Has any other player created a dynasty with less help than Stephen Curry?

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14667078]

This explains exactly why he is possibly the greatest sidekick of all time, [B]the greatest Robin to someone else as Batman.[/B]


[/Quote]


Why does Jordan have to win with a "Robin", while everyone else had a 1b?

Everyone else had "1b" equal-scoring partners to attract equal defensive attention - only MJ had to defeat maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load).

Many people prefer to believe that "scoring isn't everything"... Unfortunately, elite-scoring help is what everyone in history needed tons of, except the GOAT (mj).

So when you say "Robin", you're only talking about non-1st options like Iggy, Pippen, Wiggins, Lowry, etc - these secondary-producing sidekicks can't dominate and therefore force the 1st option to defeat maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load).

Otoh, the premier tier of sidekicks are infact dominant 1st options or "1b's" like Kobe, AD, Kareem, Curry, Wade, Kyrie, etc... These guys take over numerous series and achieve elite stats or lead their team in scoring.

It's important to note that every 90's sidekick was infact a 1b that could achieve elite stats and take over many series EXCEPT PIPPEN - pippen is the only sidekick that was more of a transition/hustle player that couldn't average elite stats in a series, while also having the lowest peak capability ([url=https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2022/qrDm8n.gif]no game-planning required[/url]).. These are easily-provable facts in the historical record..

[QUOTE=3ba11;14667055]Here's the context - Houston hated Pippen:



[Img]https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-15-2022/7D0vE4.gif[/img]




So they traded the 6-time champion for nothing asap

Pippen was the only 90's sidekick that wasn't a "1b" that could get elite stats and dominate.. Since he had the lowest peak capability (transition/hustle player), he wasn't on the scouting report and made MJ defeat maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load).[/QUOTE]

They traded Pippen because he didnt want to be there. Pippen publicly complained about his he was being underutilized in the offense. Even if Rudy T wrote plays to include him in the offense, it obviously didn't work. In spite of playing more minutes than Hakeem and Barkley, Hakeem led the team in FGAs and Barkey tied for second with Pip.

Pippen wanted the Rockets to play a more open court, but Barkely was too fat and out of shape,and Olajuwan was to old.


"The system that was in place in Houston was completely different than the one he was used to when playing for the Bulls. There was a lot of iso basketball, unlike the free-flowing system the Bulls had in place with the triangle offense. Hakeem and Barkley were taking most of the shots, and Pippen's main task was to get them the ball, and he wasn't so much involved in the offense as he was with the Bulls."
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.basketballnetwork.net/.amp/old-school/scottie-pippen-details-why-joining-the-houston-rockets-was-the-biggest-mistake-in-his-career[/url]

[QUOTE=3ba11;14667118]Why does Jordan have to win with a "Robin", while everyone else had a 1b?

Everyone else had "1b" equal-scoring partners to attract equal defensive attention - only MJ had to defeat maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load).

Many people prefer to believe that "scoring isn't everything"... Unfortunately, elite-scoring help is what everyone in history needed tons of, except the GOAT (mj).

So when you say "Robin", you're only talking about non-1st options like Iggy, Pippen, Wiggins, Lowry, etc - these secondary-producing sidekicks can't dominate and therefore force the 1st option to defeat maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load).

Otoh, the premier tier of sidekicks are infact dominant 1st options or "1b's" like Kobe, AD, Kareem, Curry, Wade, Kyrie, etc... These guys take over numerous series and achieve elite stats or lead their team in scoring.

It's important to note that every 90's sidekick was infact a 1b that could achieve elite stats and take over many series EXCEPT PIPPEN - pippen is the only sidekick that was more of a transition/hustle player that couldn't average elite stats in a series, while also having the lowest peak capability ([url=https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2022/qrDm8n.gif]no game-planning required[/url]).. These are easily-provable facts in the historical record..[/QUOTE]

Jordan was never gonna allow a "1b". He didn't even do it in the Olympics. Fortunately for him, Pippen's impact on the game went past scoring. Not to mention, Jordan said he wanted to lead the league in scoring. So in order for Pip to keep up, he would've had to try to jack up shots close to what Jordan was doing. Fortunately, he didnt

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this makes you a troll.

