Oso planning to go pro
Now that Curry won another title, some of the hoops folks at The Athletic have debated where he stands on their top-75 lists ...John Hollinger, senior columnist: Does this move him up past, say, Dirk Nowitzki and David Robinson on my list? I think he has a stronger argument now than he did a year ago, but the bulk of that argument is from 2015 to 2020 either way. Sooo … he is definitely more firmly a top-20 player with ring No. 4, but the bar to move the needle at this level is insanely high. Let’s call him No. 17 on my list now.Jason Jones, staff writer: Curry is certainly top-10. I’d have him behind Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Wilt, Russell and Kobe.Rob Peterson, senior editor: I had Curry at No. 14, Kobe at 13, Olajuwon at No. 12 and KD at 11. I’d move Curry ahead of Kobe and Hakeem, and then I’d need to weigh the Curry-KD dynamic.
Ya... I think they're crazy.
Would you have Curry ahead of Durant, Muggs? How about Kobe? Who do you have him ranked behind?
I would have Curry ahead of both of them. Let's just start with the fact and reiterate that he just won a title, at 36, with Andrew Wiggins as his #2. Now when it comes to the top 10 it's extremely difficult because eras are impossible to compare, guys train much differently, and the game has changed a lot. For example I don't look at Wilt, Shaq, Jabbar, Duncan, or Russell as players that can't be high on the list. I also believe it's important to recognize that that there were far fewer teams in the past and that an argument can be made that the competition was better on a regular basis, not worse. The bottom line is it's very difficult to rank players because the post game really doesn't exist anymore and bigs in particular didn't handle the ball and play on the perimeter like they do today. At the same time that doesn't mean people would rate Jabbar or Duncan behind Anthony Davis and Tatum. At least not right now. But since it's fun to rank and discuss I will share my top 10 and where I would slot Curry. I can't put him ahead of Jordan, Jabbar, or James and I would imagine most would echo this sentiment. After that is where it gets tough. You have the Magic, Bird, Wilt tier.....is Curry realistically in their class or better? Wilt changed the game and statistically was unmatched. Magic and Bird also changed the game but had much shorter careers than Curry. And guess what? Curry isn't done. He may get a 5th ring and three as the #1 option. As for Wilt? Yes, he only has two rings but he played against a Celtics team with much greater overall talent. Anyway, here is my top 10:10) Russell 9) Shaq8) Duncan 7) Bird 6) Magic5) Chamberlain 4) Curry3) James2) Jabbar 1) Jordan * Statistically is very difficult not to have Robertson in the Top 10** Olajuwon, Kobe, and Durant were hard to leave off.*** Giannis and Doncic could one day be considered **** Curry trails only one player as the best pound for pound of all-time and can't catch him because he's a foot taller.
I would have Curry ahead of both of them. Let's just start with the fact and reiterate that he just won a title, at 34, with Andrew Wiggins as his #2. Now when it comes to the top 10 it's extremely difficult because eras are impossible to compare, guys train much differently, and the game has changed a lot. For example I don't look at Wilt, Shaq, Jabbar, Duncan, or Russell as players that can't be high on the list. I also believe it's important to recognize that that there were far fewer teams in the past and that an argument can be made that the competition was better on a regular basis, not worse. The bottom line is it's very difficult to rank players because the post game really doesn't exist anymore and bigs in particular didn't handle the ball and play on the perimeter like they do today. At the same time that doesn't mean people would rate Jabbar or Duncan behind Anthony Davis and Tatum. At least not right now. But since it's fun to rank and discuss I will share my top 10 and where I would slot Curry. I can't put him ahead of Jordan, Jabbar, or James and I would imagine most would echo this sentiment. After that is where it gets tough. You have the Magic, Bird, Wilt tier.....is Curry realistically in their class or better? Wilt changed the game and statistically was unmatched. Magic and Bird also changed the game but had much shorter careers than Curry. And guess what? Curry isn't done. He may get a 5th ring and three as the #1 option. As for Wilt? Yes, he only has two rings but he played against a Celtics team with much greater overall talent. Anyway, here is my top 10:10) Russell 9) Shaq8) Duncan 7) Bird 6) Magic5) Chamberlain 4) Curry3) James2) Jabbar 1) Jordan * Statistically is very difficult not to have Robertson in the Top 10** Olajuwon, Kobe, and Durant were hard to leave off.*** Giannis and Doncic could one day be considered **** Curry trails only one player as the best pound for pound of all-time and can't catch him because he's a foot taller.
