Where Does Steph Curry Rank?
- Thread starter TheSpecialSauce
- Start date
Any list without Wilt Chamberlain in the Top 5 is null and void in my book and I’d put Steph in the 10-20 range as well at this point.
The great JJ Redick agrees with the great SMF
Jerry West fires back at J.J. Redick over Bob Cousy slight: 'He averaged 12 points a game in the league'
West and Cousy played in a different era than Redick
www.cbssports.com
I was hoping you'd chime in. I agree that of those players were dropped in at age 6 to today and could benefit from today's training and "basketball focus" they'd be NBA stars but that isnt what I'm saying. People talk about how great those players were when they played. For that era, sure, but their skillset and athleticism was too far below today's players. To be fair, they didn't train as much as today's players. We know that. But straight-up time machining those stars of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s into today's NBA, most would struggle. The best starts, mostly would be just ok starters.
You aren’t married, are you?The great JJ Redick agrees with the great SMF
Jerry West fires back at J.J. Redick over Bob Cousy slight: 'He averaged 12 points a game in the league'
West and Cousy played in a different era than Redick
You are better than that and its ok to admit you're wrong. Those dudes in earlier eras simply could not hang with today's athletes.
Yeah. I distinctly remember Barkley and company literally beating up on 6’5” Chinese and Argentinian players.
He wouldn’t be intimidated. But he’d be black and blue, because Laimbeer would make it his special project to beat on him and frustrate him relentlessly.
The way the game was played then of course. Laimbeer couldn’t exist with today’s style of play and rules.
This is hard for me to under, but why do people assume LeBron wouldn’t thrive in this environment and would wilt under a little physical pressure. He’s a tank of a human being and I think he would thrive in a setting when he too could dole out the same type of physical play.
Watch LeBron in his prime go from guarding Pau Gasol to Derrick Rose and tell me he wouldn’t be the best defender in the NBA if he could handcheck and play physical.
Laimbeer wouldn’t make the league now
We was essentially the NHL equivalent of the Jersey clutch and grab Devils
why anyone thinks clutch, grab , and foul without calls made for a more entertaining product - are delusions of nostalgia only
I don’t assume that at all. He’s a generational talent and IMO the second best player of all time. He’d be at the top in any era. But, win or lose, 40 points or 14, he’d get his ass kicked physically by certain teams like every other top scorer did back then. That was how they were defended. Frustrate them and hassle them. Knock them out of their comfort zones. Sometimes it worked on the Jordans etc, sometimes not.
Those people have to be under 30 and were never exposed to the undeniable greatness of MJ. It’s a long dropoff from him to second best of all time.
I'm a huge Larry fan but I think he's sixth
MJ/Lebron/Kareem/Russell then Magic then Larry. I can see the argument of switching Larry and Magic because Larry was better from 81-86 at his peak, but I think Magic was better 80-92 as a whole because he had less late career injuries, keeping him in his prime to pretty much the end.
Laimbeer would certainly make the league. He shot almost 33% from three as a big before that was really a thing.
He was a pretty decent player, much more than you are giving him credit for being. But he hung his hat on his intimidating play and that wouldn't cut it today. That would reduce his effectiveness to some degree. But he would certainly still make the league today, and would probably still be a starter for many teams.
While this is all just opinions, you have to know that essentially no one shares your opinion on that.
He's the greatest winner in all of heck, not just basketball, team sports. But he is not the greatest player.
Nothing defines greatness better than winning , in my opinion .
Never mind his greatness off the court on social issues .
i don’t care what others think defines greatness -
I like my opinion.
Jordan is 2 , then a gulf
In an individual sport, sure. But in a team sport? That doesn't make any sense.
Otherwise you are left to conclude things like four time National League pennant winner and one time World Series winner Rafael Belliard is better than Ernie Banks, who never even played in a playoff game and whose teams didn't ever even finish second until the League split into divisions (when he was 38 years old).
Ok then … you would agree that Bill Laimbeer is, let’s say … twice as good as someone such as Moses Malone, because he’s won 2 titles and Malone hasn’t won any?
I mean laimbeer wasn’t the best player or even leader on those teamsOk then … you would agree that Bill Laimbeer is, let’s say … twice as good as someone such as Moses Malone, because he’s won 2 titles and Malone hasn’t won any?
I mean Robert Horry has a ton of rings as a role player and nobody thinks he’s an all time great
Russell on the other hand is the greatest player and winner leading his team to championships
let me out it a different way - do you honestly have Russell anywhere outside of the top 5?
MJ, Lebron, Kareem -- that's the top three
Bird, Russell, Wilt and Magic -- that's the next four.
LIke Joe said, you are entitled to your opinion that Russell is the greatest player of all time but you would be one of the very, very few who have that opinion. Along the same lines, one could also argue for the opinion that the Macarena was the greatest song of all time because it was #1 on the Billboard Chart for 14 weeks, but you would be one of the very, very few who have that opinion.
Just a little tid bit to add. 8 of Russell's Championships were against an 8 or 9 team league.
Last edited:
Absolutely bonkers to have lebron that high
Russell averages 15ppg , 23 rpg and 4 assist per game Over what 13 seasons -
And if they actually kept block stats he’s easily averaging a triple double for a career
Gtfo out of here
I’ll put his numbers against anyone else’s
I mean. If we’re going to exclude championships as a criteria -
Let’s exclude that criteria all together
Last edited:
Bonkers to you, but not to the nearly 98.6% of the other very knowledgeable people who rank these kinds of things.
Lebron is going to break the all time pt total this upcoming season. Putting him anything less than top 3 is complete disrespect and wreaks of ignorance. Arguing Bill Russell #1 either means you haven't watched basketball since Bill retired, or you're a masshole.