No klay, no play. Period.

[QUOTE=KNOW1EDGE;14667109]Yes, many people. Off the top of my head:

Michael Jordan
Dirk Nowitzki
Giannis Antetokumpo
Kobe Bryant[/QUOTE]

Nowitzki and Antetokounmpo have led dynastic teams?

[QUOTE=3ba11;14667054]David Lee was All-NBA in 2013 when Curry was healthy - Lee led the Warriors to 47 wins that year as the team's only All-NBA player, so this entire thread is moot based on that alone

And Steph joined a 25 ppg guy in Monta, while rookie Klay averaged 13 and started.

That doesn't compare to Jordan having no all-star or All-NBA teammates and rookie Pippen was an 8 ppg bench-warmer[/QUOTE]

Lee led the Warriors in 2013? Curry led the team in PPG for the regular season and then in the playoffs Lee got injured in the first game which the Warriors lost. But the Warriors then went on to win the series without Lee.

It only makes sense that Jordan had an exceptionally weak team in his first year. Jordan was a number one draft pick and the higher the pick the weaker the team the pick is supposed to go to. After that though he was joined by Pippen, Grant, and Cartwright, all three of whom were all-stars at some point in a year playing without Jordan. Monta has never been an all-star and Klay hasn't had yet the opportunity to be an all-star on a team without Steph.

Pippen who you criticize for being a weak scorer in comparison to Klay had multiple triumphant finals series where he averaged 20 ppg and was the second highest scorer on the team. Klay was only able to have a greater than 20 ppg finals series average once in 2019 when the Warriors lost. Klay has never been among the top two highest average ppg scorers in a finals series the Warriors have won.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14666921]A post injury 15ppg in the playoffs defensive oriented David Robinson in 99 was easily the best teammate Duncan had till he was 3 rings in.

They won the title isolating him over and over while Elliot needing a kidney transplant had like 2 points and Drob might have had 12. Second ring he’s got young TP still so inconsistent Pop was pulling him for Speedy Claxton and Manu who I think did about 9ppg on 40% shooting and couldn’t go long without needing to be pulled. Tony obviously grew to be a very good player but the closest thing to a superstar he played with between 1998 and Leonard’s last couple seasons there was Manu when he’d fully adjusted to the nba and that was generally off the bench for like 28 minutes.

The spurs were rarely some super talented team.[/QUOTE]

That's some weird ass take.

2005 Regular season

WS/48
Duncan .245
Manu .240

BPM
Duncan 7.6
Manu 6.9

VORP
Duncan 5.4
Manu 4.9

TS%
Duncan .540
Manu .609


2005 Playoffs

WS/48
Duncan .191
Manu .260

BPM
Duncan 5.5
Manu 9.2

VORP
Duncan 1.6
Manu 2.2

TS%
Duncan .526
Manu .652

In 2005 Manu was really close to Duncan in RS while being far better player in the playoffs, yet your take is Duncan didn't have a talented team?

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14667256]Lee led the Warriors in 2013? Curry led the team in PPG for the regular season and then in the playoffs Lee got injured in the first game which the Warriors lost. But the Warriors then went on to win the series without Lee.

It only makes sense that Jordan had an exceptionally weak team in his first year. Jordan was a number one draft pick and the higher the pick the weaker the team the pick is supposed to go to. After that though he was joined by Pippen, Grant, and Cartwright, all three of whom were all-stars at some point in a year playing without Jordan. Monta has never been an all-star and Klay hasn't had yet the opportunity to be an all-star on a team without Steph.

Pippen who you criticize for being a weak scorer in comparison to Klay had multiple triumphant finals series where he averaged 20 ppg and was the second highest scorer on the team. Klay was only able to have a greater than 20 ppg finals series average once in 2019 when the Warriors lost. Klay has never been among the top two highest average ppg scorers in a finals series the Warriors have won.[/QUOTE]

lol clueless

Simply facts anyone can look up.

[QUOTE=Sulico;14667290]That's some weird ass take.

