Assuming a 4th ring, which one of these players will Curry knock out of the top 10?

[Carbine]

MJ
LeBron
Magic
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Bird
Duncan
Hakeem
Kobe/Shaq

I think with a fourth title and another 5 years of playing, he will retire above Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and Bird.

It's kind of ironic because I would not say he's a better player or even on par as a player with those four guys. Just a better career.

[RRR3]

He's already top 10

[SATAN]

It would have to be Hakeem.

[Shooter]

Kobe is 11th or 12th. A ring wont move him past Kobe. A FMVP could do it.

[John8204]

I love these threads....

Havlicek - 8 rings
Mikan - 7 championships (5 rings)

[Shooter]

I love these threads....

Havlicek - 8 rings
Mikan - 7 championships (5 rings)

Exactly.

Curry needs a FMVP to set himself apart.

[Carbine]

I love these threads....

Havlicek - 8 rings
Mikan - 7 championships (5 rings)

Mikan played what, 7 or 8 seasons total? His longevity is very poor even compared to Russell and Wilt. He was never an NBA MVP I don't believe.

Havlicek never won MVP. He won a vast majority of his titles as the 2-3-4th best player on the team. These top ten players have the titles + accolades. Not just rings.

[HoopsNY]

Steph

8x All-Star
8x All-NBA
2x MVP
0x FMVP
0x All-Defensive
2x Scoring Champ
0x DPOY

Hakeem

12x All-Star
12x All-NBA
9x All-Defensive
1x MVP
2x DPOY
0x Scoring Champ
3x Blk Champ
2x Reb Champ
2x FMVP


Hakeem is arguably the greatest defensive player ever while Steph is nowhere near the top 100. Hakeem has the accolades over Steph, but because Steph has underwhelming rings with no iconic finals performances, including no FMVPs, people are somehow in a rush to crown him above Hakeem once GS wins. It's pretty crazy when you think of it.

[RRR3]

Steph

8x All-Star
8x All-NBA
2x MVP
0x FMVP
0x All-Defensive
2x Scoring Champ
0x DPOY

Hakeem

12x All-Star
12x All-NBA
9x All-Defensive
1x MVP
2x DPOY
0x Scoring Champ
3x Blk Champ
2x Reb Champ
2x FMVP

Hakeem is arguably the greatest defensive player ever while Steph is nowhere near the top 100. Hakeem has the accolades over Steph, but because Steph has underwhelming rings with no iconic finals performances, including no FMVPs, people are somehow in a rush to crown him above Hakeem once GS wins. It's pretty crazy when you think of it.
Steph is the most impactful offensive player of all time, it's not crazy at all to rank him over Hakeem.

[John8204]

Mikan played what, 7 or 8 seasons total? His longevity is very poor even compared to Russell and Wilt. He was never an NBA MVP I don't believe.

Havlicek never won MVP. He won a vast majority of his titles as the 2-3-4th best player on the team. These top ten players have the titles + accolades. Not just rings.

He was an NBL MVP, he played 10 seasons...8 finals appearances 7 championships..he had to retire to get a job

[Full Court]

Steph

8x All-Star
8x All-NBA
2x MVP
0x FMVP
0x All-Defensive
2x Scoring Champ
0x DPOY

Hakeem

12x All-Star
12x All-NBA
9x All-Defensive
1x MVP
2x DPOY
0x Scoring Champ
3x Blk Champ
2x Reb Champ
2x FMVP


Hakeem is arguably the greatest defensive player ever while Steph is nowhere near the top 100. Hakeem has the accolades over Steph, but because Steph has underwhelming rings with no iconic finals performances, including no FMVPs, people are somehow in a rush to crown him above Hakeem once GS wins. It's pretty crazy when you think of it.

I agree with this. Steph's close, but a FMVP this year won't put him past Hakeem in my book.

[HoopsNY]

Steph is the most impactful offensive player of all time, it's not crazy at all to rank him over Hakeem.


And? You could argue that Hakeem is the most impactful defensive player of all-time.

Steph top 10 PPG finishes: 8x
Hakeem top 10 PPG finishes: 9x

Steph top 5 MVP finishes: 4x
Hakeem top 5 MVP finishes: 6x

But lets pretend Hakeem doesn't have 'accolades' that trump or rival Steph. Keep in mind the league didn't relax perimeter defensive enforcement or add rules to pump up offensive numbers during Steph's time. Yea, that didn't happen.

[SouBeachTalents]

Steph

8x All-Star
8x All-NBA
2x MVP
0x FMVP
0x All-Defensive
2x Scoring Champ
0x DPOY

Hakeem

12x All-Star
12x All-NBA
9x All-Defensive
1x MVP
2x DPOY
0x Scoring Champ
3x Blk Champ
2x Reb Champ
2x FMVP

Hakeem is arguably the greatest defensive player ever while Steph is nowhere near the top 100. Hakeem has the accolades over Steph, but because Steph has underwhelming rings with no iconic finals performances, including no FMVPs, people are somehow in a rush to crown him above Hakeem once GS wins. It's pretty crazy when you think of it.
Yeah, this is why I despise the way players are ranked. If you swapped Hakeem's supporting casts with Curry's there's a 0% chance Curry ends up with more titles. Those Durant titles heavily inflate Curry's resume imo.

[HoopsNY]

Yeah, this is why I despise the way players are ranked. If you swapped Hakeem's supporting casts with Curry's there's a 0% chance Curry ends up with more titles. Those Durant titles heavily inflate Curry's resume imo.

Yep. Everyone always leaves that out of the conversation. They're quick to talk about Hakeem getting knocked out of the first round (which subsequently happened after the demise of his team), as if Steph was a beacon of success once Klay went down.

[Axe]

And? You could argue that Hakeem is the most impactful defensive player of all-time.

