In my opinion, it's his height and weight (Table 1) that really seal it. 6'2 and 185 pounds is getting close to "normal guy" territory. Granted, as he's aged, he's done a great job of putting on muscle so that he can drive and defend better, so that weight is probably a bit higher by now.
Still, every other person considered an all-timer is at least 6'6 (Kobe and MJ's height). There's only a couple guys ever regarded even remotely close to Curry at 6'2ish - Isiah Thomas, Kyrie, Iverson... It's a short list of guys who were able to leave their impact among the trees. The difference is that Curry is the only short guy who made the entire game smaller, with teams like the Rockets opting to play 6'6 centers so that they could run and shoot from ~2017-2021.
That era is over now - feels like the game is bigger than ever, with 6'10+ "unicorn" shooters on half the teams in the league. France literally has one of them - Wemby is 7'4 and made a third of his 3s last season! But Curry is still there, after 15 seasons of carrying the Warriors, showing up in crunch time on even the biggest stages. So inspirational.
Steph is starting at a H/W disadvantage, yes. While GOAT lists can be substantiated statistically, they don't take into account game flow things like clutch play (Curry seems to always rise when it's on the line) and really, passing. All three of these guys are outstanding passers of the ball. But shooting is where Curry distinguishes his game. He shoots the ball with a high arc (probably borne of necessity due to being 6'2") and he makes almost half the time from beyond the arc. Sometimes well beyond the arc.
I didn't see anything in your article indicating the playoff road the respective teams needed to go through. Without taking absolutely anything away from Magic, the Lakers won the Western Conference 8 times in the 10 year period from 1980-1989. Who was their competition? On the flip side, the Celtics had to complete with an always very good-great 76ers team, and then a Pistons dynasty. How many more Finals appearances would the Celtics have had if the 76ers had been lesser?
I'm not sure "comfortably" is the best word - it's a good argument but when you start making the actual list you run into problems. Jordan, LeBron, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Duncan, Oscar, Kobe, Jerry West, Shaq, Durant - Curry is absolutely in there, and I'm not saying he needs to be outside the top ten, but you need to get into qualitative value judgements to compare different generations and peak vs overall career to cut five of those guys. He's comfortably in the discussion for top ten all time, which is pretty spectacular given that he's still playing at an elite level.
I’d disagree. Shaq and Duncan have had better careers than Curry. Curry has had a better career than Durant, Oscar, Kobe, or West. Kobe won 5 championships but he was Shaq’s sidekick on 3 of them.
Competing alongside a very talented generation of players, Curry gets overshadowed more than he should. Out of the cohort, he is the only one that fundamentally changed the way the game is played.
I can't believe anyone thinks Kobe is in the same league as Steph. The Mamba got more mileage off of a scowl than any player in history. Poor poor man's Michael Jordan.
If Steph plays five more years and somehow the Warriors start challenging for championships again while he is still there, then it will be interesting to see how high he goes on the list. He literally and figuratively will be competing against the big guys with big numbers to back him up. What he did yesterday was amazing.
Love that there is finally some sports content, a much healthier obsession than politics. I think Curry gets knocked down a beg often because of the Durant years and him not necessarily being the clear #1 while Durant was on the team, though this was salvaged by his latest championship being sans Durant. I'd also add that being the best player on the team with the best regular season record should help push him into top 10 (not to mention 5 straight NBA finals).
OK, Nate, you sound like a relative newcomer to the NBA, because I'm getting a heady whiff of recency bias. As someone who watched Wilt jump center (every quarter!) as a kid, and Kareem come into the league as Lew Alcindor that same year, my central question is, which 3 of the following are you bumping to make room for Steph? MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, Oscar, Durant, Mikan? Please bear in mind that there are non-statistical criteria too, esp. way when many stats just weren't kept: (1) dominance in era (hence Mikan and maybe even Pettit, who I didn't mention for relative lack of championships) -- Steph suffers here mostly because, according to Finals MVP voting, he was the second-best player on his team during two of his championships; (2) Eye test (c.f. Kobe); and (3) Defense, which is mainly a non-statistical category "measured" only since '68 by membership on the All-Defense Teams and by various regular stats since '83, Defense is a category in which Steph does not exactly excel, with other teams regularly going at him not just to tire him out on offense but primarily because he's always been viewed as the Warriors weakest link on that end of the floor. PS "Fun sports post" sounds like a politics guy talking. I do love you on politics, and in fact I enjoyed this post immensely. But don't forget that sports can get many people, er, quite exercised!
