire generation of stars ahead of him (Kobe, Wade, Dirk, KG, CP3, LeBron) and more highly touted contemporaries (KD, Westbrook, Harden, Griffin) saturating attention spans

Superstars generally rise to the top in attention. The exceptions are those in small markets. Curry was in a top 5 market; Cincy was barely top 20 in 1960 and then fell out of the top 20 in that decade. Milwaukee was even smaller.

[Stephonit]

I excluded Oscar and Curry since we are talking their competition. Here is the difference:

60's: Wilt (GOAT candidate), Russell (GOAT candidate), West (borderline top 10), Baylor (top 15), Cousy, Petit
10's: LeBron (GOAT candidate), Durant (top 15), Harden (top 25-30?), Kawhi (top 25-35?), Giannis (?)

For the 10's speculation is required since we don't know how careers would finish. The 60's probably were the toughest era to win MVP's. You had two GOAT candidates, four arguable top 10 all-time players, five top 15, and that doesn't even get to players like Petit, Cousy.


As I said previously excluding Curry himself irredeemably skews the comparison. Curry is a candidate for best ever from this generation that Oscar never was in his. Durant or Harden could have ended up looking like top 10 candidates or LeBron looking even more impressive if they never ran into Curry. I don't recall Robertson ever having the impact Curry has had on determining the perception of other stars. Russell dominated him too thoroughly.




I have been called anti-Oscar. I go wherever the facts lead me.
What are those facts? I still haven't seen a remotely cogent argument made on behalf of Oscar.




Curry clearly had>>>>>>>team success than Oscar. Oscar arguably had the worst team success of any top 15 player. My point was about individual match ups.


Individual match ups? You'll have to be clearer. What does that mean?




You have to factor in markets. Cincinnati isn't San Francisco. Look at Cincinnati on this graph in 1960 and 1970 (he then went to Milwaukee, another small market). Compare that to SF today:

https://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/HistMetroPop2010.jpg

Oscar was competing with Wilt, Russell, Cousy, West, Baylor, Petit as the other big names.

Superstars generally rise to the top in attention. The exceptions are those in small markets. Curry was in a top 5 market; Cincy was barely top 20 in 1960 and then fell out of the top 20 in that decade. Milwaukee was even smaller.

LeBron was known well enough in Cleveland. The league is doing a perfectly adequate job of making Giannis known despite him being in Milwaukee. In an 8 or 9-team league Oscar had no problem being known as a star within the league. The size of the market isn't what is holding back a player's visibility within the league. It's the narrative that's spun upon entering it. Compare for example Zion vs. RJ Barrett/Frank Ntilikina. New Orleans vs. New York City. This market size argument of yours is a red herring.

[Roundball_Rock]

As I said previously excluding Curry himself irredeemably skews the comparison. Curry is a candidate for best ever from this generation that Oscar never was in his

It skews it in Curry's favor. Oscar is top 10 AT to some people; no one has Curry top 10. You have him as best for his generation but he trails LeBron, Durant and now there is the Kawhi hype train too threatening Curry.


Durant or Harden could have ended up looking like top 10 candidates or LeBron looking even more impressive if they never ran into Curry

That overstates it but I see your point. You can do that in any era. If Duncan didn't exist Nash would be looked at differently or if Russell didn't Wilt likely would be consensus GOAT.


What are those facts?

Tougher comp in a 8 team league than a 30 team league. Rosters are much stronger and you are playing top players every game.


LeBron was known well enough in Cleveland

An exception. He was marketed before he even got to the NBA.


The league is doing a perfectly adequate job of making Giannis known despite him being in Milwaukee

How many segments does he get on ESPN or other sports talk shows? The focus is always on LeBron, a retired NBA player, Brady and to a much lesser extent on Kawhi, KD, Curry (when healthy). Giannis does not get anywhere close to the coverage a player of his caliber on a team with its record should get because of Milwaukee.

The players I listed? They play in Los Angeles, played in Chicago, played in Boston until the coming season, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco.


This market size argument of yours is a red herring.