Steph top 10 PPG finishes: 8x
Hakeem top 10 PPG finishes: 9x

Steph top 5 MVP finishes: 4x
Hakeem top 5 MVP finishes: 6x

But lets pretend Hakeem doesn't have 'accolades' that trump or rival Steph. Keep in mind the league didn't relax perimeter defensive enforcement or add rules to pump up offensive numbers during Steph's time. Yea, that didn't happen.
Lol scoring has become such a piece of cake task these days. Kudos to hakeem for becoming one of the best defensive stalwarts during his time.

[Pipes2.0]

Nobody. Wardell isn't even on my Top 15.

[Shooter]

Nobody. Wardell isn't even on my Top 15.

Who is your 10 to 15 so we can all point and laugh at you

[RRR3]

And? You could argue that Hakeem is the most impactful defensive player of all-time.

Steph top 10 PPG finishes: 8x
Hakeem top 10 PPG finishes: 9x

Steph top 5 MVP finishes: 4x
Hakeem top 5 MVP finishes: 6x

But lets pretend Hakeem doesn't have 'accolades' that trump or rival Steph. Keep in mind the league didn't relax perimeter defensive enforcement or add rules to pump up offensive numbers during Steph's time. Yea, that didn't happen.
As Kblaze said this has been happening since the 60s lol

[RRR3]

Yeah, this is why I despise the way players are ranked. If you swapped Hakeem's supporting casts with Curry's there's a 0% chance Curry ends up with more titles. Those Durant titles heavily inflate Curry's resume imo.
Are we just dropping Curry into the 90's? They would have zero idea how to guard him lol

[HoopsNY]

As Kblaze said this has been happening since the 60s lol

Hakeem Playoffs '86-'97: 28/12/4/2/4 on 54%

Did it become harder or easier to score through Hakeem's peak and prime or was it the other way around? Now compare that with Steph. The comparison is honestly insulting. If what Kblaze said is true then it would have remained that way every year until now. Instead, we saw offense drop significantly from 1985-2005. So for two decades, we just ignore the reverse?

[HoopsNY]

Are we just dropping Curry into the 90's? They would have zero idea how to guard him lol

The pace would fall and players would be allowed to put their hands on Steph on the perimeter. I mean, don't believe me, look at Steph's first MVP.

2015: 23.8 PPG
2021: 32.1 PPG

What happened? Is 2021 Steph > 2015 Steph offensively, or are we going to continue to play cognitive dissonance on this just because it's Steph?

[RRR3]

Hakeem Playoffs '86-'97: 28/12/4/2/4 on 54%

Did it become harder or easier to score through Hakeem's peak and prime or was it the other way around? Now compare that with Steph. The comparison is honestly insulting. If what Kblaze said is true then it would have remained that way every year until now. Instead, we saw offense drop significantly from 1985-2005. So for two decades, we just ignore the reverse?
Comparing Steph to Hakeem is not insulting unless you're addicted to nostalgia. If you can't recognize how good Steph is and think it's an insult to compare him to top 10 players I'm not even discussing this with you because you clearly don't realize how good he is.

[HoopsNY]

Comparing Steph to Hakeem is not insulting unless you're addicted to nostalgia. If you can't recognize how good Steph is and think it's an insult to compare him to top 10 players I'm not even discussing this with you because you clearly don't realize how good he is.

Sure, if you're going to divorce context from the conversation. But once you apply context, then the matter becomes a lot more clear. Did GS not add KD to their 73 win team or did that not happen at all?

[AussieSteve]

He needs a FMVP to be remotely close to the top 10 convo.

To play in 6 finals and never once be judged the best player in the series is Scottie Pippen territory.

[Axe]

He needs a FMVP to be remotely close to the top 10 convo.

To play in 6 finals and never once be judged the best player in the series is Scottie Pippen territory.
:applause:

[AirBonner]

Since 3ball has Giannis in the top 10 it has to be Giannis

[Bronbron23]

He's already top 10

:facepalm

[2much_knowledge]

Just No. 1 more ring may solidify him in the top 15. Depending of how well he performs

[warriorfan]

He’s top 5. It will take awhile for some of the low iq’s to catch up. But Curry’s legacy will age like fine wine. He will be top 5 and a lot of people’s b ball iq will get exposed big time. Book mark this.

[John8204]

Who is your 10 to 15 so we can all point and laugh at you

It's not me but I don't think it's absurd to not have Curry in the top 10/15

1.) Jordan, 2.) Wilt, 3.)Lebron, 4.) Bird, 5.) Kareem
6.) Bill, 7.)Magic, 8.) Mikan, 9.)Kobe, 10.)Oscar
11.) West, 12.)Moses, 13.)Duncan, 14.) Hakeem, 15.) Dr. J

Curry is fine...but he's still just a 20K scorerer, 2 time MVP with 3/4 rings but also a defensive liability and a product of softer play.

[Axe]

It's not me but I don't think it's absurd to not have Curry in the top 10/15

1.) Jordan, 2.) Wilt, 3.)Lebron, 4.) Bird, 5.) Kareem
6.) Bill, 7.)Magic, 8.) Mikan, 9.)Kobe, 10.)Oscar
11.) West, 12.)Moses, 13.)Duncan, 14.) Hakeem, 15.) Dr. J

Curry is fine...but he's still just a 20K scorerer, 2 time MVP with 3/4 rings but also a defensive liability and a product of softer play.
He ain't clutch as well.

[AussieSteve]

Curry has three rings. One came via devastating injuries to his opponent and the other two came as the 2nd best player on his own team.

He has never shown that he can take a team to a championship as the best player.

Hes great. But not close to top 10.

[Phoenix]

Steph

8x All-Star
8x All-NBA
2x MVP
0x FMVP
0x All-Defensive
2x Scoring Champ
0x DPOY

Hakeem

12x All-Star
12x All-NBA
9x All-Defensive
1x MVP
2x DPOY
0x Scoring Champ
3x Blk Champ
2x Reb Champ
2x FMVP


Hakeem is arguably the greatest defensive player ever while Steph is nowhere near the top 100. Hakeem has the accolades over Steph, but because Steph has underwhelming rings with no iconic finals performances, including no FMVPs, people are somehow in a rush to crown him above Hakeem once GS wins. It's pretty crazy when you think of it.

