PDA

View Full Version : Will curry ever get GOAT consideration?



Pages : [1] 2

MTar786
01-26-2016, 04:45 AM
I personally havent see anyone play better basketball than steph curry. Ive been watching every season in full since 95 til now. Up untill now MJ was the goat for me followed by shaq then kobe and lebron. But now.. man i honestly havent even seen jordan play as good as this.

I doubt anyone here will give agree with me or even give it to him because hes only been playing like this last year.. but honestly.. i feel curry this season is wayyy better than even last year.
Id love to hear other peoples honest views.

More-Than-Most
01-26-2016, 05:03 AM
it seems like we have a CURRY/WARRIORS thread 10 times a day now... He has been best player in the world for like a season... Who knows... Longevity will play a huge part as will championships... Championships shouldnt but longevity will. If he has like 5 insane seasons and falls off then no... He needs to be great for a long *** time and apparently he cant ever lose in the finals or the Jordanites will smite him.

People say magic left the game early and that is why he can never be the Goat... he played 13 seasons... had he kept playing he very well could have been... But again 13 seasons and people still say he left the game early... Curry is only in his 7th season and he has only been great for like 3 or 4 of those 7 seasons and he is already 27... Longevity will be the issue.

MTar786
01-26-2016, 05:39 AM
it seems like we have a CURRY/WARRIORS thread 10 times a day now... He has been best player in the world for like a season... Who knows... Longevity will play a huge part as will championships... Championships shouldnt but longevity will. If he has like 5 insane seasons and falls off then no... He needs to be great for a long *** time and apparently he cant ever lose in the finals or the Jordanites will smite him.

People say magic left the game early and that is why he can never be the Goat... he played 13 seasons... had he kept playing he very well could have been... But again 13 seasons and people still say he left the game early... Curry is only in his 7th season and he has only been great for like 3 or 4 of those 7 seasons and he is already 27... Longevity will be the issue.

I used to love the power rangers. red ranger was the man tho

NYKalltheway
01-26-2016, 06:48 AM
There was a time where guys like Tmac and Allen Iverson were as effective or better than Steph. They're not even near anyone's top 50 list. Just wait it out.

PhillyFaninLA
01-26-2016, 07:08 AM
He will without question not be a top 10 all time player.

His game is not well rounded enough....he is a very good all around player and a hall of famer scorer and could be one of the great 3 point shooters of all time but he is not truly special.

More-Than-Most
01-26-2016, 08:05 AM
He will without question not be a top 10 all time player.

His game is not well rounded enough....he is a very good all around player and a hall of famer scorer and could be one of the great 3 point shooters of all time but he is not truly special.

Oh Boy you are about to get destroyed lol... I do agree though... I think he will be an all time PG and I do think he is great right now but I am not sure if he will maintain this level of play going forward nor will he do it over the next 10 years to make him a top 5 player let alone a GOAT. He will never have the talent/Skill on both sides of the floor and all around game as a James/Jordan nor will he ever have the longevity/Durability of a Kobe Bryant/Tim Duncan... It will take him playing at a slightly lesser level then he is playing now for the next 7 seasons for this to even be a discussion and I just dont see him being able to do that.

Also note I said lesser play then he is now because he wont keep this level of play up but slightly lesser level of play is more than enough because of how insane he is playing.

That all being said I actually hope he does because if he wins another 2 rings over the next 2 years it will be comical watching everyone all of a sudden turn on him and hate him because god forbid anyone ever challenge the greatness of Jordan.

Toronto Homer
01-26-2016, 08:12 AM
The key for Curry's long term success is going to be his health IMO. His speed is such a weapon, and if he can avoid knee/ankle injuries and keep the quickness he can be a top 5 player. He needs more longevity to be in consideration at this point though. He's a lot of fun to watch though.

Scoots
01-26-2016, 09:20 AM
He's already a GOAT ... Just not THE goat.

He's been great but there is a long way to go for him to get in the pantheon.

Phantom Dreamer
01-26-2016, 09:33 AM
It's January.

Tony_Starks
01-26-2016, 09:58 AM
Too early.

Just let him be great and enjoy watching history.

IndyRealist
01-26-2016, 10:25 AM
This thread is like 6 years too early. He's not even consensus best player THIS SEASON.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 10:26 AM
There was a time where guys like Tmac and Allen Iverson were as effective or better than Steph. They're not even near anyone's top 50 list. Just wait it out.

T-Mac was close, but probably never quite this good. AI? Good luck defending that statement. Offensively, I'd put this regular season up against any player in histories best.

@OP, it's possible, but he'd need to do something like 3-Peat and win MVP each season along with 5-8 years of prime cushioning that. Doubt he ever catches MJ's legacy, but everybody else is in play.


This thread is like 6 years too early. He's not even consensus best player THIS SEASON.

Lol yes, he is dude. If there was an MVP ballot cast today, he would be the first unanimous winner in history. And many of his advanced stats would rank #1 in history.

NYKalltheway
01-26-2016, 10:54 AM
AI 1998 to 2002 was up there as well, you probably don't remember all that Iverson hype.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 11:04 AM
AI 1998 to 2002 was up there as well, you probably don't remember all that Iverson hype.

Oh trust me, I remember the "hype". He was not in any way shape or form close to the level that Curry is at. The fact that you think otherwise tells me everything I need to know about your Elgin Baylor > Lebron comments.

sixer04fan
01-26-2016, 11:08 AM
Lol yes, he is dude. If there was an MVP ballot cast today, he would be the first unanimous winner in history. And many of his advanced stats would rank #1 in history.

Unanimous MVP doesn't equal unanimous best player. I'll say he's probably earned the right to be called best player in the world over Lebron based on the last season and a half. But that can still be debated. If you had to start from scratch to win a title this year, a lot of people might take Lebron over Curry. My team, the Sixers, for example... This year alone... I would still add Lebron if I could over Curry.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 11:21 AM
Unanimous MVP doesn't equal unanimous best player. I'll say he's probably earned the right to be called best player in the world over Lebron based on the last season and a half. But that can still be debated. If you had to start from scratch to win a title this year, a lot of people might take Lebron over Curry. My team, the Sixers, for example... This year alone... I would still add Lebron if I could over Curry.

If you're leading the team who is the reigning champ, you are the reigning MVP, you are leading the best team in the NBA in a historic season, and you are the unanimous MVP + have a case as having the best statistical season in NBA history, then you own the "best player in the league" distinction. If he does not hold that title right now, then there is no scenario where that title can be held.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 11:23 AM
Also, it's much easier to argue that there are other players > Bron than it is to argue that Bron is over Curry.

sixer04fan
01-26-2016, 11:40 AM
If you're leading the team who is the reigning champ, you are the reigning MVP, you are leading the best team in the NBA in a historic season, and you are the unanimous MVP + have a case as having the best statistical season in NBA history, then you own the "best player in the league" distinction. If he does not hold that title right now, then there is no scenario where that title can be held.

You're not saying anything I don't already know. I said I believe he's earned the right to have that title based on the last year and a half.

And in spite of having the right to be called the "best player" by title, Lebron still might be the better basketball player. It is at least debatable. The Cavs are trying to win a title right now. You think they'd be better off trading Lebron for Curry straight up this season? It's questionable. If Curry was straight up far and away the best player by all facets, there wouldn't be a doubt.

LOb0
01-26-2016, 11:41 AM
He's got a lot of work to do, and a ton of playoff work to do.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 11:47 AM
AI 1998 to 2002 was up there as well, you probably don't remember all that Iverson hype.

the hype? I remember the play, it wasn't anywhere close to what Curry has been the last 1.5 years.

Shammyguy3
01-26-2016, 11:55 AM
Likely never get in the GOAT convo, but I can see him getting into the top-5

tredigs
01-26-2016, 11:56 AM
You're not saying anything I don't already know. I said I believe he's earned the right to have that title based on the last year and a half.

And in spite of having the right to be called the "best player" by title, Lebron still might be the better basketball player. It is at least debatable. The Cavs are trying to win a title right now. You think they'd be better off trading Lebron for Curry straight up this season? It's questionable. If Curry was straight up far and away the best player by all facets, there wouldn't be a doubt.

Both teams would be worse if you traded straight up. That's a very silly and short-sighted way to look at it. For the reasons I stated, Curry is better. Lebron is not capable of putting up the amount of production that Curry puts up on a day in, day out basis. Other than pouring over stats that Curry owns him on in droves that you don't care about, I'm not really sure what other way to put it.

Curry angered 'Bron before there game h2h a week ago. Lebron said "he would have an answer". Curry proceeded to lead the Warriors in the largest home loss of Lebron's career. Last night, he went up against a rested, historically great defense and absolutely demolished them. Nobody else on the team even had a particularly great night. I really don't know what else this kid has to do to prove to some of you that he is on top of the game right now.

NYKalltheway
01-26-2016, 11:58 AM
Oh trust me, I remember the "hype". He was not in any way shape or form close to the level that Curry is at. The fact that you think otherwise tells me everything I need to know about your Elgin Baylor > Lebron comments.

Curry is definitely better than Iverson, but all I'm saying is that I've heard this type of discussion again 15 years ago. It's too soon to comment on Curry and he's quite a late bloomer if he's gonna be in such a conversation. I remember being bashed on this very forum for saying back in 2010 that Curry is a much better PG (and player overall) than Derrick Rose.

ManningToTyree
01-26-2016, 12:03 PM
Can we wait until he is ATLEAST a consensus top 5 PG all-time before we start talking crazy. He is special but he's got such a long way to go.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 12:04 PM
Curry is definitely better than Iverson, but all I'm saying is that I've heard this type of discussion again 15 years ago. It's too soon to comment on Curry and he's quite a late bloomer if he's gonna be in such a conversation. I remember being bashed on this very forum for saying back in 2010 that Curry is a much better PG (and player overall) than Derrick Rose.

OK, if this is your take then that is fair and I agree with you.

Though, Curry has always been great. He was great at Davidson as the Nations leading scorer and leader of a massively over-achieving team, he was great as a rookie after a rocky first 2 months (by far the best rookie that season when it was all said and done, but Tyreke took the ROY due to a more consistent effort), and he was great alongside Monta before his ankle injuries. The problem is that playing alongside a ball dominant guard and those early injuries derailed him in the early going. But at this point, all the shackles are off and we're seeing him in full form. Not all that different than how he dominated the college scene as an All American at Davidson to be honest.

valade16
01-26-2016, 12:09 PM
He won't get GOAT consideration right up until he will.

At a certain point (say 6 MVPs, 7 Titles, etc.) even the most ardent "he shouldn't get consideration" person would have to start at least considering it...

IndyRealist
01-26-2016, 12:15 PM
Lol yes, he is dude. If there was an MVP ballot cast today, he would be the first unanimous winner in history. And many of his advanced stats would rank #1 in history.

The fact that this thread even exists proves he is not a consensus #1. I'm willing to bet if a vote was held today that either Kawhi or Lebron would at least one vote. You're fanboying a bit hard.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 12:20 PM
The fact that this thread even exists proves he is not a consensus #1. I'm willing to bet if a vote was held today that either Kawhi or Lebron would at least one vote. You're fanboying a bit hard.
Lol after this week? No. Nobody would have the balls to vote for Lebron or Kawhi after what Curry just did to them. In a month or so after the tides change a little, sure, but not right now.

And, the 1-5 votes that will go to another player are immaterial. It's not just the fact that he'll be b2b MVP. He's putting up ~30/5/7 on a 69% TS% with a PER of 33 and WS/48 of .350. Eye test wise, his game is UNREAL. I can't fathom a world where somebody wants to say "Lebron > Curry" or anyone else right now other than to be an annoying contrarian.

sixer04fan
01-26-2016, 12:35 PM
Both teams would be worse if you traded straight up. That's a very silly and short-sighted way to look at it. For the reasons I stated, Curry is better. Lebron is not capable of putting up the amount of production that Curry puts up on a day in, day out basis. Other than pouring over stats that Curry owns him on in droves that you don't care about, I'm not really sure what other way to put it.

Curry angered 'Bron before there game h2h a week ago. Lebron said "he would have an answer". Curry proceeded to lead the Warriors in the largest home loss of Lebron's career. Last night, he went up against a rested, historically great defense and absolutely demolished them. Nobody else on the team even had a particularly great night. I really don't know what else this kid has to do to prove to some of you that he is on top of the game right now.

It's not short-sighted. There are certainly ways to look at it that show Lebron is arguably better and more impactful than Curry. As amazing as Curry is. They do different things. They make teams better in different ways. But Curry is not unequivocally better at basketball than Lebron James.

Who's the better defender? Which of them can lock down and defend all five positions effectively? Who's the better rebounder? Who's the better finisher at the rim? Who's better at drawing fouls? I can go on and on if you'd like. There are so many things Lebron does better than Curry, as there are things Curry does better than Lebron.

Once again, I think Curry is the best player in the game right now. He's earned that title. I'm also saying there can be a debate about it.

D-Leethal
01-26-2016, 12:41 PM
It's not short-sighted. There are certainly ways to look at it that show Lebron is arguably better and more impactful than Curry. As amazing as Curry is. They do different things. They make teams better in different ways. But Curry is not unequivocally better at basketball than Lebron James.

Who's the better defender? Which of them can lock down and defend all five positions effectively? Who's the better rebounder? Who's the better finisher at the rim? Who's better at drawing fouls? I can go on and on if you'd like. There are so many things Lebron does better than Curry, as there are things Curry does better than Lebron.

Once again, I think Curry is the best player in the game right now. He's earned that title. I'm also saying there can be a debate about it.

Curry gets my vote right now but I understand the hesitancy to take away the "best player on the planet" title from LeBron just yet. That is a status he built up for a decade - it normally takes more than a season and a half to wrestle away that stronghold. I think consensus among analysts is probably still with LeBron - but another MVP, another chip for Curry this year and I think consensus moves in his favor.

I still think LeBron is able to shoulder a much larger load on a good team than Curry could. You could put LeBron on the Sixers and they are a playoff team - I don't think you could throw Curry on any team in the league and have him carry them to playoff-level. I mean LeBron got to the Finals with zero offensive help - he was a one man band with some scrappy defenders and nothing else. I don't think Curry could emulate that - but its also impossible to quantify that argument so it is what it is.

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 12:41 PM
No.

You have to look at the rules as the 90s ended and into the middle part of the last decade to see why.

The NBA was not full of fools. They understood that 3 effects were colliding to create the low scoring dreadful games that didn't involve Shaq or Duncan from 99-07.. the argument from modernists was "too much physicality. Players are allowed to operate like goons and if Antonio Davis wasn't beating my guy up, we'd score 110, because we're so good. Blah, blah, blah."

The minds of the NBA understood that the scoring totals were not what they were in the late 80s due to lack of skill resulting from three things:

1. Early entry - Tim Floyd pleaded when he had Curry and Chandler… "listen, stay in school. I don't have TIME to teach half of what college coaches teach in 30 or so games even in 82 games." The idea was that you couldn't alter a practice full of guys who knew all the tricks of the trade to teach a 19 year old left hand dribble cone drills. Compound that with the fact that unlike the rare prep-to-pro of yesteryear, these kids were becoming millionaires immediately, therefore ruining the motivation to seek out extra "office hours" from assistant coaches and you get the picture.

2. The AAU pimp game - In the 80s and probably early 90s, before Nike really became a machine of financing college coaches .. a high school kid was not about to blow off his high school coach for some local AAU pimp looking for a pay out to deliver the kid to a college coach. It's always been a shady business, but you've really seen AAU not teach the fundamentals and draw kids away from the high school coaches who would teach these fundamentals.

3. The decrease in ethic of high school and college coaches - Sometime about the time that these coaches figured out "I have this kid for 1 year, if at all, not 3-4," coaches began to say "why teach this seven footer a back to the basket game. That's hard. After all, I can still win if I run and gun even with seven footers."

This all led them to try to artificially create that which Jordan, O'neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Russell, etc. were even with more physical rules. They eliminated hand checking, going to a hard enforcement doctrine. They took centers out of patrolling the paint, which seeks to open up the game by forcing bigger players to move as fast as everyone else.. when they know that that is counter to simply being bigger. The fouls became ticky tack. All of this was Colangelo's fanaticism to take the game back to the 60s, because basketball people today think that isolation is bad. Shaq and Jordan would pistol whip the ever loving you know what out of anyone even in non-isolation rules. Shaq used to put home a baby hook with three guys on his back.

Now, the question becomes.. did Shaq, Duncan, Bryant, James and Curry need this help? No. They would have been really good without it, but they benefitted and got a chance to look even better, James, Shaq and Duncan to a lesser extent because of their thoroughbred nature. But Curry? His lack of bulk would be exposed in old rules even if you took away the overly violent stuff.

Ask yourself what Curry looks like with Oakley guarding his screener, Starks on him, officials simply letting the Knicks be decently physical fighting through the screen and then hand checking where Starks would not be able to get to use his elbows, but simply check him with the hand and Ewing waiting in the middle for anyone off a pass.

I'm not talking the Pistons, everyone knows that's unreasonable, they were dirty and it needed to change. But it had already changed a lot by 93.

The rule changes created the appearance of equal skill artificially amongst the players. The players "being too good on defense" did not create the rule changes. Consider this… Marcus Camby, Joakim Noah and Marc Gasol have been DPOY recently.

Scottie Pippen and Patrick Ewing never won one. Game, set, match.

Next, the Warriors have not faced anything resembling what guys like Jordan, O'neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Johnson, Russell, Bird, Duncan, etc. have beaten. They beat Lebron and a bunch of never will be busters and overrated "Stars" who saw their star fall rapidly once they weren't the only guy on their team/dominating usage.

If Lebron were to join Demarcus Cousins and get a bunch of shooters around the two and then the Warriors just knocked them out, that's a different story.

If Pistons management can build/continue to build the team around him, the player who will beat Golden State is in Detroit. GSW will be up 2-1, and then suddenly you'll see the athleticism start to drop dramatically on Ezeli, Bogut and Green. Their legs will look heavy and suddenly as backs are broken at Detroit's front of the rim, guys who would be very regular on a lot of teams will have a clear path to the paint. Curry and Thompson will still be doing their thing, but the level of play they will have to achieve to match Detroit doing very simple things as a result of the GSW front court being exhausted by Andre Drummond will be too much.

And Drummond isn't half the player or dominating force that O'neal was. And Jordan swept O'neal. And Golden State doesn't have a player who could guard Abdul-Jabbar or probably a young Duncan or Hakeem.

GOAT. I'd pay to see Rudy T sub Otis Thorpe out for Mario Elie and go with a lineup of:

Hakeem
Horry
Elie
Drexler
Smith

I don't see a Warriors win there. I see the potential for them to call Jerry Colangelo and ask what kind of rules package they'd need, but not a series win.

IndyRealist
01-26-2016, 12:43 PM
Lol after this week? No. Nobody would have the balls to vote for Lebron or Kawhi after what Curry just did to them. In a month or so after the tides change a little, sure, but not right now.

And, the 1-5 votes that will go to another player are immaterial. It's not just the fact that he'll be b2b MVP. He's putting up ~30/5/7 on a 69% TS% with a PER of 33 and WS/48 of .350. Eye test wise, his game is UNREAL. I can't fathom a world where somebody wants to say "Lebron > Curry" or anyone else right now other than to be an annoying contrarian.

Those 1-5 votes are not immaterial when you said it would be unanimous. He will not be a unanimous MVP, someone will vote otherwise whether it is today or at the end of the season. The hyperbole is thick here.

sixer04fan
01-26-2016, 12:44 PM
Curry gets my vote right now but I understand the hesitancy to take away the "best player on the planet" title from LeBron just yet. That is a status he built up for a decade - it normally takes more than a season and a half to wrestle away that stronghold. I think consensus among analysts is probably still with LeBron - but another MVP, another chip for Curry this year and I think consensus moves in his favor.

I still think LeBron is able to shoulder a much larger load on a good team than Curry could. You could put LeBron on the Sixers and they are a playoff team - I don't think you could throw Curry on any team in the league and have him carry them to playoff-level. I mean LeBron got to the Finals with zero offensive help - he was a one man band with some scrappy defenders and nothing else. I don't think Curry could emulate that - but its also impossible to quantify that argument so it is what it is.

Pretty much agree with this

D-Leethal
01-26-2016, 12:46 PM
For GOAT consideration Curry either needs to put up a 6 year stretch with stats, awards, titles and accolades that rivals MJ's or have insane longevity. Either way the stats, awards, titles and accolades need to match MJ or he will never get that consideration. The way he and his squad have completely dominated the competition this past year and a half is more impressive than anything LeBron ever did on his super teams though.

What Curry is doing now, is what LeBron needed to do in Miami if he wanted to get into the MJ discussion. Instead his team looked vulnerable against inferior squads too many times, lost to meh competition too many times, and didn't dominate the competition enough. Not too mention the shaky at best performances and fragile mind state LeBron has showed during various legacy moments that end up defining players of that stature.

D-Leethal
01-26-2016, 12:53 PM
It's semantics but I don't think most people consider "Who is the best player in the league" as "Who is playing the best basketball right now". LeBron would be most picks for the former, Curry would be the pick for the latter. It takes a few years of running consensus of the latter to establish the title of "Best player". LeBron put in his time to get that #1, Curry hasn't yet. When you put a decades worth of work in to establish yourself as the best, it takes more than a season and a half to take it away.

D-Leethal
01-26-2016, 01:04 PM
It might be because "best player on the planet" isn't a title people like to flip back and forth on from season to season. Its a "pass the torch" type of thing and that stature usually sticks for 5+ years. Curry needs to sustain this level a little bit longer until LeBron is forced to pass the torch.