Exhibit A: Tim Duncan
Exhibit B: Kobe Bryant

Identical resumes but Kobe wound up in LA instead of Charlotte.

The Curry thing revolves around team success (when convenient--offer does not apply to Isiah or Cousy, evidently). He played with Klay, Green, Iggy, and KD. Not exactly Curry and scrubs. You don't "carry" a team to 73 wins. The argument for Oscar is he was the better player. Agree or disagree but it is about Oscar; Curry, like Kawhi, has his case revolve around external factors.

[bizil]

I agree that Steph hasn't passed Oscar yet on the GOAT list. When u look at all the factors that encompass GOAT shit, I don't think Steph has yet:

Solo Accolades
Team Accolades
Peak-prime status
Longevity being great
Numbers
Impact on the league (redefining a position, rules change because of you, being a face of the league, etc.)

When u look at these six areas, the only edge Steph has on Oscar is the team accolades. Even in terms of solo accolades, Steph has one more MVP than Oscar. Oscar is an MVP himself, 3 time All Star MVP, and has several assists titles. And has way more All Star and All NBA team nods. Peak-prime wise, Oscar is the better player. A 30 point scorer, the blueprint triple double threat, and could LEGIT play three different positions at a great level if he had too. Oscar has WAY MORE longevity being a great player of course. His season and career numbers are more impressive. Oscar for a LONG ASS TIME was the all time leader in career assists in the league. It took Magic to pass him by in the 90's.

And he FOR DAMN SURE revolutionized his position more than Steph in my opinion. Having a 6'5 220 pound PG back in that era with Oscar's skillset and IQ was WAY AHEAD of its time. It took guys like Bron and Luka moving to the PG spot to COME CLOSE to what Oscar represented at the PG spot. Guys who can average 30 PPG from a pass first mindset, play three or four different positions, AND be a consistent triple double threat at the same time. Oscar was also one of the faces of basketball just like Steph.

I got Steph as the 3rd GOAT PG behind Magic and Oscar. U could still argue Zeke, but I think Steph passed him by after that 3rd ring. I'm not saying Steph can't pass Oscar by at some point. Jus saying he hasn't done it yet. Oscar, West, and Baylor DON'T GET enough credit for being the INITIAL BLUEPRINT of what their respective positions could be about AT ITS APEX! Phenomenal scoring, all around ability, and positional versatility in one package!

[Stephonit]

It skews it in Curry's favor. Oscar is top 10 AT to some people; no one has Curry top 10. You have him as best for his generation but he trails LeBron, Durant and now there is the Kawhi hype train too threatening Curry.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I keep hearing Oscar is a great player—and I keep seeing nothing to support it. On the other hand I keep hearing the same people saying LeBron, KD, Kawhi, are better players—and I also keep seeing nothing to support it.



Tougher comp in a 8 team league than a 30 team league. Rosters are much stronger and you are playing top players every game. That's one theory. Another is that with a greater base of participation due to its greater popularity in recent times, the current league is much stronger in terms of talent. But again simply looking at relative performance vs. their competition shows Curry outperforming Robertson. Curry led his team to the best record three times. Robertson didn't while someone else did during the 8-team league era.




An exception. He was marketed before he even got to the NBA.

Is Zion another exception?



How many segments does he get on ESPN or other sports talk shows? The focus is always on LeBron, a retired NBA player, Brady and to a much lesser extent on Kawhi, KD, Curry (when healthy). Giannis does not get anywhere close to the coverage a player of his caliber on a team with its record should get because of Milwaukee.

I agree completely. Indeed Curry himself is a victim of this skewed narration carried out by the media and should be getting a lot more attention for what he's done based on the precedents set. But as I said in my initial reply we're talking about two different kinds of promotion. One external to the NBA and one within it. Within the NBA and those who follow it Giannis has had no problem being recognized as the best player on his team and being considered for MVP. He's been groomed as such. Similarly Robertson seems to have been recognized early in his time and was put on the fast track to NBA superstardom. I'd argue Curry was not.