Yes, I can't go there with putting him over Hakeem yet. If he had anything close to a 95 Drexler level 2nd option for most of his career, he'd likely have at least doubled his ring/FMVP count.

[NBAGOAT]

Backpicks is the biggest steph fan out there who makes all time lists and he has Steph only 20th. Update after this season and top 15 isn’t crazy(wat I think too) but there’s no case for top 10. Steph doesn’t have longevity. Only way you can have him top 10 is if you think his peak is GOAT lvl but its only hardcore steph stans who think that

[tpols]

Oscar Robertson and Dr. J only have 1 ring a piece as sidekicks yet are considered top 15 all time. Curry has 3 rings averaging superstar numbers and people hesitate on him. He has Finals averaging 29/9/6 and people say they don't count because Durant. Yet nobody says Dr. J or Oscars don't count because of Kareem or Moses Malone, who were better than Durant. This goes to show there's a huge double standard surrounding Steph curry.

[tpols]

Backpicks is the biggest steph fan out there who makes all time lists and he has Steph only 20th. Update after this season and top 15 isn’t crazy(wat I think too) but there’s no case for top 10. Steph doesn’t have longevity. Only way you can have him top 10 is if you think his peak is GOAT lvl but its only hardcore steph stans who think that

Guys in the top 15 like Dirk and Garnett have 1 ring. And Curry has higher Finals averages than both of them across 3 rings right now.

As far as his peak goes he's the only UMVP in NBA history and led the winningest team in NBA history with no superstar teammate. So that is a GOAT peak.

[Phoenix]

Oscar Robertson and Dr. J only have 1 ring a piece as sidekicks yet are considered top 15 all time. Curry has 3 rings averaging superstar numbers and people hesitate on him. He has Finals averaging 29/9/6 and people say they don't count because Durant. Yet nobody says Dr. J or Oscars don't count because of Kareem or Moses Malone, who were better than Durant. This goes to show there's a huge double standard surrounding Steph curry.

When we had the rankings polls last year I made the case that Steph should be 12th ahead of Oscar, West, and Dr.J and that's where he ended up. Moreso because of his impact on how the game is played now( I hate the spamming of the 3, but whatever). The rankings list is entirely arbitrarily and you can find alot of loopholes throughout. Personally I think a 'tier' appraoch is better anyway.

[NBAGOAT]

Guys in the top 15 like Dirk and Garnett have 1 ring. And Curry has higher Finals averages than both of them across 3 rings right now.

As far as his peak goes he's the only UMVP in NBA history and led the winningest team in NBA history with no superstar teammate. So that is a GOAT peak.

Dirk and KG have fantastic longevity however. Finals averages don’t matter as much when Dirk and KG only played 2. Curry is obviously a better winner but ofc Dirk/kg had less help through their careers. Yes gs had no other superstar pre Durant but most title teams dont have 2 superstars

[tpols]

Dirk and KG have fantastic longevity however. Finals averages don’t matter as much when Dirk and KG only played 2. Curry is obviously a better winner but ofc Dirk/kg had less help through their careers. Yes gs had no other superstar pre Durant but most title teams dont have 2 superstars

Garnett was prime from the early 2000s to 2009 when he got hurt. That's 8 or 9 years. Curry has been elite since 2014. Its 2022 and he's still going. On what basis can you argue Garnett has better longevity than curry?

Steph Curry is 34 and still puting up star playoff production. Garnett at 34 was a role player in 2011. Dirk at 34 was alright in 2013 but not on currys current level.

I swear... I've never seen the cognitive dissonance surrounding curry that exists. People just straight make shit up that is factually untrue.

[RRR3]

Backpicks is the biggest steph fan out there who makes all time lists and he has Steph only 20th. Update after this season and top 15 isn’t crazy(wat I think too) but there’s no case for top 10. Steph doesn’t have longevity. Only way you can have him top 10 is if you think his peak is GOAT lvl but its only hardcore steph stans who think that
He will pass Bird and Magic in games played soon enough. His peak absolutely was GOAT level tbh.

[NBAGOAT]

He will pass Bird and Magic in games played soon enough. His peak absolutely was GOAT level tbh.

Yes but steph didn’t hit his prime til his 4th year(this is responding to tpols too). When I say goat lvl I should’ve said I mean mj, shaq, bron lvl

[ShawkFactory]

If this isn’t a case of arguing just rings being stupid then I don’t know what is.

[DMAVS41]

Garnett was prime from the early 2000s to 2009 when he got hurt. That's 8 or 9 years. Curry has been elite since 2014. Its 2022 and he's still going. On what basis can you argue Garnett has better longevity than curry?

Steph Curry is 34 and still puting up star playoff production. Garnett at 34 was a role player in 2011. Dirk at 34 was alright in 2013 but not on currys current level.

I swear... I've never seen the cognitive dissonance surrounding curry that exists. People just straight make shit up that is factually untrue.

I agree, for the most part, with your overall take on Curry....and Curry, imo, is definitely in that Dirk / KG range of player in the top 20 right now if retired...

However, using ages is a little misleading for Curry in terms of longevity. It tooks Steph until his 4th year to become an all-star / all-nba level player imo...probably would have been there in year 3, but he was hurt most of the year. So he's had 9 great seasons...which is by no means bad so far, but in terms of longevity...that isn't anything special.

Take Dirk...he had 12 or 13 great seasons depending on how you grade and then a few other pretty good seasons. Pretty much the same thing with KG.

I have no doubt that Curry will have as good or better longevity than both given how good he currently is with how the game has made it easier to as well, but he's not there yet.