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 01:10 PM
For GOAT consideration Curry either needs to put up a 6 year stretch with stats, awards, titles and accolades that rivals MJ's or have insane longevity. Either way the stats, awards, titles and accolades need to match MJ or he will never get that consideration. The way he and his squad have completely dominated the competition this past year and a half is more impressive than anything LeBron ever did on his super teams though.

What Curry is doing now, is what LeBron needed to do in Miami if he wanted to get into the MJ discussion. Instead his team looked vulnerable against inferior squads too many times, lost to meh competition too many times, and didn't dominate the competition enough. Not too mention the shaky at best performances and fragile mind state LeBron has showed during various legacy moments that end up defining players of that stature.

No. You have to consider a couple things.

1. Lebron is likely the only hall of famer from this group of Cavs that GSW beat. Love has been exposed as a garbage time stat grabber since getting to Cleveland. The guy was treated like he was better than Karl Malone like a lot of idiots pre trade and he's being exposed badly. I understand his injury situation last year, but I'm just saying, if they continue to be rivaled by only Cleveland, what does GSW's awesome cast around Curry say about him beating a bunch of garbage. There are good players in the league… enough consolidated on one team that GSW would beat? Not so sure.

2. The insanity of Jordan. Sure, you can chalk up the second three peat to longevity in a meh league. I certainly think the 96 Bulls were overrated. The Scores Les Grobstein here in Chicago will tell you that if you talk to most reporters who were here at the time, the 92 team was considered to be better.

Consider MJ in the first 3 peat and before though. What if I told you that one guy…

a) Averaged 37.1 PPG in 1987
b) Averaged 41.0 PPG 8.5 RPG 6.3 APG and shot 50.8% FG in the 93 Finals

You seem to understand basketball a lot better than a lot of modernists. But an idiot might say, "yeah, ball hog MJ. They didn't even win in 87, and those 41 PPG look great in 93, but 6.3 APG?"

Okay, the same guy did the following:

c) Averaged 32.5 PPG 8.0 RPG 8.0 APG 2.9 SPG 0.8 BPG and shot 53.8% in 1989
d) Averaged 31.2 PPG on 55.8% FG and 50.0% on threes in the 1991 Finals… BUT… also averaged 11.4 APG coming 1.0 APG shy of none other than Magic Johnson.

To do both in a series is beyond insane. And, it goes to my biggest complaint regarding Jordan discussions. Those who choose to discuss him mistake his amazing second three peat hype machine and his notoriety since then for this idea that because they've seen his last shot as a Bull and the move where he switches hands on the Lakers, "they know Michael Jordan," when time and again I find myself talking to people who were even basketball fans back then.. hell EVEN CHICAGO BULL fans, who haven't the foggiest clue who the hell he was or just how good he was.

You could ask most people who REALLY REALLY followed the team back in 91 here in Chicago, "you know, how many ASSISTS did MJ average in the 91 Finals" and the answer you'd get from 90% of them would be something resembling, "I don't know, lots?"

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 01:38 PM
it seems like we have a CURRY/WARRIORS thread 10 times a day now... He has been best player in the world for like a season... Who knows... Longevity will play a huge part as will championships... Championships shouldnt but longevity will. If he has like 5 insane seasons and falls off then no... He needs to be great for a long *** time and apparently he cant ever lose in the finals or the Jordanites will smite him.

People say magic left the game early and that is why he can never be the Goat... he played 13 seasons... had he kept playing he very well could have been... But again 13 seasons and people still say he left the game early... Curry is only in his 7th season and he has only been great for like 3 or 4 of those 7 seasons and he is already 27... Longevity will be the issue.

The essence of any response should echo that sentiment. "Will Curry ever get GOAT consideration?" is such an interesting OP because many people, myself included, think what Curry is doing this season is absolutely historic and legendary. There is potential for the greatest individual season in NBA History right here right now. Yet, not in I, believe Curry will get legit GOAT consideration. I think the Warriors are a dynasty. I think they win more titles. I think Curry wins another MVP. But the level of sustained greatness for Curry to pass MJ is just too surreal. I can't imagine the Warriors winning 6 titles. I find it hard to imagine Curry winning 5 MVPs. Maybe 3-4 for each. I think he has incredible potential for top 10 of all-time. I could even see him passing all-timers like Bird-Hakeem-Shaq-etc. But his next contract is going to be a super max and I don't see how financially they can keep all of these players together. Curry-Klay-Dray are safe but out of Iggy/Barnes/Bogut I don't see that second trio sticking long-term. I hope I am wrong Curry makes a run at GOAT because it'd be exciting but my gut says he lands among the all-time greats but a notch below the true GOAT contenders (MJ/Kareem).


He's already a GOAT ... Just not THE goat.

He's been great but there is a long way to go for him to get in the pantheon.

Simmons?


Lol after this week? No. Nobody would have the balls to vote for Lebron or Kawhi after what Curry just did to them. In a month or so after the tides change a little, sure, but not right now.

And, the 1-5 votes that will go to another player are immaterial. It's not just the fact that he'll be b2b MVP. He's putting up ~30/5/7 on a 69% TS% with a PER of 33 and WS/48 of .350. Eye test wise, his game is UNREAL. I can't fathom a world where somebody wants to say "Lebron > Curry" or anyone else right now other than to be an annoying contrarian.

I completely agree I just would love to hear you debate my friends using TS% and PER. :)


No.

You have to look at the rules as the 90s ended and into the middle part of the last decade to see why.

The NBA was not full of fools. They understood that 3 effects were colliding to create the low scoring dreadful games that didn't involve Shaq or Duncan from 99-07.. the argument from modernists was "too much physicality. Players are allowed to operate like goons and if Antonio Davis wasn't beating my guy up, we'd score 110, because we're so good. Blah, blah, blah."

The minds of the NBA understood that the scoring totals were not what they were in the late 80s due to lack of skill resulting from three things:

1. Early entry - Tim Floyd pleaded when he had Curry and Chandler… "listen, stay in school. I don't have TIME to teach half of what college coaches teach in 30 or so games even in 82 games." The idea was that you couldn't alter a practice full of guys who knew all the tricks of the trade to teach a 19 year old left hand dribble cone drills. Compound that with the fact that unlike the rare prep-to-pro of yesteryear, these kids were becoming millionaires immediately, therefore ruining the motivation to seek out extra "office hours" from assistant coaches and you get the picture.

2. The AAU pimp game - In the 80s and probably early 90s, before Nike really became a machine of financing college coaches .. a high school kid was not about to blow off his high school coach for some local AAU pimp looking for a pay out to deliver the kid to a college coach. It's always been a shady business, but you've really seen AAU not teach the fundamentals and draw kids away from the high school coaches who would teach these fundamentals.

3. The decrease in ethic of high school and college coaches - Sometime about the time that these coaches figured out "I have this kid for 1 year, if at all, not 3-4," coaches began to say "why teach this seven footer a back to the basket game. That's hard. After all, I can still win if I run and gun even with seven footers."

This all led them to try to artificially create that which Jordan, O'neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Russell, etc. were even with more physical rules. They eliminated hand checking, going to a hard enforcement doctrine. They took centers out of patrolling the paint, which seeks to open up the game by forcing bigger players to move as fast as everyone else.. when they know that that is counter to simply being bigger. The fouls became ticky tack. All of this was Colangelo's fanaticism to take the game back to the 60s, because basketball people today think that isolation is bad. Shaq and Jordan would pistol whip the ever loving you know what out of anyone even in non-isolation rules. Shaq used to put home a baby hook with three guys on his back.

Now, the question becomes.. did Shaq, Duncan, Bryant, James and Curry need this help? No. They would have been really good without it, but they benefitted and got a chance to look even better, James, Shaq and Duncan to a lesser extent because of their thoroughbred nature. But Curry? His lack of bulk would be exposed in old rules even if you took away the overly violent stuff.

Ask yourself what Curry looks like with Oakley guarding his screener, Starks on him, officials simply letting the Knicks be decently physical fighting through the screen and then hand checking where Starks would not be able to get to use his elbows, but simply check him with the hand and Ewing waiting in the middle for anyone off a pass.

I'm not talking the Pistons, everyone knows that's unreasonable, they were dirty and it needed to change. But it had already changed a lot by 93.

The rule changes created the appearance of equal skill artificially amongst the players. The players "being too good on defense" did not create the rule changes. Consider this… Marcus Camby, Joakim Noah and Marc Gasol have been DPOY recently.

Scottie Pippen and Patrick Ewing never won one. Game, set, match.

Next, the Warriors have not faced anything resembling what guys like Jordan, O'neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Johnson, Russell, Bird, Duncan, etc. have beaten. They beat Lebron and a bunch of never will be busters and overrated "Stars" who saw their star fall rapidly once they weren't the only guy on their team/dominating usage.

If Lebron were to join Demarcus Cousins and get a bunch of shooters around the two and then the Warriors just knocked them out, that's a different story.

If Pistons management can build/continue to build the team around him, the player who will beat Golden State is in Detroit. GSW will be up 2-1, and then suddenly you'll see the athleticism start to drop dramatically on Ezeli, Bogut and Green. Their legs will look heavy and suddenly as backs are broken at Detroit's front of the rim, guys who would be very regular on a lot of teams will have a clear path to the paint. Curry and Thompson will still be doing their thing, but the level of play they will have to achieve to match Detroit doing very simple things as a result of the GSW front court being exhausted by Andre Drummond will be too much.

And Drummond isn't half the player or dominating force that O'neal was. And Jordan swept O'neal. And Golden State doesn't have a player who could guard Abdul-Jabbar or probably a young Duncan or Hakeem.

GOAT. I'd pay to see Rudy T sub Otis Thorpe out for Mario Elie and go with a lineup of:

Hakeem
Horry
Elie
Drexler
Smith

I don't see a Warriors win there. I see the potential for them to call Jerry Colangelo and ask what kind of rules package they'd need, but not a series win.

I'm not sure what your point is. You describe of lot of interesting things. Some I agree with and some I don't. Then you make an arbitrary "Rockets would sweep Warriors" closing that throws your credibility out the window. Kenny Smith on Curry? And that is a sweep?


It might be because "best player on the planet" isn't a title people like to flip back and forth on from season to season. Its a "pass the torch" type of thing and that stature usually sticks for 5+ years. Curry needs to sustain this level a little bit longer until LeBron is forced to pass the torch.

Which is why it took LeBron way too long to get the torch in the first place... at least on PSD. My opinion is that if the player (LeBron) who has to pass the torch will be inferior from this point on to the replacement (Curry) then just pass the thing already. It's time. That is where we are at. LeBron is never going to re-take his crown. It's Curry's league now.

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 01:43 PM
Kenny Smith on Curry is going to result in Curry getting his. But that team would greatly reduce the functionality of the rest of the Warriors. Then, on the other end, the point would be that Hakeem would greatly expose what I think the weakness of this team is… center. The thing is, they haven't played a team with a good one. Because we so happen to be in a league where the two best offensive/dominant threats are on crap teams.

In no way was I saying Kenny Smith would lock down Curry. Teams lose series all the time where their best player still gets his.

If you want to disregard that claim though, just respond to the rest. If you want the bar to move above 95 Rockets, that's fine.

NYKalltheway
01-26-2016, 01:55 PM
No.

You have to look at the rules as the 90s ended and into the middle part of the last decade to see why.


^^ listen to this guy.

jerellh528
01-26-2016, 01:58 PM
It might be because "best player on the planet" isn't a title people like to flip back and forth on from season to season. Its a "pass the torch" type of thing and that stature usually sticks for 5+ years. Curry needs to sustain this level a little bit longer until LeBron is forced to pass the torch.

Well Lebron hasn't been the best goin on 3 seasons now, this season and last season for curry and durant the season before that. Lebron's hold on best player has been effectively passed on to curry, but depending on what happens with him in free agency this season, I'd expect durant to give curry a run for his money in the coming years. Maybe we're entering an era of no clear cut number 1

Ball_Out
01-26-2016, 02:51 PM
He needs rings, sole accolades, and numbers to be considered "GOAT". His teams have to be dominate (which they have been) and the team has to move as he does. He can definitely go down as a top 5 player of all time.

valade16
01-26-2016, 02:57 PM
^^ listen to this guy.

Is it possible for any player henceforth to have a chance or become the GOAT?

What would it take?

NYKalltheway
01-26-2016, 03:03 PM
Is it possible for any player henceforth to have a chance or become the GOAT?

What would it take?

The GOAT, aka Michael Jordan, was someone who lifted fans out of their chairs. Offensively and defensively. When someone gets even to 1/4th of what MJ achieved as a basketball player since his glory days, tell me to go watch him. I'm not aware of anyone as of yet.

GOAT is not something you just throw out there just because many of us have lived to see the former GOAT be dethrowned. I'm not even sure there was a single GOAT before MJ. Was it Magic? Was it Bird? Was it Kareem? Was it West? Was it Robertson? Was it Erving? No one really knows. Nor anyone really cares. It's a modern concept to care about the Greatest of All time and it's an even more modern concept to expect the top guys of the current NBA to be amongst the Greatest players ever.
If there's a new GOAT, you'd notice. The player (guard/sf really, as bigs are undervalued and have declined since the 2000s) with the highest peak since MJ was Tracy McGrady and he's light years away from being in the GOAT discussion.

valade16
01-26-2016, 03:28 PM
The GOAT, aka Michael Jordan, was someone who lifted fans out of their chairs. Offensively and defensively. When someone gets even to 1/4th of what MJ achieved as a basketball player since his glory days, tell me to go watch him. I'm not aware of anyone as of yet.

GOAT is not something you just throw out there just because many of us have lived to see the former GOAT be dethrowned. I'm not even sure there was a single GOAT before MJ. Was it Magic? Was it Bird? Was it Kareem? Was it West? Was it Robertson? Was it Erving? No one really knows. Nor anyone really cares. It's a modern concept to care about the Greatest of All time and it's an even more modern concept to expect the top guys of the current NBA to be amongst the Greatest players ever.
If there's a new GOAT, you'd notice. The player (guard/sf really, as bigs are undervalued and have declined since the 2000s) with the highest peak since MJ was Tracy McGrady and he's light years away from being in the GOAT discussion.

I agree with a lot of that but none of it answers my question.

Do you think it's possible for a future player to ever become the GOAT?

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 03:32 PM
The GOAT, aka Michael Jordan, was someone who lifted fans out of their chairs. Offensively and defensively. When someone gets even to 1/4th of what MJ achieved as a basketball player since his glory days, tell me to go watch him. I'm not aware of anyone as of yet.

GOAT is not something you just throw out there just because many of us have lived to see the former GOAT be dethrowned. I'm not even sure there was a single GOAT before MJ. Was it Magic? Was it Bird? Was it Kareem? Was it West? Was it Robertson? Was it Erving? No one really knows. Nor anyone really cares. It's a modern concept to care about the Greatest of All time and it's an even more modern concept to expect the top guys of the current NBA to be amongst the Greatest players ever.
If there's a new GOAT, you'd notice. The player (guard/sf really, as bigs are undervalued and have declined since the 2000s) with the highest peak since MJ was Tracy McGrady and he's light years away from being in the GOAT discussion.

Before MJ, it was Kareem

Curry does get people out of their seats. I have said this many times, he makes me feel like I am 14, watching a MJ. First one to do that since MJ. I am a 40 year old man, and I stare at the screen half smiling when I watch Curry play. LeBron never did that to me. Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, nope. He does things nobody else ever has. Ever.

Now all this GOAT nonsense needs to be put on hold for quite a while. But sure, if he keeps this up another 6 years, and wins multiple chips/MVP's, etc, I could entertain the debate again.

But to act like Curry isn't making people scream and say, "wtf was that?", is ludicrous. He is doing things we have never seen in the game of basketball.

AIRMAR72
01-26-2016, 03:46 PM
I personally havent see anyone play better basketball than steph curry. Ive been watching every season in full since 95 til now. Up untill now MJ was the goat for me followed by shaq then kobe and lebron. But now.. man i honestly havent even seen jordan play as good as this.

I doubt anyone here will give agree with me or even give it to him because hes only been playing like this last year.. but honestly.. i feel curry this season is wayyy better than even last year.
Id love to hear other peoples honest views. lets make this clear Kobe Bryant was NEVER great he played on great teams but I agree with your post Curry is the most dominate scorer since Michael Jordan Curry is already GREAT making it look so easy thats greatness

NYKalltheway
01-26-2016, 04:03 PM
Before MJ, it was Kareem

Curry does get people out of their seats. I have said this many times, he makes me feel like I am 14, watching a MJ. First one to do that since MJ. I am a 40 year old man, and I stare at the screen half smiling when I watch Curry play. LeBron never did that to me. Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, nope. He does things nobody else ever has. Ever.

But to act like Curry isn't making people scream and say, "wtf was that?", is ludicrous. He is doing things we have never seen in the game of basketball.

I agree with this. But it only translates offensively. It's enough to win games here as his team is quite stacked and there isn't any serious competition.
There were others who used to have a similar effect purely on the offensive end. Guys like Erving, Nique, Baylor, Maravich, Iverson... Curry has been on this level for 15 months or so. I wish he keeps it up, it's something that the last generation of the NBA has lacked. A player that will "wow" people. Even if it's shooting from distance which is usually "less attractive" than power dunks and stuff like that.

P.S: I think only Tmac, Carter and Wade had some "wow" repertoire during their primes.

ManningToTyree
01-26-2016, 04:05 PM
I personally havent see anyone play better basketball than steph curry. Ive been watching every season in full since 95 til now. Up untill now MJ was the goat for me followed by shaq then kobe and lebron. But now.. man i honestly havent even seen jordan play as good as this.

I doubt anyone here will give agree with me or even give it to him because hes only been playing like this last year.. but honestly.. i feel curry this season is wayyy better than even last year.
Id love to hear other peoples honest views. lets make this clear Kobe Bryant was NEVER great he played on great teams but I agree with your post Curry is the most dominate scorer since Michael Jordan Curry is already GREAT making it look so easy thats greatness where do you rank Kobe all time?

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 04:13 PM
Kenny Smith on Curry is going to result in Curry getting his. But that team would greatly reduce the functionality of the rest of the Warriors. Then, on the other end, the point would be that Hakeem would greatly expose what I think the weakness of this team is… center. The thing is, they haven't played a team with a good one. Because we so happen to be in a league where the two best offensive/dominant threats are on crap teams.

In no way was I saying Kenny Smith would lock down Curry. Teams lose series all the time where their best player still gets his.

If you want to disregard that claim though, just respond to the rest. If you want the bar to move above 95 Rockets, that's fine.

I'd love to have this discussion for real but we're starting from such an absurd viewpoint in my opinion. Your argument isn't "The 95 Rockets would defeat the Warriors because they are a flawed champion that would be exposed by an elite center." Your position is "I don't see a Warriors win there." I'm not arguing against someone who thinks the Rockets would sweep GState. :laugh: No thanks.

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 04:15 PM
I agree with a lot of that but none of it answers my question.

Do you think it's possible for a future player to ever become the GOAT?

Some people are so blinded that they set impossible standards. There can never be a GOAT besides MJ. LeBron and Curry shouldn't win MVPs when they have good teammates. I can't stand viewpoints like that. It doesn't make sense to me.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 04:16 PM
I agree with this. But it only translates offensively. It's enough to win games here as his team is quite stacked and there isn't any serious competition.
There were others who used to have a similar effect purely on the offensive end. Guys like Erving, Nique, Baylor, Maravich, Iverson... Curry has been on this level for 15 months or so. I wish he keeps it up, it's something that the last generation of the NBA has lacked. A player that will "wow" people. Even if it's shooting from distance which is usually "less attractive" than power dunks and stuff like that.

P.S: I think only Tmac, Carter and Wade had some "wow" repertoire during their primes.

It's definitely not just his shooting. It makes me question how objectively you actually watch the modern game. It's his ball handling, it's his finishing around the rim in traffic with either hand (the guy shoots close to 70% under 3 feet), and it's his passing as well. Fans in opposing arenas come in by the hundreds early to Warriors game to get a glimpse of him practicing in warmups. That's "wow" factor. Defensively, his size limits him of course, but he's a very in tune defender who can steal the rock with the best of them. Certainly no sieve. And honestly, to include guys like Nique in a conversation with his offensive abilities is just ridiculous. Comparing prime Melo to Nique as far as offensive importance is one thing, but neither come close to approaching what Curry does to an opposing defense. Even with Jordan, he did not collapse/warp a defense towards him to the level that Curry can, and yet he is still putting up THE most efficient offensive season we have ever seen. A 50/40/90 on >30 PPG (in limited minutes)? Never been done until now. He's changing basketball.

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 04:16 PM
Before MJ, it was Kareem

Curry does get people out of their seats. I have said this many times, he makes me feel like I am 14, watching a MJ. First one to do that since MJ. I am a 40 year old man, and I stare at the screen half smiling when I watch Curry play. LeBron never did that to me. Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, nope. He does things nobody else ever has. Ever.

Now all this GOAT nonsense needs to be put on hold for quite a while. But sure, if he keeps this up another 6 years, and wins multiple chips/MVP's, etc, I could entertain the debate again.

But to act like Curry isn't making people scream and say, "wtf was that?", is ludicrous. He is doing things we have never seen in the game of basketball.

LeBron vs. Detroit got me...

NYKalltheway
01-26-2016, 04:21 PM
It's definitely not just his shooting. It makes me question how objectively you actually watch the modern game. It's his ball handling, it's his finishing around the rim in traffic with either hand (the guy shoots close to 70% under 3 feet), and it's his passing as well. Fans in opposing arenas come in by the hundreds early to Warriors game to get a glimpse of him practicing in warmups. That's "wow" factor.

