2021-22 NBA Thread: The Bucks are Reigning Champs

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

I agree with Jason Jones. I means Hollinger has him at 17?🤪🤪🤪

[MU82]

Ya... I think they're  crazy.

Would you have Curry ahead of Durant, Muggs? How about Kobe? Who do you have him ranked behind?

[MuggsyB]

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 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)  Shaq
8) Duncan
7) Bird
6) Magic
5) Chamberlain
4) Curry
3) James
2) 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. 

[Herman Cain]

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)  Shaq
8) Duncan
7) Bird
6) Magic
5) Chamberlain
4) Curry
3) James
2) 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. 

Ranking is a hard exercise . For example , Jerry West and Oscar Robertson were the two best guards for many many years and Very complete players . West led the Lakers to the Finals 9 out of his 14 years.

Others like Dr J and Elgin Baylor were also phenomenal in their day.

[tower912]

All hall of fame worthy.   Celebrate their greatness without tearing down.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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)  Shaq
8) Duncan
7) Bird
6) Magic
5) Chamberlain
4) Curry
3) James
2) 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.

[MuggsyB]

Good list.  I won't get into the rankings, but I would take off Bird and Shaq and insert Durant and Kobe.

That's tough for me to see.   Shaq was so dominant and was the top dog on three title teams.  He literally couldn't be guarded at all in his prime with his strength and quickness at his height/weight.  And while you can say that about a lot of guys one on one,  it was slightly different with Shaq and Kareem imo. 

The result of trying to guard Shaq was either he dunked, got a 3-6 footer, or was fouled.  His shooting percentagei vs single coveage had to be extraordinarily high.  To have a guy like Shaq or Kareem in your half court offense, that could always get a high percentage shot, puts a different kind of pressure on the defense.  Even with Shaq' s free throw woes.  In other words Jordan, Bird, Durant, Kobe, Curry, etc could have bad shooting games or force bad shots.  Shaq and I assume Kareem very rarely did this and their presence also made their teammates around them better.  I do think Shaq from a talent perspective should have been the best center that ever lived but he ate way too much and didn't have the work ethic of others.

Bird's numbers when he was healthy are insane frankly.  Before his back went out he had three titles, three MVP's, and I think two Finals MVP's.  Now he's before my time but offensively his overall skill set was extremely impressive.  He's often described as slow and a guy that couldn't jump but neither are actually true.  He was a much better athlete than he's given credit and had maybe the best basketball mind and eye hand coordination ever.  Personally I think he would absolutely kill it in this era.  Kobe and Durant are definitely more talented but that doesn't mean they were better basketball players. 

I think Durant has to lead a team to a title to be on my top 10.  He was the best player on Golden State but Curry ultimately made it work by playing off the ball more.  Durant is arguably the best pure scorer ever and he had a lot of space to operate with Curry and Klay on the floor.  Fair or not, by joining a championship team, Durant's titles were basically inevitable. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[Jockey]

Anyway, here is my top 10:

10) Russell
9)  Shaq
8) Duncan
7) Bird
6) Magic
5) Chamberlain
4) Curry
3) James
2) Jabbar
1) Jordan

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. Kareem
2. MJ
3. LeBron

The next group could be argued about over position.
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Russell
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9, 10. Kobe, Shaq, Curry or Oscar

[MuggsyB]

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.

I get that opinion but again, players back then didn't train like they do now.  The game was also more physical on the ball and guys got clobbered at the rim.  We also don't know how good McHale and Parrish would have been without Bird.  McHale I feel would have been fine and a probable Hall of Famer.  Parrish I'm a lot less sure about.  There's a big difference IMO between joining a championship team than building one. Golden State won 73 games one year Fluffy without Durant and would have won that Finals if Green wasn't a bone head.  The fact is that while there have always been superteams, when Durant joined the Warriors no rational person thought if healthy they wouldn't win the championship.

[Jockey]

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.

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.

[MuggsyB]

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. Kareem
2. MJ
3. LeBron

The next group could be argued about over position.
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Russell
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9, 10. Kobe, Shaq, Curry or Oscar

I think your list is fair.  My caveat would be that Curry changed the game and is also by all accounts a great teammate.  I would also say that not a lot of guys could have led this particular team to a championship.

[JWags85]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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.

Bird's stats are crazy though.  He was clearly a very good rebounder and passer. 

[MuggsyB]

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.

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.

[Jockey]

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 have no argument with what you say. Bird was a different kind of shooter that Durant. Also a much different athlete. But so is Jokic (slow, no vertical) and he is the one earning MVPs.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

There's a big difference IMO between joining a championship team than building one.

Not when it comes to judging the quality of the player.  They are always judged vis-a-vis who is around them.

[Herman Cain]

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. Kareem
2. MJ
3. LeBron

The next group could be argued about over position.
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Russell
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9, 10. Kobe, Shaq, Curry or Oscar

I like this list . In my experience Jerry West was a game Changing force on the court and a top 5 level player .
 Had a huge competitive desire,tough as nails, incredible athleticism could jump to the moon and had very broad shoulders with long arms ,   was excellent on offense and defense and incredible basketball knowledge . His name was Mr Clutch for a reason.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

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.

[MuggsyB]

Not when it comes to judging the quality of the player.  They are always judged vis-a-vis who is around them.

So if Jordan joined the Pistons in the late 80's,  or Thomas joined the Celtics or Lakers in 1985,  their championships would essentially mean the same thing assuming they would have won on those teans?  And are Nowitzki and Wade better than a lot of these guys that we've listed because they won titles with much less around them?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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?

I think the are facts unrelated at all to one another.  Yes, Larry Bird joined a Celtics team and was the top player on a team that had a massive turnaround. Of course, you should read up a little on the Celtics' team from the year prior to see why they were such a disaster.  (The owner making trades behind Auerbach's back...Bob McAdoo injured...)

But Durant joining the Warriors has nothing to do with that.  Durant entered the league as a 19 year old, helped to build the Thunder, left (as he had a right to do and something that Bird talked about doing) as an established super start.

It's an irrelevant cherry picking of facts.

[Jockey]

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.

I agree. Barry would win numerous scoring titles today with the 3 point shot. But there is no evidence he would be a better player.

[Herman Cain]

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.

Barry and the words Arrogant and cocky were often in the same sentence with some expletives

I think his basic premise that skills development  and the game has changed are true . I am not sure he would be better though as he was already one of the two best small forward of his Era along with Dr J