2005 Regular season

WS/48
Duncan .245
Manu .240

BPM
Duncan 7.6
Manu 6.9

VORP
Duncan 5.4
Manu 4.9

TS%
Duncan .540
Manu .609


2005 Playoffs

WS/48
Duncan .191
Manu .260

BPM
Duncan 5.5
Manu 9.2

VORP
Duncan 1.6
Manu 2.2

TS%
Duncan .526
Manu .652

In 2005 Manu was really close to Duncan in RS while being far better player in the playoffs, yet your take is Duncan didn't have a talented team?[/QUOTE]


No he did not have a particularly talented team especially in the times I referenced which you apparently read and then replied to something else. Not that what you had to say about 2005 is true either. Some formula does not make Manu top 7-10 all time which is what prime Duncan was. Manu was a great player…greater than his numbers. But a bunch of numbers put together doesn’t tell that story.

Tim Duncan being so selfless and supporting is the only reason his guards were allowed to blossom the way they were. Give Duncan a bad attitude and the spurs never could have developed the team first brand they won with.

It’s not all who gets the ball, who shot what, or any of that. It’s how your team performs as a unit and few have ever contributed so much to team culture and allowing accountability. Dude was mvp getting chewed out and nodding in compliance…what the hell is the 10th man gonna do?

Tim Duncan was the spurs culture and anchored a goat tier defense that had as much to do with them winning as any individuals numbers could.

Duncan makes a team greater than the sum of its parts. Doesn’t make the parts bad. But they all did more than similarly talented lineups would be expected. Dirk was a beast and unselfish himself but he was running with another mvp and 3 all stars besides at times back then. Shaq and Kobe had each other. Steph and Durant. Lebron and Wade. Manu and Tony were both special players but it wasn’t a situation where it was multiple all time elites plus a really good roster. Duncan had similar success or more with players who while good were not…that.

Duncan had a normal pretty good nba team that had abnormal results even for teams with insane talent and his second best player was like a 2 time all star usually coming off the bench. It wasn’t a traditional stacked lineup. It was a great team. Those are very different things.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14667396]No he did not have a particularly talented team especially in the times I referenced which you apparently read and then replied to something else. Not that what you had to say about 2005 is true either. Some formula does not make Manu top 7-10 all time which is what prime Duncan was. Manu was a great player…greater than his numbers. But a bunch of numbers put together doesn’t tell that story.

Tim Duncan being so selfless and supporting is the only reason his guards were allowed to blossom the way they were. Give Duncan a bad attitude and the spurs never could have developed the team first brand they won with.

It’s not all who gets the ball, who shot what, or any of that. It’s how your team performs as a unit and few have ever contributed so much to team culture and allowing accountability. Dude was mvp getting chewed out and nodding in compliance…what the hell is the 10th man gonna do?

[B]Tim Duncan was the spurs culture and anchored a goat tier defense[/B] that had as much to do with them winning as any individuals numbers could.

Duncan makes a team greater than the sum of its parts. Doesn’t make the parts bad. But they all did more than similarly talented lineups would be expected. Dirk was a beast and unselfish himself but he was running with another mvp and 3 all stars besides at times back then. Shaq and Kobe had each other. Steph and Durant. Lebron and Wade. Manu and Tony were both special players but it wasn’t a situation where it was multiple all time elites plus a really good roster. Duncan had similar success or more with players who while good were not…that.

Duncan had a normal pretty good nba team that had abnormal results even for teams with insane talent and his second best player was like a 2 time all star usually coming off the bench. It wasn’t a traditional stacked lineup. It was a great team. Those are very different things.[/QUOTE]

This is something that doesn't get talked about nearly enough. People typically praise Duncan's defense, but it generally doesn't go as far as you've described. His presence made the team better on defense, and not just by standing under the basket and cleaning mistakes. Everyone performed on a higher level and on the same page always.

The 04 Pistons defense always gets talked about here, and rightfully so because of how they performed in the finals. But best defense in the league..much less all time? They were comfortably the second best defensive team that year.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14667396]No he did not have a particularly talented team especially in the times I referenced which you apparently read and then replied to something else. Not that what you had to say about 2005 is true either. Some formula does not make Manu top 7-10 all time which is what prime Duncan was. Manu was a great player…greater than his numbers. But a bunch of numbers put together doesn’t tell that story.