I agree here of course.

But to say that Nique and Melo compare offensively is paranoid. Melo is great but he's nowhere near as great Nique was.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 04:22 PM
I agree with this. But it only translates offensively. It's enough to win games here as his team is quite stacked and there isn't any serious competition.
There were others who used to have a similar effect purely on the offensive end. Guys like Erving, Nique, Baylor, Maravich, Iverson... Curry has been on this level for 15 months or so. I wish he keeps it up, it's something that the last generation of the NBA has lacked. A player that will "wow" people. Even if it's shooting from distance which is usually "less attractive" than power dunks and stuff like that.

P.S: I think only Tmac, Carter and Wade had some "wow" repertoire during their primes.

Curry has been a lot of levels above those guys offensively. When are you going to understand it? Nobody with this volume, this usage, has ever scored like Curry is scoring. His efficiency is rivaled by Michael as a perimeter player. He isn't some sniper who hits open bombs for his TS% numbers.

There hasn't been anything like him. Not in the history of the game. Catch up dude.

Now, defensively, he lacks compared to MJ for instance, and always will. But we are watching a generational talent, not a star in a league of stars.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 04:24 PM
LeBron vs. Detroit got me...

he has had a here or there. Curry it's all the damn time. Like MJ was.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 04:27 PM
I agree here of course.

But to say that Nique and Melo compare offensively is paranoid. Melo is great but he's nowhere near as great Nique was.

Paranoid lol. I saw Nique man. It's a hell of a lot more comparable of an impact than Curry/Nique.

BKLYNpigeon
01-26-2016, 04:28 PM
yawn... who cares, he's fun to watch tho.


Most people will go to their grave with this: MJ is the GOAT and Nobody can beat the 95-96 Bulls.


personally, I don't really care about rankings.

likemystylez
01-26-2016, 04:30 PM
curry wasn't an all nba performer until his 5th season. he will not be considered the goat by any reasonable person.

there are players who were mvp candidates as rookies who aren't in the top 5 on this list

bucketss
01-26-2016, 04:32 PM
only dude that has successfully made lebron irrelevant.

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 04:38 PM
I'd love to have this discussion for real but we're starting from such an absurd viewpoint in my opinion. Your argument isn't "The 95 Rockets would defeat the Warriors because they are a flawed champion that would be exposed by an elite center." Your position is "I don't see a Warriors win there." I'm not arguing against someone who thinks the Rockets would sweep GState. :laugh: No thanks.

Typical modernist response. I have to let you in on something. I've heard this routine before.

2002 - on forums you read all the time "Kobe at 22 = 3 rings, Jordan at 22= 0."

I have more... I've heard it all.

Did I say sweep? I didn't. I just think series win.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 04:47 PM
curry wasn't an all nba performer until his 5th season. he will not be considered the goat by any reasonable person.

there are players who were mvp candidates as rookies who aren't in the top 5 on this list

right. I mean, KAJ was all NBA as a rookie haha. Going to be hard to catch the top 3-4 guys when it took him a few years (some of that injuries) to really take the league apart

tredigs
01-26-2016, 04:53 PM
right. I mean, KAJ was all NBA as a rookie haha. Going to be hard to catch the top 3-4 guys when it took him a few years (some of that injuries) to really take the league apart

It's actually annoying that this is even a topic. If he somehow stays healthy and maintains this level for another half decade, then goes on to have another 5-6 very good seasons (which will be interesting, because his minutes have been limited and he has a game that could potentially age very well), then let's get in to this GOAT talk. As is, he's way behind the curve, that is for sure.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 04:59 PM
I can't believe anyone is dense enough to compare Curry to Iverson hahaha

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 05:00 PM
It's actually annoying that this is even a topic. If he somehow stays healthy and maintains this level for another half decade, then goes on to have another 5-6 very good seasons (which will be interesting, because his minutes have been limited and he has a game that could potentially age very well), then let's get in to this GOAT talk. As is, he's way behind the curve, that is for sure.

exactly dude

valade16
01-26-2016, 05:07 PM
It's actually annoying that this is even a topic. If he somehow stays healthy and maintains this level for another half decade, then goes on to have another 5-6 very good seasons (which will be interesting, because his minutes have been limited and he has a game that could potentially age very well), then let's get in to this GOAT talk. As is, he's way behind the curve, that is for sure.

That is true, but with seasons like this, he can catch up in a hurry :laugh2:

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 05:07 PM
hawkeye, you don't think Iverson was any good in his absolute Prime from 98-02?

he was good, but a complete chucker who has always been overrated on defense. Curry's efficiency levels are exponentially higher than even Iverson himself thought he had.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&y1=2001&p1=iversal01&y2=2016&p2=curryst01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

let's take Iverson's MVP season, and Curry's this year. Per 36, Curry is scoring a bunch more points, per game it was a wash. HOWEVER, look at how many more ****ing shots Iverson needs to take to get his 30. Look at the efficiency differences across the board. Curry takes an absolute crap on Iverson in his very best year.

lol, please
01-26-2016, 05:13 PM
I personally havent see anyone play better basketball than steph curry. Ive been watching every season in full since 95 til now. Up untill now MJ was the goat for me followed by shaq then kobe and lebron. But now.. man i honestly havent even seen jordan play as good as this.

I doubt anyone here will give agree with me or even give it to him because hes only been playing like this last year.. but honestly.. i feel curry this season is wayyy better than even last year.
Id love to hear other peoples honest views.

Not sure if serious here, he has been in GOAT discussions since before this season. :confused:

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 05:23 PM
Hawkeye I get some of that, but how many points do you think Iverson could get on Curry if they were matched up in a game? how many spectacular plays or ESPN highlights would Iverson make on Curry? You know Iverson was a showman right? I could see him getting something like 12 of 27 shooting 11-13 from the line, and control the pace of the game.

but why does that matter? Philly would have used Snow on Curry, Curry would blow up AI for 50 if they tried to have Iverson guard Curry. They wouldn't even guard each other. Fact is, Curry is much better as an impactful player than Iverson ever was. You can have your 12-27 shooter for 34 points. I will take my 35 points on 17 shots, and take the other 12 points AI gave away with other GS scorers getting those points. That is why we measure efficiency.

Simply put, so it's not confusing the way I did, if Iverson gets 35, and Curry gets 35, Curry got them on a lot less shots, meaning his teammates are now getting those missed opportunities Philly did not, and scoring a lot more points. Hence why GS's offense is so efficient. They score a lot of points per possession compared to everyone else.

IndyRealist
01-26-2016, 05:41 PM
Which is why it took LeBron way too long to get the torch in the first place... at least on PSD. My opinion is that if the player (LeBron) who has to pass the torch will be inferior from this point on to the replacement (Curry) then just pass the thing already. It's time. That is where we are at. LeBron is never going to re-take his crown. It's Curry's league now.
Just responding to this one point: it is because GOAT is type of thing you can only reward retrospectively. It is "what DID he accomplish?" not "what MIGHT he accomplish?" Lebron could have quit in year 2 and we'd be talking about how the Cavs wasted a pick they could have used on Wade.(was actually going to mention a disease, but would rather not about an active player. You get the point.)

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 06:02 PM
Just responding to this one point: it is because GOAT is type of thing you can only reward retrospectively. It is "what DID he accomplish?" not "what MIGHT he accomplish?" Lebron could have quit in year 2 and we'd be talking about how the Cavs wasted a pick they could have used on Wade.(was actually going to mention a disease, but would rather not about an active player. You get the point.)

I've seen every idiotic thing ever. When Kobe was 22 some idiots were acting like he'd win 9 rings and it would be over in terms of he and mj. Lebron? Rinse and repeat the stupidity. Now? Wait for a second or third ring? That's played out..

KDSpurman4
01-26-2016, 06:07 PM
but why does that matter? Philly would have used Snow on Curry, Curry would blow up AI for 50 if they tried to have Iverson guard Curry. They wouldn't even guard each other. Fact is, Curry is much better as an impactful player than Iverson ever was. You can have your 12-27 shooter for 34 points. I will take my 35 points on 17 shots, and take the other 12 points AI gave away with other GS scorers getting those points. That is why we measure efficiency.

Simply put, so it's not confusing the way I did, if Iverson gets 35, and Curry gets 35, Curry got them on a lot less shots, meaning his teammates are now getting those missed opportunities Philly did not, and scoring a lot more points. Hence why GS's offense is so efficient. They score a lot of points per possession compared to everyone else.

You got any proof to back up your claim. you're only a prisoner of the moment. The Truth of the matter is that Iverson would light curry up for 50.


Kevin Garnett DID WAY MORE with less than curry ever has in his career.

Kevin was the ONLY good player on his entire team most of those years and he was leading them in

Points
Rebounds
Assist
Steals
Blocks

24/14/6/2/2 DPOY How quickly you forget hawkeye

Garnett did more

You put Curry on that T wolves team with no one around and see what happens.

valade16
01-26-2016, 06:13 PM
^ Put Curry on those T-Wolves teams with no one around and see what happens? You mean first round losses? Because that's what happened.

KG never made it past the first round until he had Sprewell and Cassell...

J_M_B
01-26-2016, 06:16 PM
He's changing the game and replaced LeBron as the face of the sport in a blink of an eye. It's crazy to even think about it, but that said, I doubt he ever enters GOAT discussion. He's kinda of a late bloomer, so he'll have to keep this pace up for at least another 4-5 years. If he can do that then his peak years along with a couple MVPs and titles could get him into the conversation, but regardless he's arguably having the greatest individual season ever. Right now. Let's just enjoy history being made right before us.

KDSpurman4
01-26-2016, 06:20 PM
^ Put Curry on those T-Wolves teams with no one around and see what happens? You mean first round losses? Because that's what happened.

KG never made it past the first round until he had Sprewell and Cassell...

curry never made it past the first round until he had Thompson and Green.
how soon you forget.

KDSpurman4
01-26-2016, 06:25 PM
He's just being hyped. He's a good shooter and that's all he does.

The West isn't what it was in the past, Nor is the East, it hasn't been watchable in like 15 years since Iverson and Miller were there.

The players and teams don't play defense today so you get little kids thinking curry could do this to the 01 Sixers just fine. problem with that is the 01 Sixers were one of the better defensive teams in NBA history.

Mutombo
Hill
Lynch
Iverson
Snow

Coached by Larry Brown.

lol, please
01-26-2016, 06:25 PM
curry never made it past the first round until he had Thompson and Green.
how soon you forget.
We had key injuries to Bogut and Lee both of those playoff runs, and both Curry and Klay weren't as developed as they are right now, and Green wasn't either.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 06:27 PM
curry never made it past the first round until he had Thompson and Green.
how soon you forget.

Lol "and Green". Who was what, a 10 mpg player during their first playoff run 4 years ago? Good call buddy. Enjoy your next ban Buck. Looking forward to your wisdom going forward.

tredigs
01-26-2016, 06:28 PM
.

KDSpurman4
01-26-2016, 06:33 PM
Shaq was better than curry.

curry plays like a girl. all he does is stay outside because he's too scared to go inside. Also his shot is like a robot.

Also he's got slumped shoulders.

I'l ruin him if you push me. I could go further.

MTar786
01-26-2016, 07:10 PM
Ive never seen anyone play better than how curry is playing RIGHT now

sf-fanatic
01-26-2016, 07:28 PM
Shaq was better than curry.

curry plays like a girl. all he does is stay outside because he's too scared to go inside. Also his shot is like a robot.

Also he's got slumped shoulders.

I'l ruin him if you push me. I could go further.

Please go on. "Ruin him"

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 07:33 PM
Ive never seen anyone play better than how curry is playing RIGHT now

Michael Jordan

KDSpurman4
01-26-2016, 07:54 PM
Jordan
Robinson
Olajuwon
Shaq
Barkley
Malone
Magic
Bird
Ewing
Pippen
Drexler
Stockton
Kemp
Payton
R.Miller
L. Johnson
Webber
Iverson
Dirk
Kobe
Duncan


That's just the last 25 years
And each one of their teams would destroy sorry gs.

Vinylman
01-26-2016, 07:58 PM
enjoy the guy... he is playing unbelievable right now... there will be plenty of time when he is done to critique his career...

he is one of the only reasons I am actually watching the NBA this year...

And for the Dub fans... don't get sucked into the hate... savor the stupidity of peoples comments with wins and silence

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 08:04 PM
Jordan
Robinson
Olajuwon
Shaq
Barkley
Malone
Magic
Bird
Ewing
Pippen
Drexler
Stockton
Kemp
Payton
R.Miller
L. Johnson
Webber
Iverson
Dirk
Kobe
Duncan


That's just the last 25 years
And each one of their teams would destroy sorry gs.

You're not serious with Larry Johnson are you?

KDSpurman4
01-26-2016, 08:17 PM
Larry Johnson at 6'5 carried his team to back to back National Championships then led Charlotte to the Playoffs in his second year in the NBA.

Averaged 21/11/4 with a steal and a block his first couple of seasons could play all 5 positions and was a ruff rider.

That's more impressive than curry. Then when he was older he carried an 8th seed to the NBA finals and was a good match for the Twin Towers down low.

Just go back and look at all the Larry Johnson games and highlights. It's more impressive

More-Than-Most
01-26-2016, 08:28 PM
AI 1998 to 2002 was up there as well, you probably don't remember all that Iverson hype.

One of the more overrated players in the game during that span in my opinion.

AIRMAR72
01-26-2016, 08:36 PM
ok, if this is your take then that is fair and i agree with you.

Though, curry has always been great. He was great at davidson as the nations leading scorer and leader of a massively over-achieving team, he was great as a rookie after a rocky first 2 months (by far the best rookie that season when it was all said and done, but tyreke took the roy due to a more consistent effort), and he was great alongside monta before his ankle injuries. The problem is that playing alongside a ball dominant guard and those early injuries derailed him in the early going. But at this point, all the shackles are off and we're seeing him in full form. Not all that different than how he dominated the college scene as an all american at davidson to be honest. exactly

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 08:37 PM
Typical modernist response. I have to let you in on something. I've heard this routine before.

2002 - on forums you read all the time "Kobe at 22 = 3 rings, Jordan at 22= 0."

I have more... I've heard it all.

Did I say sweep? I didn't. I just think series win.

Typical deflection. :) Instead of calling me a modernist...which I'm sure I would find very insulting... if I knew what you were getting at... let's stick to the topic. What does people saying on sports forums in 2002 about Kobe have anything to do with us debating Warriors/Rockets? Have the debate with ME or please stop quoting my posts.

Also you said "I don't see a Warriors win." How am I not supposed to interpret that as a sweep? I'm using your own words bud.

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 08:40 PM
Just responding to this one point: it is because GOAT is type of thing you can only reward retrospectively. It is "what DID he accomplish?" not "what MIGHT he accomplish?" Lebron could have quit in year 2 and we'd be talking about how the Cavs wasted a pick they could have used on Wade.(was actually going to mention a disease, but would rather not about an active player. You get the point.)

I think my response was more focused on who is the best current. I completely agree with you that if we were comparing greatest careers LeBron is still the alpha of the two but in terms of the best player in the league we are going to look back at this era and depending on what year you anoint LeBron the best player, his reign clearly ended in 2015. Right now it's looking like:

LeBron James Era *Your Call*-2015
Stephen Curry Era 2015-Current

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 08:46 PM
You got any proof to back up your claim. you're only a prisoner of the moment. The Truth of the matter is that Iverson would light curry up for 50.


Kevin Garnett DID WAY MORE with less than curry ever has in his career.

Kevin was the ONLY good player on his entire team most of those years and he was leading them in

Points
Rebounds
Assist
Steals
Blocks

24/14/6/2/2 DPOY How quickly you forget hawkeye

Garnett did more

You put Curry on that T wolves team with no one around and see what happens.

do you have any proof? I just listed the numbers. Do you understand I am a Wolves fan, and have caught 80% of their games or more the last 15 years? Do you really want to go down this path with me haha?

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 08:48 PM
He's just being hyped. He's a good shooter and that's all he does.

The West isn't what it was in the past, Nor is the East, it hasn't been watchable in like 15 years since Iverson and Miller were there.

The players and teams don't play defense today so you get little kids thinking curry could do this to the 01 Sixers just fine. problem with that is the 01 Sixers were one of the better defensive teams in NBA history.

Mutombo
Hill
Lynch
Iverson
Snow

Coached by Larry Brown.

No, Reggie Miller was just a shooter. Curry is a generational talent.

The Warriors would whip that 2001 Sixers team.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 08:50 PM
Larry Johnson at 6'5 carried his team to back to back National Championships then led Charlotte to the Playoffs in his second year in the NBA.

Averaged 21/11/4 with a steal and a block his first couple of seasons could play all 5 positions and was a ruff rider.

That's more impressive than curry. Then when he was older he carried an 8th seed to the NBA finals and was a good match for the Twin Towers down low.

Just go back and look at all the Larry Johnson games and highlights. It's more impressive

I think Stacey Augmon, Anderson Hunt, and Greg Anthony had a little to do with that. You know, having multiple future decade long NBA players on your team helps.......I guess Horford is better than Curry now too, amiright?

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 08:51 PM
hey everyone, Laettner>Curry

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 09:10 PM
hey everyone, Laettner>Curry

Dont feed him.

More-Than-Most
01-26-2016, 09:18 PM
No, Reggie Miller was just a shooter. Curry is a generational talent.

The Warriors would whip that 2001 Sixers team.

If a best of 7 series could ever be over after 1 game it would be this matchup lol... I love the sixers but this team and Iverson were extremely overrated. Iverson would never be able to go off if he had Iggy/Green on him in my opinion. I never liked Iggy here as the number 1 option but his defense to me was always really underrated. This warriors team would blow that sixers team out by 30 plus every single game... That being said that could make the persons point about curry on the KG wolves team... Curry was a very good player but he got great the same time this team became stacked with an insane amount of weapons and Depth... All players need help of course but the help curry has is on par with the teams Jordan had in the 90s.... That argument shouldn't just be pushed aside. They cant double curry because clay will drop 40 and Green will drop a trip dub.... Its insanity. The point of this thread is GOAT status... Curry never came into the league and lit it up like say a James did and did so with next to no help around him and that is the difference... Goat players in my opinion can be great with little to no help around them and when has curry shown he can be the best player in the game with little help around him?

valade16
01-26-2016, 09:20 PM
I think Stacey Augmon, Anderson Hunt, and Greg Anthony had a little to do with that. You know, having multiple future decade long NBA players on your team helps.......I guess Horford is better than Curry now too, amiright?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Larry Johnson "carried" those Knicks :laugh2:

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 09:58 PM
No, Reggie Miller was just a shooter. Curry is a generational talent.

The Warriors would whip that 2001 Sixers team.

If a best of 7 series could ever be over after 1 game it would be this matchup lol... I love the sixers but this team and Iverson were extremely overrated. Iverson would never be able to go off if he had Iggy/Green on him in my opinion. I never liked Iggy here as the number 1 option but his defense to me was always really underrated. This warriors team would blow that sixers team out by 30 plus every single game... That being said that could make the persons point about curry on the KG wolves team... Curry was a very good player but he got great the same time this team became stacked with an insane amount of weapons and Depth... All players need help of course but the help curry has is on par with the teams Jordan had in the 90s.... That argument shouldn't just be pushed aside. They cant double curry because clay will drop 40 and Green will drop a trip dub.... Its insanity. The point of this thread is GOAT status... Curry never came into the league and lit it up like say a James did and did so with next to no help around him and that is the difference... Goat players in my opinion can be great with little to no help around them and when has curry shown he can be the best player in the game with little help around him?

Why does he have to? That prerequisite is so ludicrous. He can't be the best in the game inless he has little help? I find that premise inherently flawed.

Secondly, do you honestly believe Draymond Green was going to start putting up triple doubles if he was on the Orlando Magic or Utah Jazz? He has been playing 4 on 3 for the better part of a year and a half. I give him immense credit for his production and believe he has become one of the best players in the league. Similar to Pippen but neither would have ever seen such heights if they weren't fortunate enough to have two of the most talented offensive players in NBA History as their teammates.

Thirdly, do you disqualify Magic for having Kareem/Worthy? Bird for having McHale/Parish/etc. If we play that game it is a slippery slope. Suddenly Klay doesn't look so good and Hakeem Olajuwon becomes the GOAT. :)

joedaheights
01-26-2016, 10:06 PM
Larry Johnson at 6'5 carried his team to back to back National Championships then led Charlotte to the Playoffs in his second year in the NBA.

Averaged 21/11/4 with a steal and a block his first couple of seasons could play all 5 positions and was a ruff rider.

That's more impressive than curry. Then when he was older he carried an 8th seed to the NBA finals and was a good match for the Twin Towers down low.

Just go back and look at all the Larry Johnson games and highlights. It's more impressive

He couldn't play all five positions and that doesn't matter.. Play one position great.

Second don't just spit numbers to me. Numbers when you play on a so so team with mourning and no one mean little. Or hasn't anyone learned from Kevin love?

More-Than-Most
01-26-2016, 10:15 PM
Why does he have to? That prerequisite is so ludicrous. He can't be the best in the game inless he has little help? I find that premise inherently flawed.

Secondly, do you honestly believe Draymond Green was going to start putting up triple doubles if he was on the Orlando Magic or Utah Jazz? He has been playing 4 on 3 for the better part of a year and a half. I give him immense credit for his production and believe he has become one of the best players in the league. Similar to Pippen but neither would have ever seen such heights if they weren't fortunate enough to have two of the most talented offensive players in NBA History as their teammates.