I think we can acknowledge that Bill Russell is a top 10 player ever, but also note that he played against much lesser competition than we see today. That's simply not an argument. It's a fact. If we put him in this era, he'd still be a top player in the league and dominate, but he's not going out there averaging 15-23-4. He's also not winning 11 rings in today's landscape.
All accomplishments should be considered. None should be excluded - especially titles - but the way you weigh them needs to change. If you put Lebron in back in the 60's he'd have double digit titles. He'd win the title every year. He'd average well over a triple double.. I mean, look at his playoff career stats in the modern game.. 29-9-7. Imagine this guy back in the 60's-70s? This isn't to knock Bill Russell.. again, he's an all timer. He's the 2nd best center ever behind Kareem. He's not better than the top 3 though. He simply isn't.
I’m 44 and like the nba
I’m also aware that the recent y effect tilts opinions based on what people have and are watching and minimize the old players they didn’t .
I don’t find the “most people disagree with you “ a convincing opinion.
All things should be considered
If Jordan won 0 championships is he still the GOAT? Of course not .
On the topic Steph Curry is likely at least a top 20 player because of his shooting , ball handling , and yes championships .
saying Bill Russell was completely dominant because he was so much better than other players of his era isn’t the compelling argument you think it is
We aren’t saying most people disagree with you to convince you of anything. We realize that’s not possible.
We are saying that because it’s a basic fact in this situation. You do realize you are in SMF territory now, yes?
Nah
Smf territory would be trying to say Robert Horry is greater than Charles Barkley based on rings .
i simply have Russell higher on my list presently than you and others who also have him in the top 5-10z
And yes his off the court accomplishments influence my opinion - because it enhances his greatness .
Lebron’s story isn’t fully written yet.
peak Larry bird is probably the greatest player ever - but being saddled with injuries limited his peak .
I’ve said in this forum that Lebron is the only contemporary to Magic who can legit play and defend all 5 positions .
I’m not a lebron hater -
He’s great and has been fortunate to be mostly healthy during a very long career
Hence his moving up all these all time lists .
Steph is pushing top 10. He changed the game. Literally. You could argue him over Magic as the best PG ever. Might sound crazy, but it's not. He changed the way the game is played.
My point is that Bill Russell isn't winning 11 rings if he's in today's game. I'm not dismissing his rings, but you can't be ignorant of the competition in the 60's. I'm younger than you but I love the history of the NBA. I don't dismiss it and get caught up in recency bias.
The NBA is the best its ever been, though. Every single team has an all star caliber player.. many have two or more. Bill Russell would still be an All NBA player today. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but I do think it's worth noting you're in the less than 1% who would put him at #1. That's absurd.
not a Lebron hater but he's only moving up the list because he's healthy. lol you serious? this quickly turned into arguing with a wall. Not even worth it if you think Russell is #1 and Larry is the best player ever.
have a good day.
Can you honestly say Bird from 81-84 wasn’t the most dominant player in the league ?!?
Funny how even Jordan , magic , Barkley and others all said he was .
All time he’s a top 10 player - because his body broke down so that impacts his overall body of work
Not sure why that’s so controversial .
lebron is already easily a top 5 player - but as I noted - his story isn’t written yet - he’s still adding to his legend
His longevity and mostly health is of course a big part of why
i mean Penny and a grant hill would be more heralded if healthy longer .
Just like Bo Jackson in the NFL
maybe I misunderstood. I'm not saying Larry was dominant during those years.. but he's not the most dominant player ever.
Sure, there's plenty of guys who would've had longer careers and more heralded if they stayed healthy.. but they wouldn't be 38 years old and dominating. That's where your point is way off.
1) Lebron spends millions on his body each year. His longevity isn't all luck. Luck is always part of it, but he gives himself the best chance to stay healthy.
2) Lebron isn't out here racking up mediocre counting stats. He's still one of the most dominant players in the league. Hill and Penny would've had better careers than what they did, but they would've fallen off after a certain point.. Lebron hasn't fallen off yet.
On Bill Russell winning 11 titles in 13 years backed with "but it was only an 8 team league!"
OK true, but it also means each of those 8 teams were pretty loaded. Not a lot of easy wins in the regular season, but the Celtics kept winning against teams that would often start 2-3 hall of famers alongside the "plumbers and firefighters".
Like the 1964 Royals had the Big O, Jack Twyman, Jerry Lucas, and Bob Boozer, Adrian Smith, Wayne Embry -- a pretty loaded team -- and the Celtics beat them 4-1 yet again.
(I don't have him as number one but I do put him on the Mt Rushmore as I said before.)
Then the year after Russell retires, they go 34-48 and miss the playoffs.
OK true, but it also means each of those 8 teams were pretty loaded. Not a lot of easy wins in the regular season, but the Celtics kept winning against teams that would often start 2-3 hall of famers alongside the "plumbers and firefighters".
Like the 1964 Royals had the Big O, Jack Twyman, Jerry Lucas, and Bob Boozer, Adrian Smith, Wayne Embry -- a pretty loaded team -- and the Celtics beat them 4-1 yet again.
(I don't have him as number one but I do put him on the Mt Rushmore as I said before.)
Then the year after Russell retires, they go 34-48 and miss the playoffs.
A thoughtful and fair rebuttal, but maybe a better way to say my point is that for those 8 Championships, Russel only needed to win 2 series to win the Championship instead of the 4 needed now. There's a difference there.
But don't get me wrong. I think Russell is one of the all time greats. I just don't think the "Championship argument" places him in the top 3.
Remind me what happened following that "year after Russell retired". They took 1st place in their division 5 out of the next 6 years and won two more championships.
Stacked teams? If you were 6'2 and could dribble without looking at the ball you made an NBA team in the 50s and early 60s. If you could dribble with both hands you were burned at the stake for being a witch.
Similar threads
