"How in the world could Curry be top 5? He's not even better than Durant"

[kobeunderbite]

Boomer moment

[Bush4Ever.]

Mad Dog is pretty much the only basketball talking head that makes me legit emotional.

He's the worst.

[PhutureDynasty]

Mad Dog is pretty much the only basketball talking head that makes me legit emotional.

He's the worst.

He's full on TV boomer shit hot take status.

You could *maybe* argue that Durant is more skilled as a player than Curry in terms of checking more boxes as at least above average in said category.

That said, just because someone checks more boxes does not mean they are a better or greater player.

CP3 probably checks more boxes than Curry but Curry's shooting and ability to draw defenses towards him is damn near a trump card and he is better and greater than both CP3 and Durant.

[PhutureDynasty]

I also like how he downplays Curry's shooting.

"He's a nice shooter."

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

It's a stupid take. Having Wilt in there makes it even dumber. That's usually a cue that someone really doesn't know their hoops when they have Wilt near the very top. I don't know where Curry fits, but "he's a nice shooter" is a moronic take. He literally tilts the floor because of how he forces defenses to adjust to him.

[xer0]

Durant is a better basketball player, Curry's game only translates well to this era bc it's soft. Curry would get pushed around in the 80's and 90's whereas Durant being so tall would be able to get shots off on anyone still.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Durant is a better basketball player, Curry's game only translates well to this era bc it's soft. Curry would get pushed around in the 80's and 90's whereas Durant being so tall would be able to get shots off on anyone still.

True that Durant would have owned the 80s and 90s with his skill set. But suggesting Curry wouldn't have been dmoninant the minute the 3 point line became part of the NBA is a stupid take.

[Bush4Ever.]

If Steph was the physical marvel on the level of Mark Price or Isiah Thomas he'd have an easier time for sure.

[Odogg]

Curry is top ten. Durant is top 20ish

[Havlicekstealsit]

Durant might have a little bit more respect if he just stuck it out in OKC. Dude was in the Finals by just his fifth season.

[zombiesonics]

Durant is a better player than Steph but his bitch ass behavior destroyed his legacy.

[thedangerouskitchen]

No question Curry is the GOAT "Shooter" whose range revolutionized the game. But outside of that one (1) facet there is nothing that stands out about him, unless you've giving extra credit for fancy dribbling and style points: Below-average to average Defender (at best), average Playmaker, average Rebounder... plus he's only managed to win 3 total MVP's (just 1 when it matters most - the Finals), only 4 First Team NBA's, and 0 All Defense selections in 14 full seasons.

He's got an argument for Top 10, but no way is he Top 5.

[Bush4Ever.]

Curry's combined rebounds+assists per-possessions is HIGHER than Jordan's during his Chicago career.

"A bum outside of shooting"
-TDK

lol

[PhutureDynasty]

It's a stupid take. Having Wilt in there makes it even dumber. That's usually a cue that someone really doesn't know their hoops when they have Wilt near the very top. I don't know where Curry fits, but "he's a nice shooter" is a moronic take. He literally tilts the floor because of how he forces defenses to adjust to him.

[xer0]

I have Wilt as the #1 player of all time simply based on the fact that he dominated his peers offensively and defensively better than anyone else in NBA history. Bill Russel isn't half the player wilt was and even he wouldve admitted that.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

I have Wilt as the #1 player of all time simply based on the fact that he dominated his peers offensively and defensively better than anyone else in NBA history. Bill Russel isn't half the player wilt was and even he wouldve admitted that.

Exhibit A of a fan who looks at stats, but who doesn't understand hoops. Players and fans from back then knew who was better, and that was Russell. I judge better by how much you influence the win and loss columns. Nobody has come close to doing that the way Russell has. From high school to college to the NBA. Wilt cared enormously about his stats, and in the year when he led the league in assists, gave up easy buckets to try to get more dimes. Russell only cared about winning. Nothing else mattered. Jerry West who played with Wilt, wished he could have played with Russell instead. As he subtly tried to explain, you had to adjust your game to play with Wilt and have team success. Russell adjusted to his teammates and played to their strengths to help the team win. Pretty stats, Wilt. Want to win - Russell.

[xer0]

I'll take Wilt anyday, anytime over Russell and I have a far better chance of winning since his offensive gap over Russell and anyone else was far, far bigger than any marginal defensive impact russell had. He simply didnt have the level of ability wilt had. That argument you're making sounds Alot like LeBron.

If you put wilt on those Celtic teams over Russell, they win the title every year.

[Bush4Ever.]

Wilt's stats aren't even that removed from the top of the class, taking into account pace/era, minutes played, etc...

As a super rough cut example:

1960s Wilt:
PER = 28.2, WS/48 minutes = .259

1970s Kareem:
PER = 26.9, WS/48 minutes = .266

1995-2004 Shaq:
PER = 28.7, WS/48 minutes = .234

Yes, with the caveats about PER, especially pre-merger, but when you take into account and contextualize his raw numbers a bit, it brings them down to earth somewhat to "merely great" instead of otherworldly.

Top 10? Sure. He was simply "too much" to deny that type of ranking. But he simply shouldn't be a part of GOAT conversations because of the semi-delinkage between his personal numbers and team performances, and (appropriate) reframing of his individual statistics, which generally place him right on the mark as other elite bigs in history.

[Bush4Ever.]

If you put wilt on those Celtic teams over Russell, they win the title every year.

We saw a sneak peak of this idea in 1969, when they reversed roles in terms of supporting teammate talent.

Moreover, the gap between them defensively was not marginal, it was substantial, as crazy as that sounds, because Russell was *that* impactful. From a previous post (Backpicks-related):

Defensive CORP (Championship Odds over Replacement Player, per backpicks):

Russell 2.30
Wilt 1.47
Hakeem 1.74
Duncan 1.54
Garnett: 1.44
Kareem 1.22
D-Rob: 1.19
Shaq: 0.90

Keeping in mind all those guys played differing amounts of games and being that CORP is cumulative, here is how it rounds out per game (rescaled to 1000 games for larger numbers, per backpicks and total career games RS+playoffs)

Russell: 2.04
Hakeem: 1.26
Wilt: 1.22
D-Rob: 1.07
Duncan: 0.94
Garnett: 0.90
Kareem: 0.68
Shaq: 0.63

Hakeem did do it in a more advanced era than Wilt (or Russell), but the gap is gigantic either cumulatively or on a per-game basis.

[PhutureDynasty]

The only season that is better than Wilt's 50 ppg season (which they robbed him of MVP because the other players were literally player hating') is Embiid's current season before he got injured. They will also rob Embiid of the MVP this season because of "MUH 65 GAMEZ!" rule.

Those are actual facts.