Thirdly, do you disqualify Magic for having Kareem/Worthy? Bird for having McHale/Parish/etc. If we play that game it is a slippery slope. Suddenly Klay doesn't look so good and Hakeem Olajuwon becomes the GOAT. :)

Never once said any of this and again if you are going to be GOAT status or if you are going to surpass players like a Lebron then yes you need certain areas like being great on both ends of the floor or being able to carry any team or doing what Jordan did year after year after year... Its using logic to evaluate each individual situation and Curry has fallen into a Kobe like situation where he has a ton of help around him... we like to knock kobe for it but we seem to let this argument slide when it comes to curry. The warriors are stacked 8 deep and curry is a huge part of that but he wouldnt be doing this if he was on the 07/08/09 cavs because he isnt physically dominating on both sides of the ball and if you are talking GOAT status I just dont see it.

Example... Lebron James isnt even the Goat but he was as Dominant all around on offensive as curry is now but he was also a top 3 player in the league at defense... something curry is far from... Yet that wont be taken into account down the line when all is said and done if curry wins like 6 championships with a stacked team because rings/hardware/offense------------------->all for some stupid reason.

Yanks All Day
01-26-2016, 10:39 PM
The easy answer is: time will tell.

Michael Jordan won his first title at 28 years old, but before that, he had 5 whole seasons of utter dominance. When he finally won a title, he had already spent half a decade averaging 30/6/6 on better than 50% shooting. MJ was very well established, and the rings only began to solidify his legacy.

The jury is out on Steph Curry. He won his first ring at 26, but that was the first year he really dominated basketball. This, obviously, is the 2nd year he's done so, and it should end with a ring. Even then, he'd need about 4-5 more years to even enter those talks. That's not to say it won't happen, but it hasn't happened yet, and there's no guarantee it will.

Hypothetically, what if the Warriors don't win this year? And Steph goes from "godly" to just "very, very good" and the Warriors only end up with 1 or 2 rings as a result? Then he'd be known as a guy who had a phenomenal peak and that's it. Conversely, what if the Warriors stay together for a decade and win 8 rings in 8 tries and Curry gets 6 MVPs? Then it's not even a discussion, right? Point being: it's too early to tell. 1 or 2 years doesn't put you in the discussion, but it also doesn't take you out of it. Guys are considered all-time greats because they sustain excellence over long periods of time. No one has ever played the game like Steph, but he's got to do it for longer to be in the talks.

KnicksorBust
01-26-2016, 11:16 PM
Never once said any of this

You said...


... Curry never came into the league and lit it up like say a James did and did so with next to no help around him and that is the difference... Goat players in my opinion can be great with little to no help around them and when has curry shown he can be the best player in the game with little help around him?

Why does his help diminish his greatness? You flat out sound said that James did so "and that is the difference." I would make two argument.


and again if you are going to be GOAT status or if you are going to surpass players like a Lebron then yes you need certain areas like being great on both ends of the floor or being able to carry any team or doing what Jordan did year after year after year...

Why? If he is so off the charts good offensively that his teams are winning by 30 and he sits in the 4th quarter... then why? Isn't the whole point to dominate so your team is by far superior to the competition. That's exactly what he is doing. And you want to penalize him for petty things. Bird and Magic weren't exactly all-defense and it doesn't hurt their historical legacies.


Its using logic to evaluate each individual situation

And isn't his situation the MVP of potentially the greatest team of all-time?



and Curry has fallen into a Kobe like situation where he has a ton of help around him... we like to knock kobe for it but we seem to let this argument slide when it comes to curry. The warriors are stacked 8 deep

Are you willing to concede the value that he has given to his teammates? Do you think he makes them better?


and curry is a huge part of that

Specifically what do you think Curry does to make Draymond Green and Klay Thompson better?


but he wouldnt be doing this if he was on the 07/08/09 cavs because he isnt physically dominating on both sides of the ball and if you are talking GOAT status I just dont see it.

But he would be better offensively than James so he wouldn't need to dominate defensively. Plus the entire structure of the team would be different. Magically placing on a team that wasn't built for him isn't an effective argument.


Example... Lebron James isnt even the Goat but he was as Dominant all around on offensive as curry is now but he was also a top 3 player in the league at defense... something curry is far from... Yet that wont be taken into account down the line when all is said and done if curry wins like 6 championships with a stacked team because rings/hardware/offense------------------->all for some stupid reason.

Do you think he has a better supporting cast than Larry's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, or Jordan's Bulls?

MTar786
01-27-2016, 12:24 AM
too many curry haters in here sadly. You guys have to start giving the superstars some credit eventually. you guys degraded kobe.. then lebron.. get over it and enjoy greatness. Im not talking about career vs career. At this point i have never seen someone playing better basketball than steph curry.. Its as simple as that. I dont need to wait for him to do this for another 6 years because im not comparing careers here. ive seen kobes greatest seasons. Kobe had that 'on fire mamba mode' he had some games. curry does it almost every game. This is just insane. Not only that but if curry shot the ball 40 times in a game no one would complain because he is legit from anywhere past half court really. It really is crazy. Then comes his IQ OFF THE CHARTS. give him the ball 10 times and he will make the right decision 9 times if not 10.

He is completely changing the game. Look at how defenses get all shook up they collapse when he touches the ball.... even off the ball he gets the most respect when it comes to defesive reactions in the nba by far. It is definitely a once in a lifetime kind of thing im seeing. I saw it with jordan. i saw it with shaq early 00's.. I saw it with dirk in the 11 playoffs. I saw it with kobe in the mid 00's. lebron in miami at times too. but curry is doing it so often now.. its becoming expected of him.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 12:29 AM
too many curry haters in here sadly. You guys have to start giving the superstars some credit eventually. you guys degraded kobe.. then lebron.. get over it and enjoy greatness. Im not talking about career vs career. At this point i have never seen someone playing better basketball than steph curry.. Its as simple as that. I dont need to wait for him to do this for another 6 years because im not comparing careers here. ive seen kobes greatest seasons. Kobe had that 'on fire mamba mode' he had some games. curry does it almost every game. This is just insane. Not only that but if curry shot the ball 40 times in a game no one would complain because he is legit from anywhere past half court really. It really is crazy. Then comes his IQ OFF THE CHARTS. give him the ball 10 times and he will make the right decision 9 times if not 10.

He is completely changing the game. Look at how defenses get all shook up they collapse when he touches the ball.... even off the ball he gets the most respect when it comes to defesive reactions in the nba by far. It is definitely a once in a lifetime kind of thing im seeing. I saw it with jordan. i saw it with shaq early 00's.. I saw it with dirk in the 11 playoffs. I saw it with kobe in the mid 00's. lebron in miami at times too. but curry is doing it so often now.. its becoming expected of him.

Michael Jordan played better basketball than steph curry. That's just a fact.

MTar786
01-27-2016, 12:34 AM
Michael Jordan played better basketball than steph curry. That's just a fact.

get off jordans nuts now dude.. i heard u before. u can have whatever opinion you want. i saw jordan play and im seeing curry play and imo curry is playing better ball.

MTar786
01-27-2016, 12:49 AM
infact from 95 (when i started watching) onwards to his retirement.. his stats pale in comparison to currys right now.
Im not trying to compare stats.. but im trying to say that based on the time i started watching ball.. I have not seen a better player. jordan from 86-93 could have been better (and many will pretend like they got to see jordan on a game to game basis back then). but like i said.. im not commenting on what i havent seen. But i would take curry all day over jordan from 95-98. Shaq, Lebron and kobe even have seasons that were better than those. infact so does d wade and kevin durant. Im not even a stat guy. I observe the game by watching.. and like i said i havent seen anybody do it better than curry.
also with joedaheights theory wilt shoudld be >>>> jordan

LA_Raiders
01-27-2016, 12:54 AM
No, injuries will keep him out. He is injury prone.

giantspwn
01-27-2016, 12:54 AM
This season could go down as one of the greatest. If he keeps around this level of play for 3-4 more years, wins a couple more MVP's and Titles then the conversations could start. That's all a big "If" though.

He already has the "greatest shooter ever" title locked up.

It's insane to think he basically has the MVP already locked up and were only in January. The guy is incredible.

Jeffy25
01-27-2016, 02:01 AM
He will without question not be a top 10 all time player.

His game is not well rounded enough....he is a very good all around player and a hall of famer scorer and could be one of the great 3 point shooters of all time but he is not truly special.

We've literally never seen a player do what he is doing.

20 shots per game, scoring 30 on 30 PER with .650 true shooting and making almost 5 three's per game?

We've never seen this.


If he can sustain this kind of level of play, he'll be an all-time great.

But he needs to do this for like 6-7 more seasons to get there.

Right now, he is posting an awesome season and a half. In three years, with the same level of dominance.....he would quickly be in the all-time great convo.

Guy already has season records of three's made.


There was a time where guys like Tmac and Allen Iverson were as effective or better than Steph. They're not even near anyone's top 50 list. Just wait it out.

While I agree with the wait it out sentiment. Allen Iverson was never as good as Steph Curry is right now though.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 03:59 AM
We've literally never seen a player do what he is doing.

20 shots per game, scoring 30 on 30 PER with .650 true shooting and making almost 5 three's per game?

We've never seen this.


If he can sustain this kind of level of play, he'll be an all-time great.

But he needs to do this for like 6-7 more seasons to get there.

Right now, he is posting an awesome season and a half. In three years, with the same level of dominance.....he would quickly be in the all-time great convo.

Guy already has season records of three's made.



While I agree with the wait it out sentiment. Allen Iverson was never as good as Steph Curry is right now though.

And... If the NBA allowed someone to get physical through a screener and a defender to hand check curry's light in the *** self, we still wouldn't be seeing it.

And there's this little thing about the Warriors not playing anyone, because with Duncan being 70 and Lebron being on a crap team, there isn't anyone.

It's a league with rules changed to make things easier on a player like curry. You do realize Reggie miller would be going buck wild in today's league right?

Oneals prime was not in the early 90s. He'd single handedly murder gsw

Hawkeye15
01-27-2016, 04:10 AM
And... If the NBA allowed someone to get physical through a screener and a defender to hand check curry's light in the *** self, we still wouldn't be seeing it.

And there's this little thing about the Warriors not playing anyone, because with Duncan being 70 and Lebron being on a crap team, there isn't anyone.

It's a league with rules changed to make things easier on a player like curry. You do realize Reggie miller would be going buck wild in today's league right?

Oneals prime was not in the early 90s. He'd single handedly murder gsw

Rhetorical question....

you do realize defenses today are much more complex and better set than your glory days, yes? No?

Don't mix an occasional Mahorn hard foul for great defense, or even worse, attempt to sell anyone who understands and watched basketball history that any level of defense was played in the 80's.

Rule changes dictate development. Guess what? There is no paint to drive into anymore. It's walled up, thanks to zone. Hence, Curry (not the inventor, but the perfectionist), has decided to kill you from 27 feet.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2016, 04:11 AM
christ, I am older than most on this site, and this anti-new era is ridiculous. Did people WATCH basketball in the early 90's? That wasn't defense, that wasn't offense. It was a ****ing trainwreck.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2016, 04:14 AM
Curry will not end up the GOAT. But my god, if I have to read another post about AI, or Erving, or Nique, or any of that ****, being his equal, I am going to puke.

Take the tampon out, update the mullet/fro, and realize you are watching (assuming you aren't stroking off to the Bird/Nique game 7 highlights with leftie runners) a player who is changing the way everyone sees the game.

Last night, casually, Mills goes under a pick, Curry drains a 29 footer. And just looks at Mills like, "Patty, you are a champion, act like it".

Jeffy25
01-27-2016, 04:25 AM
Hawkeye killing it in here

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 04:48 AM
Rhetorical question....

you do realize defenses today are much more complex and better set than your glory days, yes? No?

Don't mix an occasional Mahorn hard foul for great defense, or even worse, attempt to sell anyone who understands and watched basketball history that any level of defense was played in the 80's.

Rule changes dictate development. Guess what? There is no paint to drive into anymore. It's walled up, thanks to zone. Hence, Curry (not the inventor, but the perfectionist), has decided to kill you from 27 feet.

complex? Is that code for no physicality and no seven foot centers who can own the entire paint on their own?

You realize that was LAs game with shaq right? Welcome anyone who wanted to come to the paint so that oneal could drag three guys to the basket with him. You think Jordan never drove to a clogged paint and dunked over an elite defensive center?

I've been through this reimagining of history whenever someone becomes good.

You do realize that when most of America thought Lebron would beat SAS 1.5 years ago everyone was ready to crown him the greatest ever, right?

Kobe? Want to see pregame before the 04 finals?

I've been on forums in 2002 when laker fans wanted to tell me that if "elite athletes" like Doug Christie were around in the 90s Jordan would get shut down.

And every time the same thing ... No one could ever play before now blah blah blah. In the meantime the raptors and the freaking Paxson Bulls are somebody in the east... But just sort of waiting for Lebron and a bunch of horse dung to stumble over them on the way to the finals.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 04:53 AM
Riiiight. The Bulls weren't offense.

In all of this I've never once said curry isn't as good as iverson or nique. He's better. He will be as good as Dirk, maybe better... Oscar? Hakeem? Kobe? Maybe. But Jordan? Magic? Russell? Abdul jab bar? No.

That's not being anti new era. It's a fact.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2016, 04:55 AM
complex? Is that code for no physicality and no seven foot centers who can own the entire paint on their own?

No code bud. It means, the rule changes (players hate it, countless of real quotes on this), have made the lane impossible to live in the last 10 years. There is no wide open paint anymore. Hence the focus on 3 point shooting.


You realize that was LAs game with shaq right? Welcome anyone who wanted to come to the paint so that oneal could drag three guys to the basket with him.

Yep. Can you explain the triangle to me? I can explain it to you. There is a reason Kobe fans hate me, it's because I spelled out why Kobe was the biggest benefactor of any star ever. Shaq being the biggest reason. Who is putting Curry on Shaq level so far?


You think Jordan never drove to a clogged paint and dunked over an elite defensive center?

Yep, he did. Who is putting Curry on Jordan's level career wise right now?


I've been through this reimagining of history whenever someone becomes good.

Cool, I am 40. How old are you?


You do realize that when most of America thought Lebron would beat SAS 1.5 years ago everyone was ready to crown him the greatest ever, right?

We remember it differently. I remember not caring about LeBron, until year 7, then wondered why he got A-Rod/Tiger hate. He is a top 5 player ever when done. In like 5 years....


Kobe? Want to see pregame before the 04 finals?

eh, what about Kobe?


I've been on forums in 2002 when laker fans wanted to tell me that if "elite athletes" like Doug Christie were around in the 90s Jordan would get shut down.

Nah. The only ones in those rules, were the stocky in your **** defenders.


And every time the same thing ... No one could ever play before now blah blah blah. In the meantime the raptors and the freaking Paxson Bulls are somebody in the east... But just sort of waiting for Lebron and a bunch of horse dung to stumble over them on the way to the finals.

blah blah blah.

We are talking about Curry. Who pulls up from 30 early in the clock for a layup.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 05:10 AM
get off jordans nuts now dude.. i heard u before. u can have whatever opinion you want. i saw jordan play and im seeing curry play and imo curry is playing better ball.

Hawkeye... This guy. If you're not putting him there then we have no disagreement... Cause I never said he wasn't great.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 05:15 AM
And impossible to live in... Defensive three seconds? Need the rule pasted? Yeah you're right... The paint wasn't occupied at all in the early 90s. Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson? And their entire seasons of 3+ BPG was all make believe.

Joakim Noah was Dpoy a couple years back.. That pretty much says it all.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2016, 05:19 AM
And impossible to live in... Defensive three seconds? Need the rule pasted? Yeah you're right... The paint wasn't occupied at all in the early 90s. Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson? And their entire seasons of 3+ BPG was all make believe.

Joakim Noah was Dpoy a couple years back.. That pretty much says it all.

No, the paint was occupied. But guess what kills shotblockers.....perimeter players coming at them 100 mph. Sure, the block numbers are going to be up there, everyone lands a punch, especially when they are able to find the ball. But the fact is, paint buckets in transition, and then halfcourt, were exponentially easier in the 80's, and after the hand check rule prior to zone being allowed.

Jeffy25
01-27-2016, 05:29 AM
And impossible to live in... Defensive three seconds? Need the rule pasted? Yeah you're right... The paint wasn't occupied at all in the early 90s. Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson? And their entire seasons of 3+ BPG was all make believe.

Joakim Noah was Dpoy a couple years back.. That pretty much says it all.

There is 0.5 blocks less per game more this year than there was in the early 90's, while shooting percentages are down from around .465 down to .450 with three point shooting percentages up from .330 to .350, yet basically there are 83 field goal attempts per game.


But that's probably because the NBA went from taking 10 threes per game to 22 three's per game.

Not going to block 5.2 shots per game when 12 more shots are being taken from 22 feet out compared to 4.8 shots being blocked because there are only 10 3's per game being taken by each team.


The game is different, that doesn't mean it was harder in the 90's.

Jeffy25
01-27-2016, 05:35 AM
No, the paint was occupied. But guess what kills shotblockers.....perimeter players coming at them 100 mph. Sure, the block numbers are going to be up there, everyone lands a punch, especially when they are able to find the ball. But the fact is, paint buckets in transition, and then halfcourt, were exponentially easier in the 80's, and after the hand check rule prior to zone being allowed.

There are also three less free throws being attempted per game then there were in the early 90's (less calls? Less contact?)

Munkeysuit
01-27-2016, 07:09 AM
You honestly haven't seen anyone play better ball than Curry? well dude, you are more than entitled to your opinion but that's all it'll ever be. I can name almost 30 players better than him and maybe 7 players better than him at his own position! I am no Curry hater, he's actually one of my favorite players and I am a huge fan! but to say he's better than Jordan? I mean you've seen Jordan's best years! better than Iverson? better than Kobe? better than Lebron? hahaha bro...I'll give Curry the nod on the most fascinating shooter and one of the greatest shooters to every play, but he's not the greatest shooter yet and he's not even the greatest PG yet so to stake that claim of GOAT? sheesh

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 08:25 AM
One of the more overrated players in the game during that span in my opinion.

Oh, I agree. But I'm talking about the apparent consensus, not my opinion back in the day. I never liked AI as a player back in the day.


Michael Jordan

I'll add Tracy McGrady.

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 08:27 AM
No, Reggie Miller was just a shooter. Curry is a generational talent.

Reggie was not just a shooter. You're confusing him with Ray Allen or guys like Novak, Kapono, James Jones etc

KnicksorBust
01-27-2016, 12:57 PM
Reggie was not just a shooter. You're confusing him with Ray Allen or guys like Novak, Kapono, James Jones etc

Lumping Ray Allen in with that group? :rolleyes:

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 01:24 PM
No, the paint was occupied. But guess what kills shotblockers.....perimeter players coming at them 100 mph. Sure, the block numbers are going to be up there, everyone lands a punch, especially when they are able to find the ball. But the fact is, paint buckets in transition, and then halfcourt, were exponentially easier in the 80's, and after the hand check rule prior to zone being allowed.

I'm trying to wrap my head around where you're coming from. Are you saying it would be harder for Jordan to get buckets in the paint today? Because when you have more pansy-ish centers having to make sure they don't spend 3 seconds in the paint, I find that very hard to believe. Are you saying "he only did that well because they played no defense in the 80s?" Because, he got 63 and averaged over 40 for a series against Boston, and the Celtics played defense. He was just as good when the league became more defensive against the Pistons and Knicks. He'd get 40 and 50 in a playoff win against either team with guys not only loaded up in the paint, but actually clotheslining him.

When you say "they didn't play defense in the 80s".. are you talking about the Celtics? Or are you talking about the Nuggets and Mavericks?

When you bring up the paint, are you saying that Curry would have an easy time going into the paint and rising up over those who occupied the paint in the 80s and 90s? Because somehow, even though Abdul-Jabbar was not David Robinson defensively, I just don't see Curry going into the paint and showing LA he means business.

The issue I have with Curry is divided into the following:

1. Paint? How about the perimeter? What does Curry look like if defenders can get extremely physical and fight through screens? Not Rick Mahorn physical.. just as physical as things often were without the dirty stuff.

2. Contesting and being guarded by bigger defenders quick enough to guard him…

Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman in their prime, despite being much bigger than Curry, could guard Steph Curry in terms of quickness. So could Michael Jordan. So, in a series against the Bulls, or Pistons, or even Knicks with John Starks or Greg Anthony actually able to bully a screen, he'd actually be facing, for the first time, someone who could get up in his face and contest far better than anything I've seen today against him. Jimmy Butler is almost a comparison today, but when I've watched they've had to keep him on Thompson and he really lacks the quickness of a Pippen or Jordan.

3. The physicality - Players then could get you really good going into the paint without necessarily having it look like the worst flagrant ever. Even if it was a flagrant, what would he look like after a shot from Jerome Kersey "going for the ball"

4. Hand checking - You can react like "John Starks?? You think HE could guard Steph Curry?" I think Starks, Kevin Johnson and a lot of other guys, given the opportunity to keep a hand on him with regular physicality, could do a lot better job.

5. The paint - We really haven't seen anyone who could just wipe shots out and also keep you from getting into his chest since David Robinson. Tyson Chandler is a nice comparison, but you could also push Chandler if you got into his chest. And, honestly, a lot of these players today have looked a LOT worse on a court with Tyson Chandler than the rest of the league… see Lebron James in 2011 for example. But back then you had Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon… they did what Russell instructed the Celtics to do.. "send him to me, I'll be waiting for him." The Knicks approach to a 30 footer would have been to overplay it, send him down to another defender who would then overplay him and send him down where Ewing would be waiting.

Now, Michael Jordan was 6'6" with a 40+" vertical and the strength of a big man… he could go up over the top of Ewing and tomahawk down on him.. Steph Curry? Not seeing it. He'd be very good, but as good as he looks today? No.