This finals is important for his legacy because it will prove he deserves to be ranked a tier higher than those guys imo...leading this team (good, but definitely not as good as some argue) to the title as the clear best player...answers all the doubters. Nobody with a brain disputes his greatness...it is about how great...and while a loss here wouldn't be bad...I don't see why one would argue he's separated himself from the Dirk or KG range of players...

That is what is cool about all-time great players having chances like this...the results are a reflection of how great a player actually is. If KG hadn't gotten hurt and they won in 09 and 10...which I think would have been likely...he'd be ranked higher and for good reason. If Dirk won in 06 and didn't play a terrible series in 07...he'd rightly be ranked higher.

Yes, circumstances matter and we have to account for that, but if Curry loses this series...I don't see how he's proven enough in his career, to date, to be place over that range of all-time greats.

[DMAVS41]

If this isn’t a case of arguing just rings being stupid then I don’t know what is.

I really don't think so.

Winning with this Warriors team would prove a lot about his basketball level and impact. We can argue about how much it matters, but some people are over-rating his help to knock him...obviously he has great help, but this ring would be super impressive to play great and beat this Celtics team. It matters for his ranking all-time...as it should.

[Gohan]

Steph

8x All-Star
8x All-NBA
2x MVP
0x FMVP
0x All-Defensive
2x Scoring Champ
0x DPOY

Hakeem

12x All-Star
12x All-NBA
9x All-Defensive
1x MVP
2x DPOY
0x Scoring Champ
3x Blk Champ
2x Reb Champ
2x FMVP


Hakeem is arguably the greatest defensive player ever while Steph is nowhere near the top 100. Hakeem has the accolades over Steph, but because Steph has underwhelming rings with no iconic finals performances, including no FMVPs, people are somehow in a rush to crown him above Hakeem once GS wins. It's pretty crazy when you think of it.

You know youre shook when you count block champ and rebound champ. Scoring titles are legit though

[Jasper]

Kobe isn't even in my top 15.

Curry would be 10a (.):lol:lol:lol

[Shooter]

You know youre shook when you count block champ and rebound champ. Scoring titles are legit though

Imagine forgetting defense is a part of basketball. Lemme guess, you must be an Iverson/Jordan fan? :lol

[Shooter]

Kobe isn't even in my top 15.

Curry would be 10a (.):lol:lol:lol

10a with a boob?

[SouBeachTalents]

Oscar Robertson and Dr. J only have 1 ring a piece as sidekicks yet are considered top 15 all time. Curry has 3 rings averaging superstar numbers and people hesitate on him. He has Finals averaging 29/9/6 and people say they don't count because Durant. Yet nobody says Dr. J or Oscars don't count because of Kareem or Moses Malone, who were better than Durant. This goes to show there's a huge double standard surrounding Steph curry.
You’re dead wrong about this. Oscar & Dr. J’s titles don’t even move the needle on their all time ranking. Sure, they played well, but they were both the CLEAR sidekick to the MVP/best player in the league those seasons.

And you can continue to be disingenuous and keep arguing about just Durant, while pretending that there weren’t also TWO other All-NBA players on the team :lol You conveniently leave out that part. 4 of the 15-20 players in the league all in their prime, something I don’t think any other team in history has had before.

You’re also just a huge hypocrite calling LeBron & Durant team hoppers, but Curry gets a pass for recruiting a top 15-20 player ever in his prime to a team coming off a 73 win season, a move equally as non competitive as Durant’s. Some straight up semantic bullshit :lol

[Full Court]

You’re also just a huge hypocrite calling LeBron & Durant team hoppers, but Curry gets a pass for recruiting a top 15-20 player ever in his prime to a team coming off a 73 win season, a move equally as non competitive as Durant’s. Some straight up semantic bullshit :lol

Serious question here. Did Curry actively recruit Durant (ala Lebron recruiting AD and Westbrook), or was it the Warriors front office just trying to stack the team? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of Curry doing any collusion...but just cause I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Genuinely curious.

[SouBeachTalents]

Serious question here. Did Curry actively recruit Durant (ala Lebron recruiting AD and Westbrook), or was it the Warriors front office just trying to stack the team? I'm asking because I hadn't heard of Curry doing any collusion...but just cause I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Genuinely curious.
He obv at minimum had a huge say in the matter, so even if he wasn’t literally recruiting him, he signed on to the idea. KD gets a ton of shit for joining the 73 win team he just blew a 3-1 lead to a month earlier, but Curry wanting to add a top 3 player to his already 73 win team, coming off a blown 3-1 lead of their own, with Curry having an all time bad series, is just as non competitive as what Durant did, yet Curry gets a pass for it.

[ShawkFactory]

I really don't think so.

Winning with this Warriors team would prove a lot about his basketball level and impact. We can argue about how much it matters, but some people are over-rating his help to knock him...obviously he has great help, but this ring would be super impressive to play great and beat this Celtics team. It matters for his ranking all-time...as it should.

I’m not saying that the Warriors winning this title wouldn’t be huge for his legacy. At all. But simply breaking that then down to “4 RINGS” is silly. There are a lot of ways to make an argument for Steph but contextless ring count isn’t one of them IMO.

[Pipes2.0]

Who is your 10 to 15 so we can all point and laugh at you

Off the top of my head:

Bron
Ordan
Kareem
Russell
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem
Oscar
Kobe
Dr. J
KG
Scottie

[DMAVS41]

I’m not saying that the Warriors winning this title wouldn’t be huge for his legacy. At all. But simply breaking that then down to “4 RINGS” is silly. There are a lot of ways to make an argument for Steph but contextless ring count isn’t one of them IMO.

Of course, but built into the "4th ring" is that he likely must play great and lead his team. Obviously how he actually plays is the most important factor.

[Full Court]

He obv at minimum had a huge say in the matter, so even if he wasn’t literally recruiting him, he signed on to the idea. KD gets a ton of shit for joining the 73 win team he just blew a 3-1 lead to a month earlier, but Curry wanting to add a top 3 player to his already 73 win team, coming off a blown 3-1 lead of their own, with Curry having an all time bad series, is just as non competitive as what Durant did, yet Curry gets a pass for it.