Good list. I won't get into the rankings, but I would take off Bird and Shaq and insert Durant and Kobe.
Anyway, here is my top 10:10) Russell 9) Shaq8) Duncan 7) Bird 6) Magic5) Chamberlain 4) Curry3) James2) Jabbar 1) Jordan
Kevin Durant is a better basketball player than Larry Bird was. Bird was a better passer, but that's about it IMO.But the criticism of him joining the Warriors to get his title is nonsense. Bird had three HOF teammates on those Celtics teams - he had a super team built around him.
Magic is the hard one here because his career was cut short. Otherwise he would be in the 2-4 range. As is, I'd still have him in the 5-7 range.I have watched basketball long enough that I rank players based on how good they were in the time they played, rather than judge them on todays standards. They trained differently, were taught differently and had certain aspects of the game emphasized differently.The 1st 3 are easy:1. Kareem2. MJ3. LeBronThe next group could be argued about over position.4. Wilt5. Magic6. Russell7. Bird8. Duncan9, 10. Kobe, Shaq, Curry or Oscar
I am not convinced that Bird would not have been just as good of a three point shooter as Durant if that had been emphasized at that time. Remember - the 3 point shot was not one of Bird's primary weapons when he played. Yet, once the 3 point contest was added to All-Star weekend, he won it. Then he won it again the next year. Then, he won it yet again the next year.
Part of what makes Durant arguably the best scorer ever is physical. He has a 7'5 wingspan and a 34" vertical while being basically 6'11 (there is no way he's 6'9). Bird was 6'9 but had a 28" vert and a much smaller wingspan. Its nearly impossible, unless you're Giannis, to block a KD jumper outside of literal perfect timing. Also way quicker than Bird.
I disagree.As a rookie, Bird led the Celtics to 61 wins compared to 20-something the year before he got there with an almost identical roster. Those HoFers weren't in Boston yet. Durant makes a team way better and that equates to a lot more wins, but he could never have done (even now) what Bird did as a rookie.I am not convinced that Bird would not have been just as good of a three point shooter as Durant if that had been emphasized at that time. Remember - the 3 point shot was not one of Bird's primary weapons when he played. Yet, once the 3 point contest was added to All-Star weekend, he won it. Then he won it again the next year. Then, he won it yet again the next year.I think 'recency bias' is the only way Durant is ranked above some of the all-time greats. I would have him in the top 13-15 all-time.But I love these discussions and people's reasons for rankings. It is definitely subjective and it's hard to say someone is flat out wrong.
There's a big difference IMO between joining a championship team than building one.
Jockey, I like your analysis here. I happen to catch an interview with Rick Barry recently. He talked about how much different he would have been as a player in this era. He pointed out that it's not that his game in the 70's would or wouldn't have translated today, it's that he would literally be a completely different player. The weight and aerobic training, the amount of practice of 3pt shots, the rules to a degree, the comforts off the court, the outside attack vs post play, etc, etc. He said he wouldn't be a little better, he'd be way, way, better. I have to think he's right.
Not when it comes to judging the quality of the player. They are always judged vis-a-vis who is around them.
I'm not talking about "their championships meaning the same thing." I am talking about using the fact that he joined the Warriors as a reason to downgrade Durant v. Bird.
He joined a team that won a title and 73 games the following year. They probably had the most wins over two years in history. Bird took a 20's win team to 61 wins his rookie season. You don't think this is worth pointing out Fluffy?
It's very Rick Barry to say that Rick Barry would be a much better player today than he actually was.But of course we don't know that.