Tim Duncan being so selfless and supporting is the only reason his guards were allowed to blossom the way they were. Give Duncan a bad attitude and the spurs never could have developed the team first brand they won with.

It’s not all who gets the ball, who shot what, or any of that. It’s how your team performs as a unit and few have ever contributed so much to team culture and allowing accountability. Dude was mvp getting chewed out and nodding in compliance…what the hell is the 10th man gonna do?

Tim Duncan was the spurs culture and anchored a goat tier defense that had as much to do with them winning as any individuals numbers could.

Duncan makes a team greater than the sum of its parts. Doesn’t make the parts bad. But they all did more than similarly talented lineups would be expected. Dirk was a beast and unselfish himself but he was running with another mvp and 3 all stars besides at times back then. Shaq and Kobe had each other. Steph and Durant. Lebron and Wade. Manu and Tony were both special players but it wasn’t a situation where it was multiple all time elites plus a really good roster. Duncan had similar success or more with players who while good were not…that.

Duncan had a normal pretty good nba team that had abnormal results even for teams with insane talent and his second best player was like a 2 time all star usually coming off the bench. It wasn’t a traditional stacked lineup. It was a great team. Those are very different things.[/QUOTE]

You said that 99 Robinson was the best Duncan had till 3 titles in, which is past 2005 title, that's why I showed you the numbers of Manu in that 3rd title run.

The fact that analytics wasn't a thing back then and guys like Jamaal Magloire or Caron Butler were making All-Star teams, didn't mean that they were better than Manu. Spurs were insanely talented team from 2003 to at least 2008. They had 2 time MVP, Manu, who was Euroleague MVP and destroyed his teammate Duncan in 2004 Olympics and who, at times, was best player on the team, they had one of the best finishers in the league at PG, defensive genius Bruce Bowen, oh and Big Shot Rob who always transformed into star in the playoffs. They were so talented, that the only thing that stopped them from fivepeating was Popovich's stubbornness.

When I said till 3 titles I meant until 2005. Though there are those who would pull some advanced defensive stats out of their ass to suggest Drob was a superstar in the top 10 range back then as a rule I disregard such things when running totally opposite to what I see.

Far as the 03 Spurs being insanely talented….

I don’t even know what the point of that is. If Duncan and like 4 high end role players and random top 300 players in 03 is insane talent what are we calling the Showtime lakers, the Curry/KD warriors, and other obvious super teams?

Super ultra mega insane talent?

Lets reel it in a bit.

The spurs relative to their success were….ok. They were among the most successful teams ever. They absolutely weren’t one of the most talented.

The Spurs were also never a dynasty and never went even back to back, not even once.

The vast majority of their championships came when some greater team, finally broke down or fell apart or was dismantled.

1999 Chicago Bulls dismantled by GM, a year early.

2003 Lakers finally broke down due to no roster upgrades in 4 years, and Shaq being lazy.

And in 2007 should’ve been the Suns winning the Finals if it wasn’t for the stupid asinine suspensions against Phoenix after dirty tactics from Spurs players.

2014 Heat broke down due to D-Wade’s degenerative physical state and the emergence of Kawhi Leonard, by that point, as SA’s best player.

The only legit championship in that run was 2005, and that one could’ve gone either way with the Pistons, and it shouldn’t have even been Detroit in the Finals if Dwyane Wade didn’t get injured in the eastern conference finals.

Literally, scavenger champions. Always have been. It consistently very good, year in and year out team, never great. Yet all this gets attributed as positives in favor of Tim Duncan?

San Antonio Vulture Champs

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14667482]The Spurs were also never a dynasty and never went even back to back, not even once.

The vast majority of their championships came when some greater team, finally broke down or fell apart or was dismantled.

1999 Chicago Bulls dismantled by GM, a year early.

2003 Lakers finally broke down due to no roster upgrades in 4 years, and Shaq being lazy.

And in 2007 should’ve been the Suns winning the Finals if it wasn’t for the stupid asinine suspensions against Phoenix after dirty tactics from Spurs players.

2014 Heat broke down due to D-Wade’s degenerative physical state and the emergence of Kawhi Leonard, by that point, as SA’s best player.