But what are you basing this on? Was there some kind of reporting suggesting that Curry had a say in it, or are you just making assumptions?

[ShawkFactory]

Of course, but built into the "4th ring" is that he likely must play great and lead his team. Obviously how he actually plays is the most important factor.

And that would be a great argument to make in his favor.

You could argue that that wasn’t the case for any of the first 3 rings.

[SouBeachTalents]

But what are you basing this on? Was there some kind of reporting suggesting that Curry had a say in it, or are you just making assumptions?
Do you believe the Warriors would've signed Durant without getting Curry's approval?

[post]

it'd be funny if it turns out one day this is the actual list

jokic
wilt
giannis
jordan
lebron
curry
embiid
davis
robinson
shaq

[DMAVS41]

And that would be a great argument to make in his favor.

You could argue that that wasn’t the case for any of the first 3 rings.

He was definitely the best player on the 2015 title winning team.

His playoff run was 28/5/6...2 steals...61% TS...114 ortg...102 drtg

Was it an all-time dominant performance? No. Did they have a pretty easy path historically? yes.

So I'm not saying that should hold as much weight as the most impressive titles ever won, but he definitely was the clear cut best player on that team and led them to a title.

For his two with Durant...winning was all but a lock...but so was the case with so many of the great pairings in NBA history. If we want to go back and weight each title...I'm all for it actually...I just want it done for all players. Kobe and Shaq, for example, don't have a lot of weight to their titles then...etc...etc...

However, none of that changes the fact that Curry was still a stud in 17 through 19 in the playoffs...he put up 27/6/6...62% TS and when Durant went down...easily still got his team to the finals.

Right now I think Curry has established himself as a top 20 player ever...perhaps a little higher with this finals...but to go higher...I agree that he has to play great and win...otherwise, to date, he's just a top 20 player with similar accomplishments and level of impact to some of the other best ever. I say "just" kind of joking because he's without a doubt one of the best ever...now it is all about determining where he falls in that group.

And what I think is cool about him having a legit squad...good enough to win if he's great...is that we get to see how great he really is in these circumstances...it's another solid data point when analyzing his true impact.

[ShawkFactory]

He was definitely the best player on the 2015 title winning team.

His playoff run was 28/5/6...2 steals...61% TS...114 ortg...102 drtg

Was it an all-time dominant performance? No. Did they have a pretty easy path historically? yes.

So I'm not saying that should hold as much weight as the most impressive titles ever won, but he definitely was the clear cut best player on that team and led them to a title.

For his two with Durant...winning was all but a lock...but so was the case with so many of the great pairings in NBA history. If we want to go back and weight each title...I'm all for it actually...I just want it done for all players. Kobe and Shaq, for example, don't have a lot of weight to their titles then...etc...etc...

However, none of that changes the fact that Curry was still a stud in 17 through 19 in the playoffs...he put up 27/6/6...62% TS and when Durant went down...easily still got his team to the finals.

Right now I think Curry has established himself as a top 20 player ever...perhaps a little higher with this finals...but to go higher...I agree that he has to play great and win...otherwise, to date, he's just a top 20 player with similar accomplishments and level of impact to some of the other best ever. I say "just" kind of joking because he's without a doubt one of the best ever...now it is all about determining where he falls in that group.

And what I think is cool about him having a legit squad...good enough to win if he's great...is that we get to see how great he really is in these circumstances...it's another solid data point when analyzing his true impact.

I agree with most of what you said so I’ll just address this: of course he was the best player but that isn’t really the point as it pertains to the ring. They truly weren’t tested for that entire run. Still counts but you gotta look at it.

[DMAVS41]

I agree with most of what you said so I’ll just address this: of course he was the best player but that isn’t really the point as it pertains to the ring. They truly weren’t tested for that entire run. Still counts but you gotta look at it.

Of course...they had a pretty easy path and some lucky breaks. My issue isn't with someone saying that...it is ignoring it when it happens other years. The Lakers in 09 lucked out that KG got hurt...they didn't really face anyone capable of beating them...all the truly great players like Dirk / Wade / Lebron didn't have legit squads. How about Spurs in 07? After the Mavs loss...they didn't face anyone noteworthy and faced one of the worst teams to make the finals ever. How about the 01 Lakers...or really just most of the Kobe / Shaq run...when you put 2 of the 5 best players on one team...and there isn't another superteam...not that impressive to win. How about Wade / Bosh / Lebron? Lebron / Davis?

You see? You could go down this road with all but a handful of titles...and, again, if we want to get really granular and start weighing them appropriately...I'm all for it...I just want it done for every single title and player...not just guys like Curry.

[Axe]

Of course...they had a pretty easy path and some lucky breaks. My issue isn't with someone saying that...it is ignoring it when it happens other years. The Lakers in 09 lucked out that KG got hurt...they didn't really face anyone capable of beating them...all the truly great players like Dirk / Wade / Lebron didn't have legit squads. How about Spurs in 07? After the Mavs loss...they didn't face anyone noteworthy and faced one of the worst teams to make the finals ever. How about the 01 Lakers...or really just most of the Kobe / Shaq run...when you put 2 of the 5 best players on one team...and there isn't another superteam...not that impressive to win. How about Wade / Bosh / Lebron? Lebron / Davis?

You see? You could go down this road with all but a handful of titles...and, again, if we want to get really granular and start weighing them appropriately...I'm all for it...I just want it done for every single title and player...not just guys like Curry.
So are you trying to say that every ring in the league comes with an asterisk?

[DMAVS41]

Are you trying to say every ring in the league came with an asterisk?

No...I'm saying if you take the time to look at how titles are won...one can find a lot of reasons to not be that impressed given the circumstances in a lot, but not all, titles...