6. Today's league - It's over expanded.. There are good players, but in a 23, 25 or 28 team league, the Warriors would probably not have been able to add more than they have, because they're a stacked team… and you might have other teams with players like Drummond and Butler matched together.

Who is the Warriors competition? If there was a team like the 10 Celtics or the Spurs before Duncan aged or the 08 Lakers and GSW beat them, fine? But, as it stands, the team that they play in both the WCF and Finals this year would likely be rolled by both the winner and the loser of many Finals even in the past decade preceding last year.

I'm not one of these people that doesn't think he's any good. He's probably a rich man's Reggie Miller combo guard version. But I don't think that there's anything wrong with holding horses there at least until a team or two comes along that passes the laugh test and he beats them.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 01:37 PM
There is 0.5 blocks less per game more this year than there was in the early 90's, while shooting percentages are down from around .465 down to .450 with three point shooting percentages up from .330 to .350, yet basically there are 83 field goal attempts per game.


But that's probably because the NBA went from taking 10 threes per game to 22 three's per game.

Not going to block 5.2 shots per game when 12 more shots are being taken from 22 feet out compared to 4.8 shots being blocked because there are only 10 3's per game being taken by each team.


The game is different, that doesn't mean it was harder in the 90's.

It was harder in the 90s. It was a contact sport. Less threes were taken because better options to score right at the hole were available to teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets, etc.

By the way, before everyone gets wild about how I'm just a traditional blowhard, the title of the threat is about him being the GOAT. It's not like I went into a thread about Curry having a good game and said, "yeah, but he sucks compared to X"

IndyRealist
01-27-2016, 01:46 PM
It was harder in the 90s. It was a contact sport. Less threes were taken because better options to score right at the hole were available to teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets, etc.

By the way, before everyone gets wild about how I'm just a traditional blowhard, the title of the threat is about him being the GOAT. It's not like I went into a thread about Curry having a good game and said, "yeah, but he sucks compared to X"

Less threes were taken in the 90s because it was imported from the ABA, and NBA coaches still considered it a gimmick. Only with the advent of analytics have teams grudgingly accepted that it is a higher value shot.

It was the same way with zone D. It was legal for years but coaches refused to run it.

tredigs
01-27-2016, 02:36 PM
Funny thing is that the Bulls never faced an elite center in the Finals, on defense or otherwise.

I actually just re-watched most of a game(s) from MJ's 63 versus the Celtics and game 1 from their Blazers and Sonics Finals matchups. Just looking at the offensive sets that are ran then compared to now, and how much better and more in tune perimeter defenses are on closing out and when to hedge screens, etc. It's night and day. Even in the Sonics series, where on one side you have a perimeter defender who was DPOY, and the other side where you have MJ + Pippen + Rodman (who I forgot used to get banged on so much in the post with regularity for easy 2's). I so, so wish there was a way to make a Warriors V Bulls series happen.

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 02:45 PM
Lumping Ray Allen in with that group? :rolleyes:

I think you missed the "or" part. Which means the others are lumped together and that Ray Allen is a similar player but obviously in a different stratosphere. Reggie was more complete than Ray Ray, whilst Ray was mostly a shooter.

tredigs
01-27-2016, 02:48 PM
Defensively, I think that ultimately it was tougher in the 80's and 90's to break away from your initial man on the perimeter due to hand checking, but that the teeth of the defense now are way beyond what it was then. Teams have a multitude of strategies for help D, and ever since '01 when effectively Zone defense was brought up (largely because paint scoring was becoming too easy again), we saw the game move further into the perimeter + transition battle that we see more often now. That said, putting Curry in 80's or 90's, even with handchecking, there's no player in that game with close to the separation ability that he has in ISO. Between his ball handling, quick release and range, he'd absolutely torch that league. There's a few guys here and there that would be great matchups (Scottie or Mike for example), but, we HAVE perimeter defenders in our current league that rival their impact (along with better overall defensive strategies behind them), and at this point they've show to have very few answers to Curry right now.

valade16
01-27-2016, 02:48 PM
I think you missed the "or" part. Which means the others are lumped together and that Ray Allen is a similar player but obviously in a different stratosphere. Reggie was more complete than Ray Ray, whilst Ray was mostly a shooter.

Ray Allen averaged more rebounds, assists and steals than Reggie, and they had many seasons that overlapped so don't even try to bring up how the statistics can't be used. When they were playing at the same time, Ray was getting more of all of those than Reggie.

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 03:02 PM
Ray Allen averaged more rebounds, assists and steals than Reggie, and they had many seasons that overlapped so don't even try to bring up how the statistics can't be used. When they were playing at the same time, Ray was getting more of all of those than Reggie.

So does that mean that Ray was a better rebounder, a better passer and a better defender than Reggie?
If you say yes, then you're the epitomy of a popcorn fan who only reads stats and has no understanding of the game.

tredigs
01-27-2016, 03:09 PM
So does that mean that Ray was a better rebounder, a better passer and a better defender than Reggie?
If you say yes, then you're the epitomy of a popcorn fan who only reads stats and has no understanding of the game.

At 6'7", Reggie was an absolute nothing as a rebounder, a mediocre/timely passer and while a pesky defender, definitely not anything great. Comparing his abilities in these facets to anybody, is not exactly solid grounds for argument. Reggie was a big game player and was one of the best I've ever seen at getting into the oppositions head, but he was very much one-dimensional when compared to most Hall Of Famers.

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 03:18 PM
At 6'7", Reggie was an absolute nothing as a rebounder, a mediocre/timely passer and while a pesky defender, definitely not anything great. Comparing his abilities in these facets to anybody, is not exactly solid grounds for argument. Reggie was a big game player and was one of the best I've ever seen at getting into the oppositions head, but he was very much one-dimensional when compared to most Hall Of Famers.


I'm not commenting on the potential of the reality of the situation, but whether he got that from a stat line.

Because I've seen some mediocre passers average 10 assist a night just because the system is weird, which future generation kids who rely on statistics will hail as "a great passer". I've seen guards get 5 random rebounds a night just because the ball fell on them. That doesn't make them a good rebounder. I've seen players being the box out masters, averaging less rebounds a night from guys who are just tall or lucky, as in the ball comes of the basket towards their direction and they get a +1 rebound without any effort.
I've seen players miss a couple of easy baskets and grab their offensive rebound that are now labelled as great offensive rebounders, just because it says on a piece of paper they had like 6 or 7 of them occassionally...

Statistics are a joke when their user has no idea of what they mean or how they're computed. And it's hillarious watching people think they're talking about basketball when all they do is use numbers. Even Marvel or DC nerds (no offense, I like those myself and I'm not nerd level yet) can have a better discussion when comparing their heroes than what joedaheights labels as modernists. At least they tend to focus on what's actually important when they compare someone.

CardinalRed24
01-27-2016, 03:47 PM
The scary thing about Curry is that he seems to only be getting better. He turns 28 in March and is still finding ways to improve his game. With his small body frame, devotion and work ethic I believe he'll be able to maintain this level of play into his early to mid 30s, say possibly 34-35 yrs of age and he'll still likely be a top 5 pg in the league. He's that special.
With Klay Thompson, Harrison Barnes and Draymond Green by his side these Warriors will be a force for a long time.

IndyRealist
01-27-2016, 04:27 PM
People forget the beauty of watching Reggie use a triple (TRIPLE) screen for a sliver of daylight, or the fact that most of his scoring was done off isolation plays. Yes, the threes rained all day in Indy, but his pump fake was unreal, and everyone fouled him on post-up stepback fadeaways before Dirk made it a playground move.

"Just a shooter" is a huge disservice. Just shooters don't live at the line.

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 04:36 PM
People forget

I'll stop you there and just correct you by saying "People DON'T KNOW and still speak about the subject".
One cannot seriously forget the style of play of a basketball legend and claim that they're a basketball fan.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2016, 05:25 PM
Reggie was not just a shooter. You're confusing him with Ray Allen or guys like Novak, Kapono, James Jones etc

I have gone over this many time. Reggie, like Kevin Martin, or Rip Hamilton, basically has one dimension. Run through a series of picks, until you get an open jumper. Reggie happens to be the best one dimensional shooter who gave you 19-20 a night off the top of my memory, but he offered nothing else at all.

I swear his occasional clutch moments in the Garden skew people's view of him so badly.

3 times all NBA (never 1st team). 5 time all star. Never sniffed an MVP. What on earth is so great about this guy? That he gave the choke sign to Spike Lee, after the Knicks basically choked away a huge game?

valade16
01-27-2016, 05:36 PM
So does that mean that Ray was a better rebounder, a better passer and a better defender than Reggie? If you say yes, then you're the epitomy of a popcorn fan who only reads stats and has no understanding of the game.

Here's what you're not getting. I'm not saying "because he has more rebounds and assists than Reggie he's a better passer and rebounder" I'm saying "Ray is a better rebounder and passer than Reggie and because of that he grabbed more rebounds and dished more assists".

Your entire understanding of statistics is ***-backward.

Give me actual reasons why you believe Reggie was a better rebounder, passer and/or defender than Ray Allen. What proof do you have of your claims?

Additionally, if you can't compare statistics from two different players who played in the league at the exact same time, play the same position, and even have similar roles offensively, when can you? Name an instance in which you can look at their stats and use that as part of your analysis and evaluation?

IndyRealist
01-27-2016, 05:38 PM
I have gone over this many time. Reggie, like Kevin Martin, or Rip Hamilton, basically has one dimension. Run through a series of picks, until you get an open jumper. Reggie happens to be the best one dimensional shooter who gave you 19-20 a night off the top of my memory, but he offered nothing else at all.

I swear his occasional clutch moments in the Garden skew people's view of him so badly.

3 times all NBA (never 1st team). 5 time all star. Never sniffed an MVP. What on earth is so great about this guy? That he gave the choke sign to Spike Lee, after the Knicks basically choked away a huge game?

Go back and watch a game sometime between 1996 and 2000. You'll be surprised by how many iso plays he scores off of, and how much he goes to the line. I was and i grew up watching him. Memory only wants you to remember highlights, not the details.

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 05:52 PM
Here's what you're not getting. I'm not saying "because he has more rebounds and assists than Reggie he's a better passer and rebounder" I'm saying "Ray is a better rebounder and passer than Reggie and because of that he grabbed more rebounds and dished more assists".

Your entire understanding of statistics is ***-backward.

Give me actual reasons why you believe Reggie was a better rebounder, passer and/or defender than Ray Allen. What proof do you have of your claims?

Additionally, if you can't compare statistics from two different players who played in the league at the exact same time, play the same position, and even have similar roles offensively, when can you? Name an instance in which you can look at their stats and use that as part of your analysis and evaluation?


I don't recall anything about either one's rebounding skills but as for passing, you obviously don't remember or know Reggie.

Assists and passing don't have much correlation. An assist is essentially the success of a teammate and you get awarded for giving him the ball. A pass that unlocks a defence may not be awarded with an assist if that teammates decides to give it to another guy under the basket. According to you, the 2nd player who got the key pass and gave an easy pass to the 3rd guy, should be considered a better passer at the end of the day because of his inflated stat line.

And once again, it doesn't matter if you have players from the same era or season playing. Stats reflect particular games only. They don't translate to different games, to different styles, to different eras, to different roles etc. There may be some consistency with some players, but that's about it. It's not the rule.

Maybe Player A's team rebounds less, maybe Player A's team has some guy who grabs all the rebounds, maybe Player A is positione on the perimeter because there's more use to him there, thus he loses on the rebounding stat line. Maybe Player A is boxing out successfully and his teammates get more rebounds. Stats do not translate. Stop making it the rule when everyone in the business knows they're not.

Here's how actual basketball teams se stats:

1. You look at stats from game to game basis.
2. You compare those stats with their teammates.
3. You compare those stats with the opposition's stat line in that day.
4. You compare those stats with opposition's stat line from a game to game basis.
5. You see where the player is positioned at each moment.
6. You see how that player reacts to various moments in time, depending on position.
7. You see if that's translated to a rebound, a FGM, a missed FGA, a foul, a key pass, a good or bad screen decision and so on.
8. You compare that to other occassions and see if there's a trend.
9. You attempt to find a correlation between game x and game y of either team, to notice consistent patterns of play.
10. ...and many more parameters to look at.

This is the simplest way I can explain statistical analysis from a team's perspective.

Are you doing even one of these things? No, you just look at a piece of paper and think yourself of a basketball genius just because you memorized something.
Yet, I'm the one who disses statistical talk because I'm the one who works with these things and sometimes make decisions on who to sign or cut based on these stuff. And you're dismissing my opinion just because I don't share your sillyness in thinking that everything can be explained with a few numbers.

valade16
01-27-2016, 06:48 PM
I don't recall anything about either one's rebounding skills but as for passing, you obviously don't remember or know Reggie.

Assists and passing don't have much correlation. An assist is essentially the success of a teammate and you get awarded for giving him the ball. A pass that unlocks a defense may not be awarded with an assist if that teammates decides to give it to another guy under the basket. According to you, the 2nd player who got the key pass and gave an easy pass to the 3rd guy, should be considered a better passer at the end of the day because of his inflated stat line.

And once again, it doesn't matter if you have players from the same era or season playing. Stats reflect particular games only. They don't translate to different games, to different styles, to different eras, to different roles etc. There may be some consistency with some players, but that's about it. It's not the rule.

Maybe Player A's team rebounds less, maybe Player A's team has some guy who grabs all the rebounds, maybe Player A is position on the perimeter because there's more use to him there, thus he loses on the rebounding stat line. Maybe Player A is boxing out successfully and his teammates get more rebounds. Stats do not translate. Stop making it the rule when everyone in the business knows they're not.

Here's how actual basketball teams use stats:

1. You look at stats from game to game basis.
2. You compare those stats with their teammates.
3. You compare those stats with the opposition's stat line in that day.
4. You compare those stats with opposition's stat line from a game to game basis.
5. You see where the player is positioned at each moment.
6. You see how that player reacts to various moments in time, depending on position.
7. You see if that's translated to a rebound, a FGM, a missed FGA, a foul, a key pass, a good or bad screen decision and so on.
8. You compare that to other occasions and see if there's a trend.
9. You attempt to find a correlation between game x and game y of either team, to notice consistent patterns of play.
10. ...and many more parameters to look at.

This is the simplest way I can explain statistical analysis from a team's perspective.

Are you doing even one of these things? No, you just look at a piece of paper and think yourself of a basketball genius just because you memorized something.
Yet, I'm the one who disses statistical talk because I'm the one who works with these things and sometimes make decisions on who to sign or cut based on these stuff. And you're dismissing my opinion just because I don't share your silliness in thinking that everything can be explained with a few numbers.

This sums up the entire argument right here. You think that any person who thinks players today are comparable to players from back in the day they must think everything can be explained by a few numbers.

Nobody is saying use only numbers. We are saying use your eyes and watch the games and then use the stats as a helpful tool as part of the overall analysis.

But the problem is, I don't trust your eyes because they are **** at evaluating NBA talent. Just pure ****. The basketball opinions you hold leads me to believe that your team is at the absolute bottom of the standings in whatever league your in. You've already said you don't think athleticism matters when judging talent, and right off the bat everything else you say is irrelevant.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 06:50 PM
Funny thing is that the Bulls never faced an elite center in the Finals, on defense or otherwise.

I actually just re-watched most of a game(s) from MJ's 63 versus the Celtics and game 1 from their Blazers and Sonics Finals matchups. Just looking at the offensive sets that are ran then compared to now, and how much better and more in tune perimeter defenses are on closing out and when to hedge screens, etc. It's night and day. Even in the Sonics series, where on one side you have a perimeter defender who was DPOY, and the other side where you have MJ + Pippen + Rodman (who I forgot used to get banged on so much in the post with regularity for easy 2's). I so, so wish there was a way to make a Warriors V Bulls series happen.

The Warriors are a good team but what few realize is that the 93 Suns were a team that was a lot more like today's warriors than the team they played the round before. Go watch that series. See how Jordan without guys getting physical with him was just beyond invincible.

Four things would ultimately break gsw:

1. Jordan and Pippen on curry and Thompson. They've never had half as many shots contested as they would

2. Screening Horace Grant. Too much of a combination of length and mobility to screen him with mj or Scottie on the ball

3. Jordan talking to curry. He'd get in his head.

4. Chipping away at the rest of the Warriors with dunks over defenders from Pippen and Jordan. They'd make the walls crumble around klay and curry

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 07:00 PM
This sums up the entire argument right here. You think that any person who thinks players today are comparable to players from back in the day they must think everything can be explained by a few numbers.

Nobody is saying use only numbers. We are saying use your eyes and watch the games and then use the stats as a helpful tool as part of the overall analysis.

But the problem is, I don't trust your eyes because they are **** at evaluating NBA talent. Just pure ****. The basketball opinions you hold leads me to believe that your team is at the absolute bottom of the standings in whatever league your in. You've already said you don't think athleticism matters when judging talent, and right off the bat everything else you say is irrelevant.

Dude, defending champions going for back-to-back and representing in European continental cups. Get over yourself. Just because you have no argument, it doesn't mean you have to attempt to reduce me...

You keep misinterpreting what I say and I'm starting to believe that you really don't have very good comprehension skills. I didn't say I don't rate athleticism. I said that I'm not discounting older generations just because there's more athletic players in the league today. That's due to nutrition and other parameters. On the other hand, you're inflating players due to their athleticism, ignoring that if you put an older player WITH FUNDAMENTALS and you give him that athletic boost he'd have for being around in the 2010s, he'd be much better than the guy you're watching today. And I don't mean Lebron-esque athleticism, I mean average NBA-ish athleticism, depending on where he stood back in the day in terms of physical and athletic ability. Nique for example would go 35 to 45 ppg depending on situation with the current rules, with his athletic ability and his fundamental skills. And he'd be regarded as the GOAT by guys like you. I'd be the one saying: he's great, but not that great. And I'd be bashed by the likes of you who'd be saying all that.

Once again, you're out of things to say and bashing randomly. You still have no argument other than your bias.

valade16
01-27-2016, 07:09 PM
Dude, defending champions going for back-to-back and representing in European continental cups. Get over yourself. Just because you have no argument, it doesn't mean you have to attempt to reduce me...

You keep misinterpreting what I say and I'm starting to believe that you really don't have very good comprehension skills. I didn't say I don't rate athleticism. I said that I'm not discounting older generations just because there's more athletic players in the league today. That's due to nutrition and other parameters. On the other hand, you're inflating players due to their athleticism, ignoring that if you put an older player WITH FUNDAMENTALS and you give him that athletic boost he'd have for being around in the 2010s, he'd be much better than the guy you're watching today. And I don't mean Lebron-esque athleticism, I mean average NBA-ish athleticism, depending on where he stood back in the day in terms of physical and athletic ability. Nique for example would go 35 to 45 ppg depending on situation with the current rules, with his athletic ability and his fundamental skills. And he'd be regarded as the GOAT by guys like you. I'd be the one saying: he's great, but not that great. And I'd be bashed by the likes of you who'd be saying all that.

Once again, you're out of things to say and bashing randomly. You still have no argument other than your bias.

Wait, let me get this straight. When you evaluate players you add athleticism to how good they actually when comparing them to current NBA players?

So you aren't even comparing the actual NBA player to today's NBA players? Are you saying when you compare Jack Twyman with LeBron James you're adding a 40" vertical or increased speed and strength to Twyman?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No wonder there is a disconnect. I'm am comparing actual players and you are comparing hypotheticals. Might as well say "if Jack Twyman were better than LeBron James, he'd be better than LeBron James" :laugh2:

How come it doesn't work the other way? If LeBron James grew up back then he would have been taught fundamentals and with his natural athleticism he would have been the best player ever. If you can extrapolate and add athleticism to older players it's only fair I get to extrapolate and add fundamentals to current ones.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 07:12 PM
Wait, let me get this straight. When you evaluate players you add athleticism to how good they actually when comparing them to current NBA players?

So you aren't even comparing the actual NBA player to today's NBA players? Are you saying when you compare Jack Twyman with LeBron James you're adding a 40" vertical or increased speed and strength to Twyman?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No wonder there is a disconnect. I'm am comparing actual players and you are comparing hypotheticals. Might as well say "if Jack Twyman were better than LeBron James, he'd be better than LeBron James" :laugh2:

How come it doesn't work the other way? If LeBron James grew up back then he would have been taught fundamentals and with his natural athleticism he would have been the best player ever. If you can extrapolate and add athleticism to older players it's only fair I get to extrapolate and add fundamentals to current ones.

Would Lebron have been? High quality safe PEDs were not available back then like they are today. Lebron would have had less "natural athleticism" and a more normal looking jaw and set of teeth

valade16
01-27-2016, 07:28 PM
Would Lebron have been? High quality safe PEDs were not available back then like they are today. Lebron would have had less "natural athleticism" and a more normal looking jaw and set of teeth

By that same token, if Jack Twyman played today and had todays athleticism, would he still have the same fundamentals? If his argument is players today don't have the same fundamentals then he can't give Jack the best of both worlds. It's why adding hypothetical athleticism to a player is a stupid way of comparing players.

You compare players as they were. Their own athleticism and their own skills. And by that measure LeBron is better than Twyman based in large part to just how much more athletically gifted he is (though he is also more fundamentally sound in a lot of areas, since I know NYKalltheway disagrees I'll stipulate that he isn't).

Is it fair that LeBron's athleticism makes him a better basketball player than Twyman. No it isn't but that's basketball. There's a reason there have been only a handful of players 5'6" and under in the NBA and a ton over 6'10". Athleticism matters.