The only legit championship in that run was 2005, and that one could’ve gone either way with the Pistons, and it shouldn’t have even been Detroit in the Finals if Dwyane Wade didn’t get injured in the eastern conference finals.

Literally, scavenger champions. Always have been. It consistently very good, year in and year out team, never great. Yet all this gets attributed as positives in favor of Tim Duncan?

San Antonio Vulture Champs[/QUOTE]

What about the times that they got unlucky and didn’t win? Speaking of 04, 06, and 13. You could quick legitimately argue that 3 total plays cost them 3 championships.

They were the best team in the league from 04-07 by pretty much every metric. As much as they were lucky for a couple rings, they’re unlucky that they dint have a couple more. It all comes out in the wash.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14667502]What about the times that they got unlucky and didn’t win? Speaking of 04, 06, and 13. You could quick legitimately argue that 3 total plays cost them 3 championships.

They were the best team in the league from 04-07 by pretty much every metric. As much as they were lucky for a couple rings, they’re unlucky that they dint have a couple more. It all comes out in the wash.[/QUOTE]


Agreed - some guys need 7 games to win Finals (lucky bounces) which lowers the integrity of their rings

Lebron is a bounce or 2 away from a 2/10 bum, while MJ's 6/6 is legit - no luck required during the 6 Finals wins

[QUOTE=3ba11;14667503]Agreed - some guys need 7 games to win Finals (lucky bounces) which [B]lowers the integrity of their rings[/B]

Lebron is a bounce or 2 away from a 2/10 bum, while MJ's 6/6 is legit - no luck required during the 6 Finals wins[/QUOTE]

I don't think you know what integrity means

Did I say Jordan was a number one draft pick in my earlier post? Sorry, my bad. Number three of course. Doesn't change my argument. But correction is here for circumspection.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14667713]Did I say Jordan was a number one draft pick in my earlier post? Sorry, my bad. Number three of course. Doesn't change my argument. But correction is here for circumspection.[/QUOTE]

True

Worth reviewing the supporting cast Steph Klay and Dray had before KD, and last year's title team too

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14667502]What about the times that they got unlucky and didn’t win? Speaking of 04, 06, and 13. You could quick legitimately argue that 3 total plays cost them 3 championships.

They were the best team in the league from 04-07 by pretty much every metric. As much as they were lucky for a couple rings, they’re unlucky that they dint have a couple more. It all comes out in the wash.[/QUOTE]


Imagine watching a team win not one or two…but [B]five[/B] titles…and taking from it that they were just lucky. And ignoring of course that maybe the luckiest shot ever(Fisher), the dumbest foul ever(Manu trying to block dirks layup up 2 giving them a 3 point play to tie), And one of the clutches tying shots in history(ray) might’ve prevented you from winning eight.

Its like nobody can get on the internet and just be real. Every take has to be dipped in a bullshit coating of some variety. And the back to back thing is maybe as bad. Like Duncan’s career is better if Ray misses in 13 but he didn’t have a goat tier run to win in 03 because the same 5 rings has 2 of them back to back.

Nit picking hate at its finest.

.
[B]Thread Cliffs[/B]


[SIZE=3]In 2012, rookie Curry missed the season, while David Lee led the Warriors to 47 wins in 2013 as the team's only All-NBA player.

In addition to having an All-NBA teammate in Lee, Curry landed alongside a 25 ppg player in Monta Ellis, while rookie Klay averaged 13 ppg and started.

This is obviously a lot more help than Jordan had with rookie Pippen getting 8 ppg off the bench and a team of bums

[/SIZE]

Less help? The guy literally had 5 al stars playing next to him and as soon as even 1 gets injured he can't even make the playoffs looooool. If there's 1 star in history who needs help its Curry. He couldn't even make the playoffs with 2 all stars, he needs at least 4.

curry's dynasty needed kyrie and love to go down 2015 and then needed the western conference all-star starting line-up in 2017 and 2018.


2022 was his first finals MVP. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=3ba11;14667910].
[B]Thread Cliffs[/B]


[SIZE=3]In 2012, rookie Curry missed the season, while David Lee led the Warriors to 47 wins in 2013 as the team's only All-NBA player.