Hell, even the some of the cleanest titles won as underdogs I see people say it wasn't that special

I've heard that Duncan in 03 wasn't that impressive because the Lakers with Shaq/Kobe weren't that good...and then Dirk got hurt in the WCF...so asterisk

Hakeem in 94 faced a choking John Starks and Ewing...so asterisk

Dirk in 11 faced a worn down Lakers team, Thunder team not ready, and a choking Lebron...so asterisk

My point is simply that you can play this game with almost every title.

[SouBeachTalents]

Of course...they had a pretty easy path and some lucky breaks. My issue isn't with someone saying that...it is ignoring it when it happens other years. The Lakers in 09 lucked out that KG got hurt...they didn't really face anyone capable of beating them...all the truly great players like Dirk / Wade / Lebron didn't have legit squads. How about Spurs in 07? After the Mavs loss...they didn't face anyone noteworthy and faced one of the worst teams to make the finals ever. How about the 01 Lakers...or really just most of the Kobe / Shaq run...when you put 2 of the 5 best players on one team...and there isn't another superteam...not that impressive to win. How about Wade / Bosh / Lebron? Lebron / Davis?

You see? You could go down this road with all but a handful of titles...and, again, if we want to get really granular and start weighing them appropriately...I'm all for it...I just want it done for every single title and player...not just guys like Curry.
The only one I disagree with you here is Shaq/Kobe. Of course I know on the surface that Shaq & Kobe are arguably the greatest duo ever, but those titles were far from guaranteed. Shaq's 2000 title is honestly in the upper echelon for me, Kobe was not quite Kobe yet, and he had an all time carry job in the Finals. Then in '02 I honestly believe the Kings were the more talented team, they just happened to lose due to an all time fluke shot & the most infamous officiating ever. '01 I'll cede you :lol

[Overdrive]

Are we just dropping Curry into the 90's? They would have zero idea how to guard him lol

They'd run 5 plays for his 3s all game. He wouldn't need to be guarded like he's now.

You think he'd hoist up 15 threes on the '94 Rockets sans Hakeem?

[DMAVS41]

The only one I disagree with you here is Shaq/Kobe. Of course I know on the surface that Shaq & Kobe are arguably the greatest duo ever, but those titles were far from guaranteed. Shaq's 2000 title is honestly in the upper echelon for me, Kobe was not quite Kobe yet, and he had an all time carry job in the Finals. Then in '02 I honestly believe the Kings were the more talented team, they just happened to lose due to an all time fluke shot & the most infamous officiating ever. '01 I'll cede you :lol

00 for Shaq I agree with...not for Kobe though

01..I agree

02...I agree the Kings were tough, but that was the only team they faced with even a chance to beat them...and honestly if Kobe doesn't shoot so poorly...it wouldn't have been close...it is like rewarding Kobe for playing nowhere near his best by making it harder than it should have been. The luxury of being able to shoot 49% TS and win is exactly what I'm talking about...the margin for error is just huge if you can still win doing that.

[tpols]

You’re dead wrong about this. Oscar & Dr. J’s titles don’t even move the needle on their all time ranking. Sure, they played well, but they were both the CLEAR sidekick to the MVP/best player in the league those seasons.


Well then what does?

Curry has more MVPs, accolades and numbers than both of them. What argument could you even make outside titles? Curry has as many MVPs and titles as Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Dr. J combined.

:biggums:

What's your argument besides being butthurt Curry generally whooped your boys ass?

[SouBeachTalents]

Well then what does?

Curry has more MVPs, accolades and numbers than both of them. What argument could you even make outside titles? Curry has as many MVPs and titles as Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Dr. J combined.

:biggums:

What's your argument besides being butthurt Curry generally whooped your boys ass?
I'd have no problem with Curry being ranked above any of those guys, I was just saying you were incorrect in claiming their titles did anything for them ranking wise when they were clear 2nd options.

And Curry "whopping" LeBron's ass is seriously one of the most laughable narratives that could be spun. He beat him without his 2 best players in 2015, added KD after a 7 game war in 2016, then had literally one of the biggest talent disparities in Finals history in 2018. LeBron outplayed Curry in every single Finals matchup, and only a fool would argue those results are indicative of Curry being better than LeBron instead of him having a significant talent advantage in those matchups.

[SouBeachTalents]

00 for Shaq I agree with...not for Kobe though

01..I agree

02...I agree the Kings were tough, but that was the only team they faced with even a chance to beat them...and honestly if Kobe doesn't shoot so poorly...it wouldn't have been close...it is like rewarding Kobe for playing nowhere near his best by making it harder than it should have been. The luxury of being able to shoot 49% TS and win is exactly what I'm talking about...the margin for error is just huge if you can still win doing that.
These arguments are exactly why the "5 rangz" argument is irrelevant to me in evaluating Kobe. 2000 he was a clear sidekick, and '02 he was horribly inefficient through the Western playoffs. People always try to put '01 & '02 on the same level but Kobe was MUCH better in '01, and minus a horrific performance in their only loss, played like a legit ATG for that playoff run.

[Axe]

No...I'm saying if you take the time to look at how titles are won...one can find a lot of reasons to not be that impressed given the circumstances in a lot, but not all, titles...

Hell, even the some of the cleanest titles won as underdogs I see people say it wasn't that special

I've heard that Duncan in 03 wasn't that impressive because the Lakers with Shaq/Kobe weren't that good...and then Dirk got hurt in the WCF...so asterisk

Hakeem in 94 faced a choking John Starks and Ewing...so asterisk

Dirk in 11 faced a worn down Lakers team, Thunder team not ready, and a choking Lebron...so asterisk

My point is simply that you can play this game with almost every title.
Well i guess it isn't surprising, considering each individual has different views with how he/she perceives the value of those rings. A lot of people share their opinions if the matchup is very popular (like gs vs cavs) while some only do so if it involves their favorite/hated players or teams. Meanwhile others don't care at all. Then you have many users here (while acting as analysts) who will still try to imply anything regardless of the matchup. Lmao that's the kind of affair you can see here.