It's why NYKalltheway and his sterling fundamentals, isn't playing in the NBA right now and DeAndre Jordan is despite the fact DeAndre Jordan couldn't make a Free Throw to save his life.

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 07:32 PM
How come it doesn't work the other way? If LeBron James grew up back then he would have been taught fundamentals and with his natural athleticism he would have been the best player ever. If you can extrapolate and add athleticism to older players it's only fair I get to extrapolate and add fundamentals to current ones.

First of, you take an example you didn't even understand (check other thread) and keep going with it. Shows lack of comprehension skills.
Second, you assume wrong once again. I'm not "adding" anything and there's not much hypothetical stuff in what I say. There's simple adjustment. Same way your stats adjust for pace or per 36 minutes.
Third point, your example is 100% hypothetical and close to science fiction. Lebron was not taught the fundamentals, thus you also agree that he lacks them, yet the others are deprived of athleticism in your eyes only because of their era and your lack of experience of any kind with those players. You cannot assume a Lebron with fundamentals. He doesn't have them. Athleticism on the other hand isn't taught. It's something that you can get to a very good standard within 12-18 months. Or you can simply use pills and needles which is what NBA players have been doing since the mid 90s.

P.S: I don't think you understand what fundamentals mean. Do you require the definition perhaps?

valade16
01-27-2016, 07:39 PM
First of, you take an example you didn't even understand (check other thread) and keep going with it. Shows lack of comprehension skills. Second, you assume wrong once again. I'm not "adding" anything and there's not much hypothetical stuff in what I say. There's simple adjustment. Same way your stats adjust for pace or per 36 minutes. Third point, your example is 100% hypothetical and close to science fiction. Lebron was not taught the fundamentals, thus you also agree that he lacks them, yet the others are deprived of athleticism in your eyes only because of their era and your lack of experience of any kind with those players. You cannot assume a Lebron with fundamentals. He doesn't have them. Athleticism on the other hand isn't taught. It's something that you can get to a very good standard within 12-18 months. Or you can simply use pills and needles which is what NBA players have been doing since the mid 90s.

P.S: I don't think you understand what fundamentals mean. Do you require the definition perhaps?

:laugh: when comparing you just assume guys like Jack Twyman are as athletic as guys today because it's simple adjustment?

Well if Jack Twyman had todays athleticism he'd lose the fundamentals because he was not taught them in this era (according to you).

You're so biased against current players you actually incorporate that bias to make the older players more athletic than todays players.

Answer this question:

Are Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Bob Cousy better than LeBron with their actual athleticism? No adjustment, if Bob Cousy and LeBron James went to an alternate universe to play ball with their actual skills and athleticism, who would be better?

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 07:44 PM
Dude, you don't even understand what I'm talking about. I'm judging TALENT. You're judging numbers and have no ability to distinguish between talent and non-talent. I'll stop arguing against a brick wall now, good luck trolling someone else because I refuse to believe that someone can be so thick and not understand what he reads. The game's different, the rules are different, teams train differently, players get better treatments, they get pills and **** that enhances their physical strength, but valade has to assume whatever he wants and doesn't even wanna talk about basketball, just a bunch of numbers he doesn't actually get.

valade16
01-27-2016, 07:49 PM
Dude, you don't even understand what I'm talking about. I'm judging TALENT. You're judging numbers and have no ability to distinguish between talent and non-talent. I'll stop arguing against a brick wall now, good luck trolling someone else because I refuse to believe that someone can be so thick and not understand what he reads.

Ha! You don't want to answer the question because you'd have to admit what we all know.

Keep saying TALENT as if that doesn't include athleticism.

I don't care if you're more TALENTED than LeBron, you aren't BETTER. And that's what I'm talking about.

I'll accept your silence as refusing to answer the question because you'd be forced to say yes. I cornered you and you chickened out and ran. :laugh2: I love it.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 07:54 PM
By that same token, if Jack Twyman played today and had todays athleticism, would he still have the same fundamentals? If his argument is players today don't have the same fundamentals then he can't give Jack the best of both worlds. It's why adding hypothetical athleticism to a player is a stupid way of comparing players.

You compare players as they were. Their own athleticism and their own skills. And by that measure LeBron is better than Twyman based in large part to just how much more athletically gifted he is (though he is also more fundamentally sound in a lot of areas, since I know NYKalltheway disagrees I'll stipulate that he isn't).

Is it fair that LeBron's athleticism makes him a better basketball player than Twyman. No it isn't but that's basketball. There's a reason there have been only a handful of players 5'6" and under in the NBA and a ton over 6'10". Athleticism matters.

It's why NYKalltheway and his sterling fundamentals, isn't playing in the NBA right now and DeAndre Jordan is despite the fact DeAndre Jordan couldn't make a Free Throw to save his life.

Choosing to go to college and stay there for 3 years today v. Not having the cream and the clear in 1981 isn't really equivalent is it?

Lebron would probably have been a still great still very athletic player around Scottie Pippen's size as opposed to more athletic at Karl Malones size.

That's never been his problem though. Much like wilt, having a killer instinct and knowing when it's "time" has been his problem... #69finals70finals11finals

NYKalltheway
01-27-2016, 08:12 PM
Ha! You don't want to answer the question because you'd have to admit what we all know.

Keep saying TALENT as if that doesn't include athleticism.

I don't care if you're more TALENTED than LeBron, you aren't BETTER. And that's what I'm talking about.

I'll accept your silence as refusing to answer the question because you'd be forced to say yes. I cornered you and you chickened out and ran. :laugh2: I love it.

Ermm, no you didn't corner me. You just annoyed me with your ignorance.

Talent wins everything. We're talking about NBA talent here, not street basketball or prep school talent. It translates to any era. Guys in previous eras required to have TALENT. Guys in this era, don't. They can get by, simply by being faster, strong and jump higher. Refs stopped calling for travels because they're more common than non-travel dribbles. Guys like Oladipo would never make the NBA in the 60s or the 70s. They'd only be used as defensive specialists or 5-10 minute rotation guys, in the 80s and early 90s.

slashsnake
01-27-2016, 08:13 PM
Choosing to go to college and stay there for 3 years today v. Not having the cream and the clear in 1981 isn't really equivalent is it?

Lebron would probably have been a still great still very athletic player around Scottie Pippen's size as opposed to more athletic at Karl Malones size.

That's never been his problem though. Much like wilt, having a killer instinct and knowing when it's "time" has been his problem... #69finals70finals11finals

yeah because steroids weren't in sports in the 80's... lol.

First you are saying for sure Lebron uses steroids. For that to be true, lets see some proof, some fact behind it. Because if I can't prove Lebron would score 100 a game in the 60's what does it matter what I think.


Second, he probably would be a lighter version of himself with the sports science/nutrition of the time, but that doesn't mean he'd have no further grooming and training before the NBA as those players did.

That's what I see the one guy posting up there saying, lets give the best of both worlds to one player and the worst to another. Or that talent is all you need, which we've seen through NBA history isn't true. Or that fundamentals is the only thing... AKA a Lebron led team could never overcome something like the Spurs (or the spurs have no fundamentals too).

valade16
01-27-2016, 08:21 PM
Choosing to go to college and stay there for 3 years today v. Not having the cream and the clear in 1981 isn't really equivalent is it?

Lebron would probably have been a still great still very athletic player around Scottie Pippen's size as opposed to more athletic at Karl Malones size.

That's never been his problem though. Much like wilt, having a killer instinct and knowing when it's "time" has been his problem... #69finals70finals11finals

Back in Jack Twyman's day everyone went to college for that long so there'd be no reason he also didn't either. Moses Malone was the first player to go from HS to the NBA (side note: does that mean Moses wasn't talented or fundamentally sound).

But I couldn't say my point anybetter than Slashsnake above. NYKalltheway is giving older players the best of both worlds and newer players the worst of both worlds.

Finally, I agree with you about LeBron's lack of killer instinct, but as you point out, Wilt also had that problem and nobody has any problem ranking him Top 10. So why couldn't LeBron also be ranked top 10 with the same problem?

slashsnake
01-27-2016, 08:55 PM
I think Lebron's killer instinct isn't the best ever sure, but his smarts and play down the stretch are very good.



But this thread did bring up an interesting point with the cream and clear. Where are the NBA players in those reports? I mean Balco had football, baseball, hammer throw, shot put, sprinters, boxers, cyclists, middle distance runners, Judo... but no NBA players. We get the Al Jazeera report, no NBA players, we get Biogenesis, no NBA players. It's tough to say it's a problem, when they aren't showing up in these. Look at Euro ball which has some of the hardest drug testing (blood testing) very often and VERY RARELY does one of them ever fail. D-league has the same as the NBA, you'd figure this would be the desperate bunch, the sloppy bunch, but nope. It's just odd that there isn't anyone popping.

I hear the NBA has "gaps" in it's testing and I am sure it does, as no one is perfect, but the stars combine NBA and Olympic level testing (more stringent than any US pro team sport by a LONG ways), and their own testing is one of the tougher ones. Fiba tests like crazy too. Figure a guy wants to make his career off PED's.. If you are starting out playing FIBA or Olympic ball too, you are screwing your only chance you may have to beat the NBA system and never getting your cycles in.

I mean HGH you think would have gone the other way when talking about healing uses. But the NBAPA, one of the strongest unions, bought it right in, welcomed it in, same with increased testing a while back.

Just one of those things that doesn't make sense. For me to believe it's rampant or stars are doing it, then why aren't they getting caught or named? How are they passing the toughest testing by far of anyone? Where's the "A-Rod and Wade named in south Florida doping scandal"??

I'm not saying the sport is completely clean and there have been some marginal players busted over the years. But the usual "where there's smoke there's fire" doesn't really follow here.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 09:05 PM
yeah because steroids weren't in sports in the 80's... lol.

First you are saying for sure Lebron uses steroids. For that to be true, lets see some proof, some fact behind it. Because if I can't prove Lebron would score 100 a game in the 60's what does it matter what I think.


Second, he probably would be a lighter version of himself with the sports science/nutrition of the time, but that doesn't mean he'd have no further grooming and training before the NBA as those players did.

That's what I see the one guy posting up there saying, lets give the best of both worlds to one player and the worst to another. Or that talent is all you need, which we've seen through NBA history isn't true. Or that fundamentals is the only thing... AKA a Lebron led team could never overcome something like the Spurs (or the spurs have no fundamentals too).

Safe high quality steroids that didn't massively bulk you up were readily available at prices that make up so little of a players salary in the 80s? Hgh?

slashsnake
01-27-2016, 09:24 PM
Safe high quality steroids that didn't massively bulk you up were readily available at prices that make up so little of a players salary in the 80s? Hgh?

You mean 40's Russell Marker synthesizing testosterone and finding plant based steroids instead of synthesizing from cholesterol, 50's steroid production blowing up in Mexico.

But you are right about the cost. Dianabol was cheap as heck. I think it was the Chargers who'd have bowls of that stuff in their lunch rooms. One of the first groups to break the "roids will slow you down" false thoguht that was running around at the time.

Not like what you spend now for HGH or designer steroids today for sure. Great point.

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 09:28 PM
Simple, the NBA wants you to believe that steroids and hgh all turn you into lyle alzado and therefore wouldn't be a factor for an NBA player.

When I saw Ben Wallace and then saw him in games when he was young, my BS alarm was on full go

MTar786
01-27-2016, 09:31 PM
its good to see that some other people do see curry possibly being as great as what we are witnessing right now. all greats deserve their fair due

tredigs
01-27-2016, 09:42 PM
Simple, the NBA wants you to believe that steroids and hgh all turn you into lyle alzado and therefore wouldn't be a factor for an NBA player.

When I saw Ben Wallace and then saw him in games when he was young, my BS alarm was on full go

Because this guy in college doesn't look like he'd turn into an absolute monster with a professional diet + workout regimen? https://a1-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/126/87171828ee9149e7a6a63e3091fe5747/full.jpg

tredigs
01-27-2016, 09:44 PM
Make no mistake, I know there are steroids being used in basketball as in any sport. But, it's not a prerequisite to greatness. Also, shouldn't that make what Curry does all the more impressive to you? He's a regular human in a league (in your opinion), filled with super-athletes on clean steroids.

MTar786
01-27-2016, 09:46 PM
Make no mistake, I know there are steroids being used in basketball as in any sport. But, it's not a prerequisite to greatness. Also, shouldn't that make what Curry does all the more impressive to you? He's a regular human in a league (in your opinion), filled with super-athletes on clean steroids.

lol just ignore him. I agree with you though. it would only make it all the more impressive

joedaheights
01-27-2016, 10:33 PM
Because this guy in college doesn't look like he'd turn into an absolute monster with a professional diet + workout regimen? https://a1-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/126/87171828ee9149e7a6a63e3091fe5747/full.jpg

Yeah guys with his game in college and the first years afterward go on to neutralize shaq in the finals to some extent all the time

tredigs
01-27-2016, 10:48 PM
Yeah guys with his game in college and the first years afterward go on to neutralize shaq in the finals to some extent all the time

Are you talking about his "game", or his size? Because you were specifically talking about his size (insinuating he didn't have the base to be a monster without roids), and I just showed you a picture of him with the build of someone who could turn into exactly what he did from a size perspective. The guys build was always ridiculous.

I think you've just lost focus in this debate and are talking out of both sides of your mouth in any attempt to discredit at this point.

sammyvine
01-27-2016, 11:15 PM
i like curry but he is starting to become very overrated

He is obviously a great player and having an all time great season but have a world with yourselves....better than jordan and lebron lol...come on

He didnt even win finals mvp against an injury riddled team. Jordan won MVP in all the finals he played....

benny01
01-27-2016, 11:59 PM
Curry needs to win 4 or 5 championships for this to be a conversation.
Jordan was the the equivalent of Marino and Montana sharing the same career. Indisputably the best player of his generation, and a handful of championships to back it up.
Not to say Curry couldn't be the goat, but we're 3-4 once in a lifetime accomplishments from the conversation.

ewing
01-28-2016, 12:38 AM
Long way to go

MTar786
01-28-2016, 12:40 AM
Curry needs to win 4 or 5 championships for this to be a conversation.
Jordan was the the equivalent of Marino and Montana sharing the same career. Indisputably the best player of his generation, and a handful of championships to back it up.
Not to say Curry couldn't be the goat, but we're 3-4 once in a lifetime accomplishments from the conversation.

i started this thread and i agree with you. But this thread isnt about who had the better career. jordan did obviously. Im talking about stephs Current level of play right now. I havent seen anyone play better than this.

IKnowHoops
01-28-2016, 12:48 AM
I'm big on Peak, so in my eyes he deserves the consideration. I'd take Lebron and Jordan at there absolute best over him. I'd also take peak Shaq over him. But, after those 3... he could be my choice. I probably take Prime Drob and Hakeem over him too because those are quadruple double guys and they anchor your offense and defense, but I am not saying they are better than him.

Curry is EASILY my starting PG on my all time team, and its not even close. He's as much a lock as Jordan at the 2 and Bron at the 3 for me. I love Curry. I don't think he gets enough credit for his dominance. He is unreal, just like Lebron, Shaq, and Jordan in there own right.

IKnowHoops
01-28-2016, 12:52 AM
i like curry but he is starting to become very overrated

He is obviously a great player and having an all time great season but have a world with yourselves....better than jordan and lebron lol...come on

He didnt even win finals mvp against an injury riddled team. Jordan won MVP in all the finals he played....

I understand where you are coming from, but I completely disagree. Every player in history has had a bad series/been shut down. And plus he is much better this year and his WS/PER back it up. If you look at those stats, they pretty much show you who the most dominant players have been. He is right there with the best ever statistically. Plus his team may be the best team ever. If anything he doesn't get enough credit because of his stature. He is just as scary right now as Bron, Jordan, Shaq were IMO. His handle and shot just make him super ridiculous. We have never seen anything like him.

ewing
01-28-2016, 01:17 AM
i started this thread and i agree with you. But this thread isnt about who had the better career. jordan did obviously. Im talking about stephs Current level of play right now. I havent seen anyone play better than this.

when he plays in 6 NBA finals and puts up 33, 6, and 6 on excellent shooting, hits every big shot, and plays elite D we can talk. he current level of play isn't relevant to this discussion. will he ever he relevant in this discussion IDK, Shooting is the ultimate equalizer and he is hands down the best shooter of all time.

ewing
01-28-2016, 01:45 AM
I understand where you are coming from, but I completely disagree. Every player in history has had a bad series/been shut down. And plus he is much better this year and his WS/PER back it up. If you look at those stats, they pretty much show you who the most dominant players have been. He is right there with the best ever statistically. Plus his team may be the best team ever. If anything he doesn't get enough credit because of his stature. He is just as scary right now as Bron, Jordan, Shaq were IMO. His handle and shot just make him super ridiculous. We have never seen anything like him.

I am having hard time finding this bad playoff series Micheal Jordan had. can you find it for me? Right now i am in 89 and so far the conf finals agains the piston where he averaged 29, 6, and 5 on 46% is the best i can do

ewing
01-28-2016, 01:49 AM
i'm in 92 now and it still hasn't happened.

ewing
01-28-2016, 01:56 AM
holy **** in the 93 conf finals my knicks held Micheal to 32, 7, and 6 on 40% from the floor. A TSP of .522 by far his worst so far (he did follow it up with 41, 8, and 6 in finals on 50% from the floor)

ewing
01-28-2016, 02:00 AM
OK against the Sonics in 1996 MJ averaged 27, 5, and 4 and shot 41% from the field. a terrible series when compared to Jordan (terrible is not an exaggeration)

ewing
01-28-2016, 02:03 AM
holy crap did the Heat ugly it up in 97. Jordan averaged 30, 8, and 3 on 38% from the field! btw the Buls won in 5 games and both teams averaged under 90 a game for the series

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 02:06 AM
Are you talking about his "game", or his size? Because you were specifically talking about his size (insinuating he didn't have the base to be a monster without roids), and I just showed you a picture of him with the build of someone who could turn into exactly what he did from a size perspective. The guys build was always ridiculous.

I think you've just lost focus in this debate and are talking out of both sides of your mouth in any attempt to discredit at this point.

I can take two guys with size and little skill. If I give enough winny z to one guy, he can find a lot of game he never thought he had.

Ever hear of Rafael palmeiro? He's the guy who insisted to congress he never did steroids. The media ate it up, saying he wasn't bulky blah blah ... He was jacked up with enough winny z to kill a horse and was caught for it.

Because you aren't that bright, you thought I was saying "Ben Wallace was a dweeb then he got huge." He was already big and then looked highly suspicious when he gained ridiculous explosiveness to go with the bouncers build.

A reasonable person gets suspicious for example when Bruce Bowen can't even make the league when he's young and then ends up being one of the best perimeter defenders ever at 30.

ewing
01-28-2016, 02:06 AM
OK i looked Micheal Jordan never had a bad playoff series. In fact he was never not the best player on the floor for a series

ewing
01-28-2016, 02:07 AM
he did go 3 of 18 against starks once.

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 02:08 AM
I'm big on Peak, so in my eyes he deserves the consideration. I'd take Lebron and Jordan at there absolute best over him. I'd also take peak Shaq over him. But, after those 3... he could be my choice. I probably take Prime Drob and Hakeem over him too because those are quadruple double guys and they anchor your offense and defense, but I am not saying they are better than him.

Curry is EASILY my starting PG on my all time team, and its not even close. He's as much a lock as Jordan at the 2 and Bron at the 3 for me. I love Curry. I don't think he gets enough credit for his dominance. He is unreal, just like Lebron, Shaq, and Jordan in there own right.

And folks I want to tell you that this young man ervin Magic Johnson has got a smile that lights up cameras from here to Bangor Maine

IKnowHoops
01-28-2016, 03:20 AM
And folks I want to tell you that this young man ervin Magic Johnson has got a smile that lights up cameras from here to Bangor Maine

And thats why he's #2

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 05:00 AM
They use steroids and other stuff like that in every sport. In soccer, you can't get into the third freaking tier of a league without using, even in fringe countries. I've seen it with my own eyes and have people in at least 3 different countries confirm something similar. It's mostly for muscular build up and anti-fatigue reasons. It doesn't really make you a better player, it just makes your endurance much higher. I know people who were dropped from their teams for not taking any substances. And many times, the teams' doctors will just give the players what "the market dictates" without actually consulting anyone else. I doubt that most directors know that their players might be getting this sort of substances. They may be legal, they may be hidden from some testing, I don't know. But there's a lot going on with these.

Also, there's this little thing about the NBA refusing to have FIBA do their players anti-doping testing and they only accept the American drug testers that the NBA uses in the Olympics and World Championships! That alone is reason enough to have a clouded view on their enhancement using. You see NBA sophomores halfway in the season that are double the size of their rookie self that entered the NBA (that's because rookie testing is probably the only legit time you tested in the NBA). Lebron and some others were of course freaks of nature when they joined the league, for their age, but had they not been "rebuilt", they'd suffer in the league.
The way these players are developed is unnatural, you see things that an average person requires daily training for 12 to 18 months to achieve, and they get the same results within 3-6 months. It's not something that appears instantly either, yet we see it with NBA players. And of course, PEDs don't really mean that you'll see a guy get superfit and superstrong, that's another thing. PEDs are used by everyone in my book. In soccer, some teams abuse it so much that we've even had kids in their 20s die from heart attacks (eg. Antonio Puerta, aged 22). There are at least two incidents where players collapsed and died on the pitch, in live television (Marc-Vivien Foe and Miklos Feher). In Greece, there are wiretaps of team directors commenting on how their players receive PEDs and then you hear all the time about some of their former players retiring at the age of 30 or 32 due to liver, heart or oteher types of diseases. Heck, we even though that we'd see another victim from the same team, but thankfully the kid's ok now [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6qB77OKR7I ]
It's a real problem in every sport.