In addition to having an All-NBA teammate in Lee, Curry landed alongside a 25 ppg player in Monta Ellis, while rookie Klay averaged 13 ppg and started.

This is obviously a lot more help than Jordan had with rookie Pippen getting 8 ppg off the bench and a team of bums

[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

You're all over the place so I cannot get your story straight.

All-NBA only-with-Curry David Lee? Young Jordan got to play with 7x All-NBA George Gervin. David Lee was leading the team in 2012 when they had a 23-win record. It was Curry leading the team the next year when they had a 47-win record. That 20-win or so improvement is probably what got Lee the All-Star and All-NBA selection but in hindsight I think we all know Curry was the one largely responsible for that.

Monta 25 points Ellis? He was chucking at an effective field goal percentage of 47.6%. Meanwhile Jordan had Orlando Woolridge putting up nearly 23 points at 55.4 % eFG.

All-Rookie Klay? Charles Oakley was All-Rookie. Quintin Dailey was recent All-Rookie too.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14668010]You're all over the place so I cannot get your story straight.

All-NBA only-with-Curry David Lee? Young Jordan got to play with 7x All-NBA George Gervin. David Lee was leading the team in 2012 when they had a 23-win record. It was Curry leading the team the next year when they had a 47-win record. That 20-win or so improvement is probably what got Lee the All-Star and All-NBA selection but in hindsight I think we all know Curry was the one largely responsible for that.

Monta 25 points Ellis? He was chucking at an effective field goal percentage of 47.6%. Meanwhile Jordan had Orlando Woolridge putting up nearly 23 points at 55.4 % eFG.

All-Rookie Klay? Charles Oakley was All-Rookie. Quintin Dailey was recent All-Rookie too.[/QUOTE]
Steve kerr

[QUOTE=Axe;14668034]Steve kerr[/QUOTE]

Won 3 rings with Jordan. Has won 4 rings with Curry.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14668118]Won 3 rings with Jordan. Has won 4 rings with Curry.[/QUOTE]

He played what, three full years with Jordan? And got a ring in every one of them? How many years has he been with Curry?

I have tons of respect for Curry, but that argument is just silly.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14668118]Won 3 rings with Jordan. Has won 4 rings with Curry.[/QUOTE]
So a total of 7 rings with either of them? Plus two during his stint with the spurs.

Which makes it 9 > 6 > 4 in total.

[QUOTE=Full Court;14668120]He played what, three full years with Jordan? And got a ring in every one of them? How many years has he been with Curry?

I have tons of respect for Curry, but that argument is just silly.[/QUOTE]

Without Curry for most of the season the Kerr coached Warriors were last in the league. Without Jordan the Bulls Kerr was part of were still contenders.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14668648]Without Curry for most of the season the Kerr coached Warriors were last in the league. Without Jordan the Bulls Kerr was part of were still contenders.[/QUOTE]
Are you telling us that curry was more valuable to the warriors than jordan ever was to the bulls? :coleman:

[QUOTE=Axe;14668692]Are you telling us that curry was more valuable to the warriors than jordan ever was to the bulls? :coleman:[/QUOTE]

Is that the conclusion that you drew? You said it not me.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14668693]Is that the conclusion that you drew? You said it not me.[/QUOTE]
Let kerr tell us what he thinks someday.

Created a dynasty with main guys who haven't won a championship anywhere else without him. What other NBA dynasties are like that?

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14670499]Created a dynasty with main guys who haven't won a championship anywhere else without him. [B]What other NBA dynasties are like that[/B]?[/QUOTE]

Almost all of them.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14670506]Almost all of them.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://media.tenor.co/images/2cd1ce8c87a7574c5ca4382a0a809d0a/raw[/IMG]

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14670506]Almost all of them.[/QUOTE]

Could you give examples?

Would you rather have Scottie Pippen or Monta Ellis?

[QUOTE=Stephonit;14670512]Could you give examples?[/QUOTE]

60s and 80s Celtics, bulls, spurs, late 2000s lakers, etc.

Rockets unless you consider Horry a main guy, which you could I guess. But that says a hell of a lot about Hakeem then.

Shaq flat out had less help than Curry for his first 3 rings.

In a not close way either.