Anyway here's a past thread regarding asterisk titles: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?496100-Let-s-give-an-asterisk-to-every-NBA-champion-from-2021-to-1947

Seems like anything can be implied about each ring won over time. But ofc not every suspicions about them is necessarily true.

[DMAVS41]

These arguments are exactly why the "5 rangz" argument is irrelevant to me in evaluating Kobe. 2000 he was a clear sidekick, and '02 he was horribly inefficient through the Western playoffs. People always try to put '01 & '02 on the same level but Kobe was MUCH better in '01, and minus a horrific performance in their only loss, played like a legit ATG for that playoff run.

Well, right...and in 01 they never faced any adversity...they could have played significantly worse as a team and still won the title...so asterisk

Again, I'm not arguing that actually...of course they deserve credit for being good enough to do that...my point is that you can point to almost all titles and come up with some reason why it doesn't count or isn't all that impressive

Titles won matter, but we do have to break down the context...and we can't just do it for certain players...we have to do it for everyone...

And you just have to feel for a guy like Barkley...he has to sit there and listen to Shaq talk about winning rings...and I do think Shaq was better than Charles...but we all know that if prime Barkley had peak Wade / Kobe on his team...he'd have won at least one and probably more titles.

It's just silly to ignore that.

[tpols]

I agree, for the most part, with your overall take on Curry....and Curry, imo, is definitely in that Dirk / KG range of player in the top 20 right now if retired...

However, using ages is a little misleading for Curry in terms of longevity. It tooks Steph until his 4th year to become an all-star / all-nba level player imo...probably would have been there in year 3, but he was hurt most of the year. So he's had 9 great seasons...which is by no means bad so far, but in terms of longevity...that isn't anything special.

Take Dirk...he had 12 or 13 great seasons depending on how you grade and then a few other pretty good seasons. Pretty much the same thing with KG.

I have no doubt that Curry will have as good or better longevity than both given how good he currently is with how the game has made it easier to as well, but he's not there yet.

This finals is important for his legacy because it will prove he deserves to be ranked a tier higher than those guys imo...leading this team (good, but definitely not as good as some argue) to the title as the clear best player...answers all the doubters. Nobody with a brain disputes his greatness...it is about how great...and while a loss here wouldn't be bad...I don't see why one would argue he's separated himself from the Dirk or KG range of players...

That is what is cool about all-time great players having chances like this...the results are a reflection of how great a player actually is. If KG hadn't gotten hurt and they won in 09 and 10...which I think would have been likely...he'd be ranked higher and for good reason. If Dirk won in 06 and didn't play a terrible series in 07...he'd rightly be ranked higher.

Yes, circumstances matter and we have to account for that, but if Curry loses this series...I don't see how he's proven enough in his career, to date, to be place over that range of all-time greats.

I agree with you that curry is not on any different level as a player as Dirk or Garnett. What I don't agree with is rating guys on things out of their control. The legacy system is kind of ****ed and I've propagated the mainstream logic too.

In the other nights game Curry put up 34/5/5 on 64 TS. Those are better than Jordan averages.
Meanwhile dray shot on 15 TS to Horfords 98 TS. Klay shot on 53 TS to Smarts 81 TS. Poole shot on 52 TS to Whites 82 TS.

Curry was by far the most productive player on the court, yet because his teammates were massively outshot he goes from hero to being bumped down?

I could understand if Curry shit the bed fine put the blame on him. But the only reason the warriors lost was because his help shit the bed relative to the competition.

Lets say Horford and white and smart shoot on 60 TS instead of 90 TS. Which is still great shooting. Warriors would have won.

Its just crazy to me how things completely outside a players control can determine their legacy.

[DMAVS41]

I agree with you that curry is not on any different level as a player as Dirk or Garnett. What I don't agree with is rating guys on things out of their control. The legacy system is kind of ****ed and I've propagated the mainstream logic too.

In the other nights game Curry put up 34/5/5 on 64 TS. Those are better than Jordan averages.
Meanwhile dray shot on 15 TS to Horfords 98 TS. Klay shot on 53 TS to Smarts 81 TS. Poole shot on 52 TS to Whites 82 TS.

Curry was by far the most productive player on the court, yet because his teammates were massively outshot he goes from hero to being bumped down?

I could understand if Curry shit the bed fine put the blame on him. But the only reason the warriors lost was because his help shit the bed relative to the competition.

Lets say Horford and white and smart shoot on 60 TS instead of 90 TS. Which is still great shooting. Warriors would have won.

Its just crazy to me how things completely outside a players control can determine their legacy.

Well, you know I agree with this and I'm glad you have come around on this a bit over time.

I'm right with you though...I just want the standards applied to all players...not just picking and choosing when it suits the narrative one is going for.

I think fans of great players that didn't have a lot of help at times...think Lebron on the Cavs / Dirk on the Mavs / KG on Minny...that were always hammered for not winning...have seen countless games where that guy plays great and his team doesn't help enough to win.

Honestly, to me, the reverse is actually more painful...when the star of your team doesn't play well and the team still loses....and then you have to watch the other team's star not play well...but win...

And that is exactly what happened in game 1. Curry overall was great...Tatum was terrible...Celtics win.

It is almost like titles are over-rated when comparing players without a lot of nuance and context to the discussion. Glad you hopped on that train 12 years later.

[tpols]

Well, you know I agree with this and I'm glad you have come around on this a bit over time.

I'm right with you though...I just want the standards applied to all players...not just picking and choosing when it suits the narrative one is going for.

I think fans of great players that didn't have a lot of help at times...think Lebron on the Cavs / Dirk on the Mavs / KG on Minny...that were always hammered for not winning...have seen countless games where that guy plays great and his team doesn't help enough to win.