Now going back:
In Italy there's been a huge scandal in the late 90s about EPO (Erythropoietin) which is illegal and transforms the muscular and body structure within 6-8 weeks on occassion. There's nothing on the NBA about this substance. This has very similar effects to what we're seeing in the NBA with player transformations. The biggest problem here is that these sort of things affect the lives of players after their careers and they end up getting some weird or lethal disease in their 50s or 60s.
In the NBA this sort of transformations was also seen in the mid-to-late 90s and it's becoming more and more common now.

And to stay on topic, Steph Curry shouldn't really be affected by this type of enhancement as his skillset and arsenal isn't really depended on strength and physicality. The only thing that could benefit him is anti-fatigue stuff or things that help him increase his speed, but I dunno. It'd be farfetched to claim that Curry is getting better due to such use. I could say the same about Durant who's never gotten any bigger instantly. His body seems more natural, too.

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 05:03 AM
he did go 3 of 18 against starks once.

Starks was a pest and a pain in the ***. What's not to love? :D

Gander13SM
01-28-2016, 06:04 AM
OK i looked Micheal Jordan never had a bad playoff series. In fact he was never not the best player on the floor for a series

Huh?

I mean in one of those Piston games in '89 he only got off 8 shots and he turned it over 4 or 5 times. He got fouled a lot though so his free throws bumped his numbers up some.

Then against Seattle in the '96 finals he had that one game where he shot something like 26% from the field and had 5 turnovers.

And I'm sure Cleveland held him to <40% from the field a couple times during that series in '92.

ewing
01-28-2016, 07:12 AM
Huh?

I mean in one of those Piston games in '89 he only got off 8 shots and he turned it over 4 or 5 times. He got fouled a lot though so his free throws bumped his numbers up some.

Then against Seattle in the '96 finals he had that one game where he shot something like 26% from the field and had 5 turnovers.

And I'm sure Cleveland held him to <40% from the field a couple times during that series in '92.


you apparently don't understand what a series is. In conf finals in 89 he averaged 32, 7, and 6 on 47% from the floor. In 92 it was 32, 6, and 6 on 45%. Both subpar for Mike, MVP caliber for the league, and better then anyone else on the floor.

ewing
01-28-2016, 07:13 AM
Starks was a pest and a pain in the ***. What's not to love? :D

yeah but he followed up the 3 of 18 with 50 plus and then a triple double and i cried.

valade16
01-28-2016, 09:31 AM
I am having hard time finding this bad playoff series Micheal Jordan had. can you find it for me? Right now i am in 89 and so far the conf finals agains the piston where he averaged 29, 6, and 5 on 46% is the best i can do


holy **** in the 93 conf finals my knicks held Micheal to 32, 7, and 6 on 40% from the floor. A TSP of .522 by far his worst so far (he did follow it up with 41, 8, and 6 in finals on 50% from the floor)


OK against the Sonics in 1996 MJ averaged 27, 5, and 4 and shot 41% from the field. a terrible series when compared to Jordan (terrible is not an exaggeration)


holy crap did the Heat ugly it up in 97. Jordan averaged 30, 8, and 3 on 38% from the field! btw the Buls won in 5 games and both teams averaged under 90 a game for the series

Well by this measure LeBron did not have a bad finals last year either right?

36, 13, and 9 on 40% FG is certainly better than Jordan's 97 vs the Heat. Comparable to his series vs the Knicks and Sonics (lower TS% but more points, rebounds and assists).

So either those were bad series by Jordan or it wasn't a bad series by LeBron. Take your pick.

ewing
01-28-2016, 10:12 AM
Well by this measure LeBron did not have a bad finals last year either right?

36, 13, and 9 on 40% FG is certainly better than Jordan's 97 vs the Heat. Comparable to his series vs the Knicks and Sonics (lower TS% but more points, rebounds and assists).

So either those were bad series by Jordan or it wasn't a bad series by LeBron. Take your pick.



Where is the quote where i said Bron had a bad series? i was responding to someone who said everyone had bad series. MJ never did. I never said Bron had a bad series. Some people at the time said silly things like he had the greatest finals ever. He didn't but he had a very good finals. These are Jordan worst performances. if you find them comparable to Bron's performance last year I think that says something about how great Micheal Jordan was.

valade16
01-28-2016, 10:28 AM
Where is the quote where i said Bron had a bad series? i was responding to someone who said everyone had bad series. MJ never did. I never said Bron had a bad series. Some people at the time said silly things like he had the greatest finals ever. He didn't but he had a very good finals. These are Jordan worst performances. if you find them comparable to Bron performance last year I think that says something about how great Micheal Jordan was.

I wasn't specifically saying you said LeBron had a bad series, just pointing out his series by this rubric can't be considered any worse than the ones you posted for MJ.

I actually just looked through all of MJ's playoff series to see if your claim (he was never not the best player during a series) was true and it's pretty remarkable.

The only 2 playoff series where he didn't have the highest Game Score (according to Basketball-reference.com) were in 1996 vs. the Sonics where he had a Game Score of 18.5. He put up 27.3 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.2 BPG on 41.5% FG, 31.6% 3PT, 83.6% FT. He was actually beat out not by Gary Payton, but by Shawn Kemp, who had a Game Score of 18.9 (23.3, 10.0, 2.2, 1.3, 2.0 on 55% FG).

The second was the 1996 first round where he actually had the 2nd highest Game Score to Scottie Pippen (22.7 to 22.3). MJ put up 30 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.3 BPG on on 51.6% FG. Scottie put up 19.7 PPG, 11.3 RPG, 7.0 APG, 3.0 SPG, 1.7 BPG on 55.6% FG.

I don't believe Shawn Kemp outplayed MJ in that Finals (though the stats show just what a great job Gary Payton did on MJ). Scottie may have outplayed Jordan that series, but it was only 3 games (Bulls swept) and MJ did put up 30 PPG on great efficiency.

Game Score aside, the only instance I could find where MJ may not have been the best player on the floor for a series was the 1987 First Round vs. the Celtics. The Celtics swept (3-0). MJ put up 35.7 PPG, 7 RPG, 6 APG, 2 SPG, 2.3 BPG but on 41.7% FG (and a total 52.9 TS%). That series Bird put up 26 PPG, 10 RPG, 9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.3 BPG on 53.3% FG (and a total 66.5 TS%).

So the only two possible times MJ was outplayed in a series are by Larry Bird in a 3 game sweep and by his own teammate Scottie Pippen in a 3 game sweep, and in neither case could one say MJ was clearly outplayed.

Truly remarkable how dominant MJ was.

ewing
01-28-2016, 10:38 AM
I wasn't specifically saying you said LeBron had a bad series, just pointing out his series by this rubric can't be considered any worse than the ones you posted for MJ.

I actually just looked through all of MJ's playoff series to see if your claim (he was never not the best player during a series) was true and it's pretty remarkable.

The only 2 playoff series where he didn't have the highest Game Score (according to Basketball-reference.com) were in 1996 vs. the Sonics where he had a Game Score of 18.5. He put up 27.3 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 4.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.2 BPG on 41.5% FG, 31.6% 3PT, 83.6% FT. He was actually beat out not by Gary Payton, but by Shawn Kemp, who had a Game Score of 18.9 (23.3, 10.0, 2.2, 1.3, 2.0 on 55% FG).

The second was the 1996 first round where he actually had the 2nd highest Game Score to Scottie Pippen (22.7 to 22.3). MJ put up 30 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 2.7 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.3 BPG on on 51.6% FG. Scottie put up 19.7 PPG, 11.3 RPG, 7.0 APG, 3.0 SPG, 1.7 BPG on 55.6% FG.

I don't believe Shawn Kemp outplayed MJ in that Finals (though the stats show just what a great job Gary Payton did on MJ). Scottie may have outplayed Jordan that series, but it was only 3 games (Bulls swept) and MJ did put up 30 PPG on great efficiency.

Game Score aside, the only instance I could find where MJ may not have been the best player on the floor for a series was the 1987 First Round vs. the Celtics. The Celtics swept (3-0). MJ put up 35.7 PPG, 7 RPG, 6 APG, 2 SPG, 2.3 BPG but on 41.7% FG (and a total 52.9 TS%). That series Bird put up 26 PPG, 10 RPG, 9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.3 BPG on 53.3% FG (and a total 66.5 TS%).

So the only two possible times MJ was outplayed in a series are by Larry Bird in a 3 game sweep and by his own teammate Scottie Pippen in a 3 game sweep, and in neither case could one say MJ was clearly outplayed.

Truly remarkable how dominant MJ was.

This one is a good find. I am going to throw out Scottie in 97 b/c they beat the Heat by 20 every game and i am sure Micheal was the more impactful player. So we are left to MJ maybe being out performed by prime Larry Bird in his 2nd go round. maybe

AIRMAR72
01-28-2016, 10:40 AM
no.

You have to look at the rules as the 90s ended and into the middle part of the last decade to see why.

The nba was not full of fools. They understood that 3 effects were colliding to create the low scoring dreadful games that didn't involve shaq or duncan from 99-07.. The argument from modernists was "too much physicality. Players are allowed to operate like goons and if antonio davis wasn't beating my guy up, we'd score 110, because we're so good. Blah, blah, blah."

the minds of the nba understood that the scoring totals were not what they were in the late 80s due to lack of skill resulting from three things:

1. Early entry - tim floyd pleaded when he had curry and chandler… "listen, stay in school. I don't have time to teach half of what college coaches teach in 30 or so games even in 82 games." the idea was that you couldn't alter a practice full of guys who knew all the tricks of the trade to teach a 19 year old left hand dribble cone drills. Compound that with the fact that unlike the rare prep-to-pro of yesteryear, these kids were becoming millionaires immediately, therefore ruining the motivation to seek out extra "office hours" from assistant coaches and you get the picture.

2. The aau pimp game - in the 80s and probably early 90s, before nike really became a machine of financing college coaches .. A high school kid was not about to blow off his high school coach for some local aau pimp looking for a pay out to deliver the kid to a college coach. It's always been a shady business, but you've really seen aau not teach the fundamentals and draw kids away from the high school coaches who would teach these fundamentals.

3. The decrease in ethic of high school and college coaches - sometime about the time that these coaches figured out "i have this kid for 1 year, if at all, not 3-4," coaches began to say "why teach this seven footer a back to the basket game. That's hard. After all, i can still win if i run and gun even with seven footers."

this all led them to try to artificially create that which jordan, o'neal, abdul-jabbar, russell, etc. Were even with more physical rules. They eliminated hand checking, going to a hard enforcement doctrine. They took centers out of patrolling the paint, which seeks to open up the game by forcing bigger players to move as fast as everyone else.. When they know that that is counter to simply being bigger. The fouls became ticky tack. All of this was colangelo's fanaticism to take the game back to the 60s, because basketball people today think that isolation is bad. Shaq and jordan would pistol whip the ever loving you know what out of anyone even in non-isolation rules. Shaq used to put home a baby hook with three guys on his back.

Now, the question becomes.. Did shaq, duncan, bryant, james and curry need this help? No. They would have been really good without it, but they benefitted and got a chance to look even better, james, shaq and duncan to a lesser extent because of their thoroughbred nature. But curry? His lack of bulk would be exposed in old rules even if you took away the overly violent stuff.

Ask yourself what curry looks like with oakley guarding his screener, starks on him, officials simply letting the knicks be decently physical fighting through the screen and then hand checking where starks would not be able to get to use his elbows, but simply check him with the hand and ewing waiting in the middle for anyone off a pass.

I'm not talking the pistons, everyone knows that's unreasonable, they were dirty and it needed to change. But it had already changed a lot by 93.

The rule changes created the appearance of equal skill artificially amongst the players. The players "being too good on defense" did not create the rule changes. Consider this… marcus camby, joakim noah and marc gasol have been dpoy recently.

Scottie pippen and patrick ewing never won one. Game, set, match.

Next, the warriors have not faced anything resembling what guys like jordan, o'neal, abdul-jabbar, johnson, russell, bird, duncan, etc. Have beaten. They beat lebron and a bunch of never will be busters and overrated "stars" who saw their star fall rapidly once they weren't the only guy on their team/dominating usage.

If lebron were to join demarcus cousins and get a bunch of shooters around the two and then the warriors just knocked them out, that's a different story.

If pistons management can build/continue to build the team around him, the player who will beat golden state is in detroit. Gsw will be up 2-1, and then suddenly you'll see the athleticism start to drop dramatically on ezeli, bogut and green. Their legs will look heavy and suddenly as backs are broken at detroit's front of the rim, guys who would be very regular on a lot of teams will have a clear path to the paint. Curry and thompson will still be doing their thing, but the level of play they will have to achieve to match detroit doing very simple things as a result of the gsw front court being exhausted by andre drummond will be too much.

And drummond isn't half the player or dominating force that o'neal was. And jordan swept o'neal. And golden state doesn't have a player who could guard abdul-jabbar or probably a young duncan or hakeem.

Goat. I'd pay to see rudy t sub otis thorpe out for mario elie and go with a lineup of:

Hakeem
horry
elie
drexler
smith

i don't see a warriors win there. I see the potential for them to call jerry colangelo and ask what kind of rules package they'd need, but not a series win. exactly!!

Scoots
01-28-2016, 10:57 AM
How about we put Magic at the 3, Curry at the 1, MJ at the 2, and move LeBron to 4 ... if we are playing all in their prime with today's rules that would work.

Who is the center?

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 11:41 AM
And thats why he's #2

He has five rings and led his team to a finals win over dr j with Kareem back in LA as a 20 year old! You don't know what the f you're talking about

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 11:44 AM
They use steroids and other stuff like that in every sport. In soccer, you can't get into the third freaking tier of a league without using, even in fringe countries. I've seen it with my own eyes and have people in at least 3 different countries confirm something similar. It's mostly for muscular build up and anti-fatigue reasons. It doesn't really make you a better player, it just makes your endurance much higher. I know people who were dropped from their teams for not taking any substances. And many times, the teams' doctors will just give the players what "the market dictates" without actually consulting anyone else. I doubt that most directors know that their players might be getting this sort of substances. They may be legal, they may be hidden from some testing, I don't know. But there's a lot going on with these.

Also, there's this little thing about the NBA refusing to have FIBA do their players anti-doping testing and they only accept the American drug testers that the NBA uses in the Olympics and World Championships! That alone is reason enough to have a clouded view on their enhancement using. You see NBA sophomores halfway in the season that are double the size of their rookie self that entered the NBA (that's because rookie testing is probably the only legit time you tested in the NBA). Lebron and some others were of course freaks of nature when they joined the league, for their age, but had they not been "rebuilt", they'd suffer in the league.
The way these players are developed is unnatural, you see things that an average person requires daily training for 12 to 18 months to achieve, and they get the same results within 3-6 months. It's not something that appears instantly either, yet we see it with NBA players. And of course, PEDs don't really mean that you'll see a guy get superfit and superstrong, that's another thing. PEDs are used by everyone in my book. In soccer, some teams abuse it so much that we've even had kids in their 20s die from heart attacks (eg. Antonio Puerta, aged 22). There are at least two incidents where players collapsed and died on the pitch, in live television (Marc-Vivien Foe and Miklos Feher). In Greece, there are wiretaps of team directors commenting on how their players receive PEDs and then you hear all the time about some of their former players retiring at the age of 30 or 32 due to liver, heart or oteher types of diseases. Heck, we even though that we'd see another victim from the same team, but thankfully the kid's ok now [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6qB77OKR7I ]
It's a real problem in every sport.

Now going back:
In Italy there's been a huge scandal in the late 90s about EPO (Erythropoietin) which is illegal and transforms the muscular and body structure within 6-8 weeks on occassion. There's nothing on the NBA about this substance. This has very similar effects to what we're seeing in the NBA with player transformations. The biggest problem here is that these sort of things affect the lives of players after their careers and they end up getting some weird or lethal disease in their 50s or 60s.
In the NBA this sort of transformations was also seen in the mid-to-late 90s and it's becoming more and more common now.

And to stay on topic, Steph Curry shouldn't really be affected by this type of enhancement as his skillset and arsenal isn't really depended on strength and physicality. The only thing that could benefit him is anti-fatigue stuff or things that help him increase his speed, but I dunno. It'd be farfetched to claim that Curry is getting better due to such use. I could say the same about Durant who's never gotten any bigger instantly. His body seems more natural, too.

That was a tangent having nothing to do with curry. My point was that lebron would likely be pippens size instead of bigger than Karl Malone

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 11:48 AM
Huh?

I mean in one of those Piston games in '89 he only got off 8 shots and he turned it over 4 or 5 times. He got fouled a lot though so his free throws bumped his numbers up some.

Then against Seattle in the '96 finals he had that one game where he shot something like 26% from the field and had 5 turnovers.

And I'm sure Cleveland held him to <40% from the field a couple times during that series in '92.

He said series not game. Show me the bad series mj had

Gander13SM
01-28-2016, 01:17 PM
you apparently don't understand what a series is. In conf finals in 89 he averaged 32, 7, and 6 on 47% from the floor. In 92 it was 32, 6, and 6 on 45%. Both subpar for Mike, MVP caliber for the league, and better then anyone else on the floor.

1. Are games not part of a series?
2. You mentioned a GAME with Starks... so... ???

kubernetes
01-28-2016, 01:34 PM
Now going back:
In Italy there's been a huge scandal in the late 90s about EPO (Erythropoietin) which is illegal and transforms the muscular and body structure within 6-8 weeks on occassion. There's nothing on the NBA about this substance. This has very similar effects to what we're seeing in the NBA with player transformations. The biggest problem here is that these sort of things affect the lives of players after their careers and they end up getting some weird or lethal disease in their 50s or 60s.
In the NBA this sort of transformations was also seen in the mid-to-late 90s and it's becoming more and more common now.



Wtf, that's not what EPO does. Athletes use EPO to blood dope to increase oxygen delivery. That's why the biggest EPO doping scandals have been in cycling. EPO is for increasing endurance and post-workout recovery, not rapidly increasing muscle mass (otherwise no cyclists or endurance athletes would ever take it). You may be thinking of HGH.


As for Curry, I think that if he finishes out this season putting up numbers at the same pace and then wins a second ring, he's in top-5 consideration. No joke, he's on pace to put up the best offensive season of all time by a huge margin, and it's not a fluke or just one crazy hot stretch.

Recognition of greatness is always a lagging indicator. People don't want to believe that what they're seeing now can rival the greatness of years past. But it's happening. Heck, I remember a friend telling me two years ago that "Curry is the best shooter in the history of the NBA." I was like "What? GTFO. Better than Ray? Reggie? Bird?" But he was right even back then-- I looked at the numbers and Curry already had a strong claim. Now it's commonly accepted; in a year it will be indisputable.

ewing
01-28-2016, 01:37 PM
1. Are games not part of a series?
2. You mentioned a GAME with Starks... so... ???


keep thinking, you'll get there :)

Jeffy25
01-28-2016, 03:10 PM
It was harder in the 90s. It was a contact sport. Less threes were taken because better options to score right at the hole were available to teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets, etc.


Wait, so it was harder or easier?

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 05:52 PM
Wtf, that's not what EPO does. Athletes use EPO to blood dope to increase oxygen delivery. That's why the biggest EPO doping scandals have been in cycling. EPO is for increasing endurance and post-workout recovery, not rapidly increasing muscle mass (otherwise no cyclists or endurance athletes would ever take it). You may be thinking of HGH.


True, I got it confused with a parallel doping scandal that a popular team was involved in (Juventus). It was actually EPO and creatine. Not sure if it was also HGH, but it definitely revolved around EPO and creatine. I don't really know most of these medical and doping terms, I just get what they mean after a scandal of their usage breaks :p

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 11:11 PM
Wait, so it was harder or easier?

Where do you get easier out of that

Sandman
01-28-2016, 11:14 PM
Wait, so it was harder or easier?

3pt shooting was harder and it made low post shooting a better option [than shooting a 3]

Jeffy25
01-28-2016, 11:15 PM
Where do you get easier out of that

Just said going to the basket made more sense.

Apparently interior defense wasn't better then?

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 11:21 PM
3pt shooting was harder and it made low post shooting a better option [than shooting a 3]

Almost. Three point shooting was harder due to very normal physicality resulting in screens not preventing contesting shots.

Low post scoring then became a better option for those teams that had low post threats better than those that exist today ... Without that the league would have been the late 70s.

I've seen this movie so many times before. 12 years ago many posters on forums would not back down in Kobe v. Jordan. That ended so badly that now... Ironically.. There are posters who post just like the people who thought Kobe > Jordan but claim not to be the guy they sound just like.

joedaheights
01-28-2016, 11:27 PM
It reminds me of the scene where Austin powers claims the penis pump isn't his. That's what all the people calling curry > magic and goat worthy will be sounding like as time takes its toll...

"No I never said curry was goat worthy... I'm ILovecurry4ever... That guy was name schmyschmovecurry4ever.. I know him. He's my cousin"

tredigs
01-28-2016, 11:37 PM
^Yeah, except unfortunately for your little angle there, if Curry's season continues at this pace, he will always have a season that ranks with the greatest in history (following an already top ~20-30 season in history) on a team that projects to rank among the greatest in history. Being that he's now entering his peak seasons, it's not an unfathomable question to pose of whether or not he has "GOAT" potential if things progress as they have been for him. FAR too early and imo kind of ridiculous as I've already stated, but such is life on NBA forums. A better question is, "Can Curry's peak compare with the greatest peaks of All Time?". And to that I think we're starting to see that the answer may in fact be yes.

valade16
01-29-2016, 12:03 AM
It reminds me of the scene where Austin powers claims the penis pump isn't his. That's what all the people calling curry > magic and goat worthy will be sounding like as time takes its toll...