The players I listed? They play in Los Angeles, played in Chicago, played in Boston until the coming season, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. Different kind of promotion as stated. Even then they didn't rise to prominence in those cities.




Exhibit A: Tim Duncan
Exhibit B: Kobe Bryant

Identical resumes but Kobe wound up in LA instead of Charlotte. Again external promotion. One is a boring rock solid team player who avoids publicity. The other is a flashy shot maker with "mamba mentality" following in the footsteps of Michael Jordan. Gee I wonder who the media will want to follow?

[Stephonit]

The Curry thing revolves around team success (when convenient--offer does not apply to Isiah or Cousy, evidently). He played with Klay, Green, Iggy, and KD. Not exactly Curry and scrubs. You don't "carry" a team to 73 wins. The argument for Oscar is he was the better player. Agree or disagree but it is about Oscar; Curry, like Kawhi, has his case revolve around external factors.

Curry is one of 9 players in NBA history with multiple MVPs and championships. One of those MVP seasons was arguably the most statistically impressive ever clinching the award for him with months to go before the end of the season and was unanimous. Convenience has nothing to do with it; quite simply Isiah and Cousy aren't in the same league. Klay, Dray and Andre never so much as saw a conference finals before Curry led them to a championship. Curry and scrubs is exactly what they were considered in 2013. They went from +15000 betting odds to a championship in 2 years. Even with KD they went from league leading winning pace with Curry to struggling to breakeven without Curry.

Oscar is a better player? How? I still see absolutely nothing to indicate that. Are you or anyone else ever going to come up with anything?

[Roundball_Rock]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this

To be clear, I was just poking holes in what other people said. Oscar and Curry are close to me. I haven't given it much thought so not sure who I would pick. ESPN had Curry #13, Oscar #11 but obviously Curry has several years left.


That's one theory. Another is that with a greater base of participation due to its greater popularity in recent times, the current league is much stronger in terms of talent

True--although that means today's league is the toughest due to global popularity, a larger population leading to a much larger pool than ever. Often I see the argument made to diminish the 60's but those people (unlike you here) don't apply that logic to the 10's versus the 90's/80's.


But again simply looking at relative performance vs. their competition shows Curry outperforming Robertson. Curry led his team to the best record three times. Robertson didn't while someone else did during the 8-team league era.

What sticks out to me about Curry is how much they fell off sans him while they had almost no drop off without Durant.


Is Zion another exception?

Potentially--let's see how it unfolds. Shaq is another one who was huge in a small market. Shaq, LeBron, Kareem in Milwaukee, maybe Zion. That may be it?


agree completely. Indeed Curry himself is a victim of this skewed narration carried out by the media and should be getting a lot more attention for what he's done based on the precedents set

I think he is hurt by 1) being injured this year so recency bias hurts him (while inflating Kawhi to ridiculous levels) 2) KD casting a shadow over him. With KD gone, Curry and co. healthy next year and presumably contending again I suspect he will emerge again as a major topic. It is always LeBron, Jordan, and Brady. If Brady is washed up maybe he fades and creates more room for Curry or Giannis (or Mahomes).


One external to the NBA and one within it. Within the NBA and those who follow it Giannis has had no problem being recognized as the best player on his team and being considered for MVP. He's been groomed as such. Similarly Robertson seems to have been recognized early in his time and was put on the fast track to NBA superstardom. I'd argue Curry was not.

Fair points. I was talking external. Curry seems to be disliked by a lot of players, presumably because he grew up rich.


Convenience has nothing to do with it; quite simply Isiah and Cousy aren't in the same league

I agree and the case can be made without invoking team success. What we heard earlier is Curry>Oscar because of team success but the same people are selective on when it applies. One of those people yesterday said Dirk>Duncan. 5 rings versus 1.


Oscar is a better player? How? I still see absolutely nothing to indicate that

I meant those who argue for him will make a case on that basis. To be fair, it is somewhat out of necessity since he had so little team success compared to the top 15 ATG.

[Whoah10115]

oscar was nowhere near as good as steph curry. we have the tape, just watch it.

Didn't know you watched it.