Honestly, to me, the reverse is actually more painful...when the star of your team doesn't play well and the team still loses....and then you have to watch the other team's star not play well...but win...

And that is exactly what happened in game 1. Curry overall was great...Tatum was terrible...Celtics win.

It is almost like titles are over-rated when comparing players without a lot of nuance and context to the discussion. Glad you hopped on that train 12 years later.

I've always used context in my arguments. Hate to bring it up but you were the one who said results are the only thing that matters literally verbatim.

And btw... Dirk on the Mavs started with Steve Nash and Michael Finley. And Jamison. That's was big time all star help. And his coach Don Nelson is one of the winningest coaches ever. So Dirk didn't start with no help. Garnett did. LeBron did but he team hopped all over the league with MVP talent in his prime.

Curry is the only guy who isn't allowed to play with a superstar. If he played with Wade or Nash or Anthony Davis or Pierce or Ray Allen you guys would be saying his titles don't count.

[SouBeachTalents]

I've always used context in my arguments. Hate to bring it up but you were the one who said results are the only thing that matters literally verbatim.

And btw... Dirk on the Mavs started with Steve Nash and Michael Finley. And Jamison. That's was big time all star help. And his coach Don Nelson is one of the winningest coaches ever. So Dirk didn't start with no help. Garnett did. LeBron did but he team hopped all over the league with MVP talent in his prime.

Curry is the only guy who isn't allowed to play with a superstar. If he played with Wade or Nash or Anthony Davis or Pierce or Ray Allen you guys would be saying his titles don't count.
I mean yeah, if they joined his 73 win team that already had 2 other All-NBA teammates on it of course they would. This seems like a very difficult concept for you to understand :lol

[DMAVS41]

I've always used context in my arguments. Hate to bring it up but you were the one who said results are the only thing that matters literally verbatim.

And btw... Dirk on the Mavs started with Steve Nash and Michael Finley. And Jamison. That's was big time all star help. And his coach Don Nelson is one of the winningest coaches ever. So Dirk didn't start with no help. Garnett did. LeBron did but he team hopped all over the league with MVP talent in his prime.

Curry is the only guy who isn't allowed to play with a superstar. If he played with Wade or Nash or Anthony Davis or Pierce or Ray Allen you guys would be saying his titles don't count.

Completely false.

Results given the circumstances...you can't hold all players to the same expectations when every player has different circumstances. Yes, Dirk had more help than KG...hence he should be held to a higher standard of results...which he had...just like Dirk had way less help than Kobe or Shaq or Duncan...hence he should be held to a lesser standard on results than they were.

Dude, you used to destroy Lebron for not winning with those Cavs teams...

You have come around, but please stop the nonsense...you've been such a big "ringz" guy on here propping Kobe for years.

[tpols]

I mean yeah, if they joined his 73 win team that already had 2 other All-NBA teammates on it of course they would. This seems like a very difficult concept for you to understand :lol

Most of why they were a 73 win team though is because curry had a UMVP season averaging 30/5/5 on a record shattering 70 TS. And unlocked GOAT spacing and chemistry through his shooting and off ball ability.

Bro... after the other nights game... how can you not be in awe curry won 73 games with klay and dray? That's... absurd.

Prime Magic and Kareem played together. Prime Kobe and Shaq played together. Prime Wade and LeBron played together. You get the picture. NONE of them even came close to that mark. And Klay nor dray isn't even close to that level of help. Would you not trade klay and dray for prime shaq or Kareem?

:biggums:

Curry almost might have been better off underachieving with klay and dray and winning like 55 games before playing with a superstar teammate just so bitches like yourself wouldn't complain about it when almost every other GOAT player got to play with a superstar teammate, including your favorite player who got to play with Wade and Anthony Davis.

[Full Court]

Do you believe the Warriors would've signed Durant without getting Curry's approval?

I have no idea how much say Curry has on signings. Usually when players push for something like that it leaks out in the news somewhere. Like Durant teaming up with Kyrie, Kawhi teaming up with George, Lebron pushing for AD, etc. I never heard anything about Curry having anything to do with Durant's signing.

[warriorfan]

Most of why they were a 73 win team though is because curry had a UMVP season averaging 30/5/5 on a record shattering 70 TS. And unlocked GOAT spacing and chemistry through his shooting and off ball ability.

Bro... after the other nights game... how can you not be in awe curry won 73 games with klay and dray? That's... absurd.

Prime Magic and Kareem played together. Prime Kobe and Shaq played together. Prime Wade and LeBron played together. You get the picture. NONE of them even came close to that mark. And Klay nor dray isn't even close to that level of help. Would you not trade klay and dray for prime shaq or Kareem?

:biggums:

Curry almost might have been better off underachieving with klay and dray and winning like 55 games before playing with a superstar teammate just so bitches like yourself wouldn't complain about it when almost every other GOAT player got to play with a superstar teammate, including your favorite player who got to play with Wade and Anthony Davis.

LeBron team hopping all over in his prime time play with bonafied superstars - good

Organically cultivating a winning franchise with your drafted team - bad


Bran Stan logic :lol

[rmt]

It's not me but I don't think it's absurd to not have Curry in the top 10/15

1.) Jordan, 2.) Wilt, 3.)Lebron, 4.) Bird, 5.) Kareem
6.) Bill, 7.)Magic, 8.) Mikan, 9.)Kobe, 10.)Oscar
11.) West, 12.)Moses, 13.)Duncan, 14.) Hakeem, 15.) Dr. J

Curry is fine...but he's still just a 20K scorerer, 2 time MVP with 3/4 rings but also a defensive liability and a product of softer play.

What joke - Shaq nowhere to be seen.

[Hey Yo]

LeBron team hopping all over in his prime time play with bonafied superstars - good

Organically cultivating a winning franchise with your drafted team - bad


Bran Stan logic :lol

Recruiting and letting the 2nd best player to sign on with your team as the B2B MVP in your prime is beta af