"No I never said curry was goat worthy... I'm ILovecurry4ever... That guy was name schmyschmovecurry4ever.. I know him. He's my cousin"

Except unless I'm mistaken nobody is saying Curry is GOAT, only that he has a chance at it if he works hard and continues to play at this level. Everybody here admits he likely won't and has a long way to go if he does.

You seem to be confusing the word might with will.

joedaheights
01-29-2016, 12:23 AM
^Yeah, except unfortunately for your little angle there, if Curry's season continues at this pace, he will always have a season that ranks with the greatest in history (following an already top ~20-30 season in history) on a team that projects to rank among the greatest in history. Being that he's now entering his peak seasons, it's not an unfathomable question to pose of whether or not he has "GOAT" potential if things progress as they have been for him. FAR too early and imo kind of ridiculous as I've already stated, but such is life on NBA forums. A better question is, "Can Curry's peak compare with the greatest peaks of All Time?". And to that I think we're starting to see that the answer may in fact be yes.

With the fewest obstacles in history... Both in terms of good opponents and allowances given to those opponents

joedaheights
01-29-2016, 12:30 AM
Except unless I'm mistaken nobody is saying Curry is GOAT, only that he has a chance at it if he works hard and continues to play at this level. Everybody here admits he likely won't and has a long way to go if he does.

You seem to be confusing the word might with will.

Ahh this is like Kobe circa 06-10. Give a bunch of reasons why Kobe is better than Michael then double back to "who said Kobe is better than Michael"

tredigs
01-29-2016, 12:31 AM
With the fewest obstacles in history... Both in terms of good opponents and allowances given to those opponents

100% laughable and completely wrong, but again bud, whatever helps your little internal dialogue. You're just too much of a dogmatic hero-worshiping joke to deal with at this point.

Sandman
01-29-2016, 01:08 AM
^Yeah, except unfortunately for your little angle there, if Curry's season continues at this pace, he will always have a season that ranks with the greatest in history (following an already top ~20-30 season in history) on a team that projects to rank among the greatest in history. Being that he's now entering his peak seasons, it's not an unfathomable question to pose of whether or not he has "GOAT" potential if things progress as they have been for him. FAR too early and imo kind of ridiculous as I've already stated, but such is life on NBA forums. A better question is, "Can Curry's peak compare with the greatest peaks of All Time?". And to that I think we're starting to see that the answer may in fact be yes.

So how many of these "seasons among the greatest in history" does he need to have to compete with Jordan?

Sandman
01-29-2016, 01:09 AM
Except unless I'm mistaken nobody is saying Curry is GOAT, only that he has a chance at it if he works hard and continues to play at this level. Everybody here admits he likely won't and has a long way to go if he does.

You seem to be confusing the word might with will.

Might Curry ever get GOAT consideration?

tredigs
01-29-2016, 01:21 AM
So how many of these "seasons among the greatest in history" does he need to have to compete with Jordan?

Too dependent on too many external team factors to say, but certainly a half decades worth of something close to this level along with the team success to make this a real debate.

BKLYNpigeon
01-29-2016, 01:38 AM
If Curry does this for 5 years then you can talk about GOAT.


Currently, Curry is having a Historic Season. His PER is 32.8, if he finishes the season above 32, It would be the highest PER in NBA History for a season.

Another Crazy Stat i read today, Currys 4th qtr PER is 44.

joedaheights
01-29-2016, 02:25 AM
Just said going to the basket made more sense.

Apparently interior defense wasn't better then?

Interior defense was very good. Are you the kind of guy who would argue that Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson and the Pistons defense was not good? Really? Reeeally?

You had to force your way to the basket because that cute screen and roll game didn't work. People fought through screens and there was normal tracking of shooters with or without the ball with a simple hand check.. with it being a contact sport as opposed to wuss ball.

The teams that couldn't force their way to the basket and get physical didn't do much.

Let me help you out… you know how Hakeem and Ewing were still in the league from 96-98 but had noticeably declined? And how David Robinson was kind of alone in San Antonio.

Why do you think that teams like the Sonics, Jazz and Pacers were able to function so easily during those years, yet with the same headline acts from 91-93, they were not able to function easily.

And, before you reply, "yeah, but the Jazz didn't lose to the Knicks in 1991"… the softening of the league started before Jordan's career ended. It just rapidly accelerated afterward.

Word is, David Stern saw a fight between the Knicks and Bulls in a playoff game during Jordan's retirement in 1994.. he was right in front of him and it mortified him. And while I agree that the Knicks and Pistons clotheslining and fight starting had to go, I don't see why "allowing guys to fight through a screen" and "allowing guys to keep a hand on an offensive player" had to go with it.

It would be like saying… "excessive hits on the QB and defenseless receivers are causing injuries in the NFL. So, we're not only going to get rid of that, but we're going to say that if a defensive back hits a receiver in mid air, even while playing the ball, even if he intercepts the ball.. if any part of that defender touches the offensive player, even his back… it's a 15 yard penalty." The first adjustment is necessary and desirable. The second one is sold along with the first as legitimate even though it's not.

I'm telling you now.. you think that Steph Curry with a Draymond Green screen would just have all of this space with Rodman and Dumars on defense.. and the fact is, even without Isiah coming through with a rabbit punch mid air… he wouldn't.

Jeffy25
01-29-2016, 02:39 AM
All I'm pointing out is that you said players went to the basket more readily, which would an indication that interior defense wasn't as good as it is today.

I.e. You were contradicting yourself

joedaheights
01-29-2016, 02:44 AM
100% laughable and completely wrong, but again bud, whatever helps your little internal dialogue. You're just too much of a dogmatic hero-worshiping joke to deal with at this point.

Don't pretend like this is a thread about Curry having a good game and I came in like "yeah, but he's nothing like the old guys." The title of the thread asks if he will get consideration as the greatest of all time. You millennial hipster modernists don't get to then double back in the same thread and start crying hero worship.

You know who worshipped heroes? When I was 14 and Jordan's Bulls were beating Magic so bad that Magic was saying, "you know, I can't even be mad, because they're just giving us a good butt kicking" and you had 45 year old men who wanted to talk about how good the 75 Bulls were.. and wanted to talk to you about Tom Boerwinkle, Norm Van Lier and Jerry Sloan.. those are the guys you THINK I am. It's not a bad thing to talk about how great Jordan is, because he's the best ever.

I'm not one of these Chicagoans who wants to reminisce about Mark Grace, the 69 Cubs, Kerry Wood, Roenick and Chelios, Rex Grossman and what "should have been" of the career of Jay Cutler. Those players are all overrated by hero worshipping types.

I know in my city, the only things that are real on various levels of greatness are Jordan, Banks, Payton, Pippen, Halas, Sandberg and Dawson (because nobody really ever thought they were THAT great), Butkus, Grange etc.

I'm not sitting here telling you how great Ron Santo and Billy Williams were.

Hey, I'm from Chicago… Joakim Noah and Luol Deng were jokes and Paxson's Bulls have never had a shot at anything. There are teams that Jordan pissed on that would piss on the 2011 HEALTHY Bulls.

In 1989, when I was just a hero worshipper, I remember thinking, "god damn Mark Grace is overrated" v. the Giants. The difference is, Jordan is Michael f-ing Jordan, and Grace really was for idiots who worship anything that represents their city.

Now, back to your 100% laughable and completely wrong remark.

The Toronto Raptors would be the 2 seed in the East if the playoffs started today. Their best players are Demar Derozan and Kyle Lowry. The team with the third best record in the east is the Hawks. Their leading scorers are Paul Millsap, Jeff Teague and Al Horford.

And who in the west? The Spurs? Funny, Kevin Love Aldridge gets on a team with some players who have actually done something and he's averaging 15.9 and 8.8. Nice Horace Grant stat line. Duncan is 39. Tony Parker looks so old at 33 he might as well be Manu Ginobili's age.. 38.

By the way, you do realize the 03 Spurs would pistol whip most teams in this league and beat GSW, right? But I guess I was in San Antonio in 2003 worshipping my heroes.

joedaheights
01-29-2016, 02:48 AM
All I'm pointing out is that you said players went to the basket more readily, which would an indication that interior defense wasn't as good as it is today.

I.e. You were contradicting yourself

No. To be good you had to be able to go to the basket. Because you weren't going to live outside with screen games. The Jazz, who could do that in the late 90s, were a non factor in the early 90s. The Jazz like everyone else had to try to get to the basket with a good one on one game… it didn't happen. Not when they needed it.

I wasn't contradicting myself. In your wet dream, I said, "everyone went to the basket and just walked over the defenders in the paint." Not where I was going at all.

joedaheights
01-29-2016, 02:55 AM
If Curry does this for 5 years then you can talk about GOAT.


Currently, Curry is having a Historic Season. His PER is 32.8, if he finishes the season above 32, It would be the highest PER in NBA History for a season.

Another Crazy Stat i read today, Currys 4th qtr PER is 44.

What if he does it for five years…

Klay Thompson has the kind of career over those five years where people begin saying, "you know, maybe he was a much bigger part of what was going on there than we all originally thought" and no team that they beat looks much better than Lebron's Cavs?

I'm not seeing a lot of future hall of famers in their prime playing on the same team… a lot of dynamic duos.

What do you have right now?

1) The Raptors and Hawks amongst the leaders in the East with a bunch of guys who don't have the laugh test…
2) Lebron "Don't call me wilt chamberlain" trying to be a global icon while being embarrassed by Curry simply conducting himself the way Lebron SHOULD be; i.e. putting the global icon BS aside and just focusing on dominating the league
3) The Spurs have an overrated vag in Duncan's old spot while Duncan, Parker and Ginobili are old and Leonard is good but overrated
4) Who else? Does anyone else even want to be serious at this point?

The Bulls are good. The Bulls, with all of their BS…. I think Noah is either dead or a missing person. Deng is gone. Rose is either going to be Bulls fans' savior or out for the year depending on the hour. No one in the locker room wants to follow Jimmy and Jimmy comes up real small when he's in the spotlight here lately.. Fred Hoiberg is telling anyone who will listen that these aren't his kind of players.. Gasol looks like Dave Corzine and they're 26-19.

WOwolfOL
01-29-2016, 03:04 AM
T-Mac was close, but probably never quite this good. AI? Good luck defending that statement. Offensively, I'd put this regular season up against any player in histories best.

@OP, it's possible, but he'd need to do something like 3-Peat and win MVP each season along with 5-8 years of prime cushioning that. Doubt he ever catches MJ's legacy, but everybody else is in play.



Lol yes, he is dude. If there was an MVP ballot cast today, he would be the first unanimous winner in history. And many of his advanced stats would rank #1 in history.
The fact that Jordan never won a unanimous MVP says all we need to know about the stupid ****s casting those ballots.

That said, I hope Curry does it. The mf is a straight up gangster.

valade16
01-29-2016, 11:31 AM
Ahh this is like Kobe circa 06-10. Give a bunch of reasons why Kobe is better than Michael then double back to "who said Kobe is better than Michael"

One I never said Kobe (or anyone) was or is better than Jordan. Heck, even when LeBron was at the height of his powers I never said he was better than Jordan.

You sound like the old-timers of the 80's when Jordan was coming up saying "NO WAY is Jordan better than Magic/Bird. He hasn't even won a title!"

In 20 years you'll be saying "no way is 'insert next great player here' better than LeBron!"

You are like clock that chimes "the old guy was better" and then has to reset every 20 years to repeat the process for the next generation. Let me know when it's the top of your hour so you can "coo-coo" about the next great player.


Might Curry ever get GOAT consideration?

Might he? He might yes. He has a long way to go. He has to win a bunch more MVPs, a bunch more titles and continue playing at the insane level he is and even then he'd have to clearly outpace Jordan for people to anoint him the new GOAT.

So might he? Yes. But IMO it's far more probable than not that he doesn't.

valade16
01-29-2016, 11:34 AM
What if he does it for five years…

Klay Thompson has the kind of career over those five years where people begin saying, "you know, maybe he was a much bigger part of what was going on there than we all originally thought" and no team that they beat looks much better than Lebron's Cavs?

I don't think belittling Curry's 2nd mate is a good strategy when defending Jordan... the guy with arguably the greatest 'Robin' in league history (though I say 2nd to Magic having KAJ) :laugh2:

Let me preface this by saying unequivocally that Jordan is the GOAT, but what exactly did he win without Pippen again?

HOLD_THIS_L
01-29-2016, 02:31 PM
Greatest singke season 4 sure. Greatest of all time. Time will tell /thread. Anybody thinks diffrent HOLD THIS L

NYKalltheway
01-29-2016, 02:37 PM
I don't think belittling Curry's 2nd mate is a good strategy when defending Jordan... the guy with arguably the greatest 'Robin' in league history (though I say 2nd to Magic having KAJ) :laugh2:

Pippen doesn't need to be so overrated. He was a great utility guy and a borderline superstar, but others had better help since the 70s (merge with ABA, before that it was just Lakers vs Celtics really).

Stockton and Karl Malone are two top 25 players of all time. Maybe you wanna put Karl at the top 30-35 or whatever. He's a top 5 PF at least and Stockton is a top 3 PG.

Duncan and Robinson. Again, two top 25 players of all time. Could argue the same about DRob, but here you have the #1 PF and a top 8-10 center of all time. They played much less with eachother of course.

Shaq and Kobe. Both stars. Both top 5 in the position all time no matter what way you see it.

You already mentioned Magic and Kareem who for me at #1 at their respective positions, who are the most neuralgic in NBA history.

There's Bird and McHale, since we're reducing the Lakers into a two man show. Bird, #1 SF, McHale, top 5 PF at least.

Sixers, 80s. Dr J and Moses Malone. Dr J was the #1 SF of all time by then (before Bird's peak) and Moses was the #1 center in the 80s and a top 4 center of all time by then (behind Russell, Wilt and Kareem)

The Bucks were home to the GOAT of the time, Oscar Robertson and the next GOAT, Kareem. Despite Oscar's decline and late years, I think this is the #2 tandem.

Kobe and Gasol even. Kobe was the #1 SG in the league while Pau was a top 3 PF.

Elvin Hayes and Unseld. Hayes could very well be a top 10 PF of all time (and #2 by his time behind Pettit) while Unseld was highly rated at the time.

There's of course Lebron and Wade who are the only ones who joined each other via free agency. And that's #1 and #3 of the league and they invited a top 10 player along them....


There have been many great tandems. You need a team to win championships. The ABA teams were even more stacked than their NBA counterparts btw, those championships were even harder to win. I don't think there's an example of a team that won just because of one player. Maybe Hakeem is the only exception in 1994, but in 1995 it was mostly Drexler pulling the strings which seems weird considering that Olajuwon had just "won on his own".

Teams should be judged as teams and players as players. Don't mix these things up. Add/subtract players from a team and they're no longer the same team, even if the guy's role is not primary.
The best example is the very Bulls team we all admire. 1994-5. Jordan was still great despite coming off an early retirement. The roster's problems? Will freaking Perdue was the only starting center - Luc Longley was not dependable - a guy who was at best a bench player for those Bulls teams in the past and the gap of Horace Grant wasn't replaced. Give Jordan a Grant or Rodman type of PF and he'd gloat about 7 rings now. I think their starting PF was Krystowiak or some guy called Blount... It was pathetic really.
Yet, Jordan came from retirement and led the Bulls from an undeserved 5th seed to the Conference Semi Finals. People often neglect that season.

HOLD_THIS_L
01-29-2016, 03:08 PM
Scottie Pis top 5 at his position teamed up with the greatest of all time..... just hold your L bro. Hold it with pride.

HOLD_THIS_L
01-29-2016, 03:09 PM
Cant telly if nyk is trolling are just dumb AF....

ewing
01-29-2016, 04:30 PM
Cant telly if nyk is trolling are just dumb AF....

his last post is actually on the money. Pip is not the greatest #2 ever nor do i think he is a top 5 SF ever. All Star, HOFer, borderline superstar sound about right.

valade16
01-29-2016, 04:47 PM
his last post is actually on the money. Pip is not the greatest #2 ever nor do i think he is a top 5 SF ever. All Star, HOFer, borderline superstar sound about right.

I never said he was. I said arguably the greatest robin in history and it's true. In virtually any debate or article about the greatest sidekick in NBA history, you will see Pippen's name come up.

ewing
01-29-2016, 04:57 PM
I never said he was. I said arguably the greatest robin in history and it's true. In virtually any debate or article about the greatest sidekick in NBA history, you will see Pippen's name come up.

you just had someone name at least 6 pairs where both guys were clearly better then Scottie. His name comes up b/c they won a lot. This time NKY is right.

valade16
01-29-2016, 05:05 PM
you just had someone name at least 6 pairs where both guys were clearly better then Scottie. His name comes up b/c they won a lot. This time NKY is right.

2 things:

1. That has absolutely nothing to do with the statement arguably the greatest robin ever. It is a fact whenever someone mentions the greatest sidekick in NBA history, his name always comes up, it is your opinion that he isn't.

2. I said greatest not best. Greatest as in accomplishments. Best is an entirely different distinction to me. Bill Russell is greater than Hakeem based on accolades/awards/titles, but I think Hakeem was better.

So NYK is right... about a point I never made.

HOLD_THIS_L
01-29-2016, 05:07 PM
his last post is actually on the money. Pip is not the greatest #2 ever nor do i think he is a top 5 SF ever. All Star, HOFer, borderline superstar sound about right.

Id consider them the best duo.

The best player of all time with any top 5 player at there position how can you refute that. Give me another duo that can match up with stats and accomplishments. If not, HOLD THIS L.

tredigs
01-29-2016, 05:21 PM
Id consider them the best duo.

The best player of all time with any top 5 player at there position how can you refute that. Give me another duo that can match up with stats and accomplishments. If not, HOLD THIS L.

Magic/Kareem, done, you dumb little troll.

Each was an MVP of the league while playing together, each had Finals MVP's while playing together, each had 5+ All NBA teams while playing together. One was the alpha to start the process, the other to finish. Arguably both top 5 All-Time and arguably both the best at their position All Time.

HOLD_THIS_L
01-29-2016, 05:34 PM
The biggest troll on psd wants to call someone a troll. Why did you venture out of the warrior's forum anyway. And why did you wait untill they started winning to do so? Gtfo thinking your opinion even holds wate,r you sad pathetic human being. Always on PSD, get a life. You do know what that is right?

tredigs
01-29-2016, 06:02 PM
Yeah yeah little baby troll on his 50th account here in the last 10 days. Anything to actually refute during your short stay? Or just more nonsense as per usual.

Hawkeye15
01-29-2016, 06:25 PM
I never said he was. I said arguably the greatest robin in history and it's true. In virtually any debate or article about the greatest sidekick in NBA history, you will see Pippen's name come up.

Kobe is the best robin in history. Or Magic. Unless you are referring to players that were never #1 on their team, then these 2 examples are void.

HOLD_THIS_L
01-29-2016, 06:33 PM
New to the site avaid reader. I'm a fan of mackshock you not so much. If it helps you sleep better call me a dupe. But im not so you can HOLD THIS L

Hawkeye15
01-29-2016, 06:41 PM
New to the site avaid reader. I'm a fan of mackshock you not so much. If it helps you sleep better call me a dupe. But im not so you can HOLD THIS L

are you talking to me?

joedaheights
01-29-2016, 11:00 PM
Scottie as a second fiddle...

Do you think

Magic and Kareem
Dr. J and Moses
Russell and Cousy
Frazier and reed
West and Baylor
Shaq and Kobe
Lebron and Wade
Robinson and Duncan
Hakeem and drexler

Are better players than pippen? Cause those duos all played together, so someone has to be the robin

Raps18-19 Champ
01-29-2016, 11:08 PM
Doubt it. He probably maxes out at the top 5ish PG list.

ewing
01-30-2016, 01:14 AM
Scottie as a second fiddle...

Do you think

Magic and Kareem
Dr. J and Moses
Russell and Cousy
Frazier and reed
West and Baylor
Shaq and Kobe
Lebron and Wade
Robinson and Duncan
Hakeem and drexler

Are better players than pippen? Cause those duos all played together, so someone has to be the robin



Well Robin was kind of lame and got to ride Batman's coattails so Scottie was more Robin then those guys. Honestly in terms of impact Klay is just as good as Scottie at this point in his career if not better. Curry to Jordan is the stretch at this point.

ewing
01-30-2016, 01:15 AM
Id consider them the best duo.

The best player of all time with any top 5 player at there position how can you refute that. Give me another duo that can match up with stats and accomplishments. If not, HOLD THIS L.

he did have the advantage of playing with Micheal Jordan.

AIRMAR72
01-30-2016, 01:18 AM
where do you rank Kobe all time?
All time I rank Kobe Bryant in the mid teens for SG this ranking based on Kobe stats and overall body of work. Along with team impact factor

valade16
01-30-2016, 01:23 AM
Well Robin was kind of lame and got to ride Batman's coattails so Scottie was more Robin then those guys. Honestly in terms of impact Klay is just as good as Scottie at this point in his career if not better. Curry to Jordan is the stretch at this point.

That is a bold claim.

tredigs
01-30-2016, 01:24 AM
That is a bold claim.

lol at "bold" as opposed to insane.

joedaheights
01-30-2016, 01:25 AM
That is a bold claim.

I went to high school in the Bay Area... Consider that everyone I knew thought Chris mullin was easily better than Pippen then

joedaheights
01-30-2016, 01:26 AM
lol at "bold" as opposed to insane.

In this thread I believe somebody already said Pippen would be shut down by draymond green