There is literally nothing Duncan did better than Hakeem besides be drafted to the best organization in the league. Hakeem was a better defender scorer and rebounder and an equal passer. They had similar longevity and Hakeem got better in the playoffs. And if we're counting the Olympics Duncan in 04 had the worst showing ever.
For what it's worth (everyone's opinion will differ), I think that that Steph is definitively ahead of Oscar, Durant, and Mikan, and there's a strong case to put him ahead of Hakeem, Wilt, and Shaq as well. (I notice that you're missing Bird, by the way. He certainly belongs on this list!) I think that it's fun to have these kinds of conversations, and I welcome any pushback.
Durant is the easiest - his greatest successes came on Curry's teams. Only one of them won without the other.
Mikan was surprisingly inefficient - 40% career field goal on high volume. Watching some tape, it's clear that it was harder to score in an era with so many short jumpers and scoop shots, but if we're playing the dominance card, his massive size advantage should've yielded more offensive impact.
Oscar didn't translate his well-rounded game into championships - never made it to the finals in Cincinnati and only won 1 chip on a stacked roster in Milwaukee with a young Kareem.
Hakeem follows a similar vein - after a year 2 breakthrough to the finals, his team was bounced from 4 straight playoffs in round 1, won 2 finals while Jordan was gone, and never made it back. Granted, as a 2 time DPOY and 1 time MVP during a period of great ball, along with his longevity, this is a harder case.
Regarding Wilt and Shaq, I generally disagree that dominance is the same as greatness. There's a point where I think a player's dominance raises the question of whether they met their potential. Wilt put up insane numbers but was continuously foiled by Russell's tight, team-oriented approach. For as good as Shaq was and as much as he won, he could've been even better had he kept in shape and practiced during the offseason (his words, not mine). I find the legendary hard-workers much more impressive.
For what it's worth, my top 10 in a loose order is:
MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Russell, Magic, Duncan, Curry, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem. These lists get harder and harder...
Excellent rejoinder, Wil! Mea culpa to the omission of Bird! Of course I didn't mean it (except subconsciously in my Laker-fan past).
As for Shaq, I totally agree and disagree. Yes, he would've been much greater if he'd been the kind of worker Kobe was, a point made fiercely by, well, Kobe. But I think "as is" he was the most dominant player of his era. Admittedly, "era" is a slippery thing, because MJ was better at the beginning and everyone was better by the end. He was the only three-time consecutive Finals MVP winner other than Jordan (twice). These are the facts of his career, unblurred by considerations of what might have been. I think he is ahead of Akeem on the all-time list.
Curry is the worst defensive player on either of our lists. He has one Finals MVP. He's still relegated to kissing the hems of those in my top 10 (and, oh yeah, Bird is definitely there!).
I see your points on Oscar. (And he was also nothing special on D.)
But recency bias and not having your ducks in a row (cf. me on Bird!) mean you've missed the boat by a surprisingly wide margin on Mikan. Bad field goal percentages are your argument, seriously? His "bad" FG% were actually among the league's elite: in his very short career he finished 2nd in FG% in 1949, 5th in 1950, 3rd in 1951, 17th in 1952, 12th in 1953, 16th in 1954, retired (well, back the following year for only that one year).
Not enough of an offensive impact, that's your other argument? You forget that Mikan played only one season in his prime before the 24-second clock, which means offensive numbers were wayyyy lower. The lowest-scoring game in history happened in 1950 because the Fort Wayne Pistons legally played "keep-away" from Mikan. That game ended 19-18.
When Mikan led the league in 1948 with a 28.4 scoring average, only THREE players in the league scored over 20! He beat the next-best player by 6.7 points, or a preposterous 24%. Try that offensive dominance on for size, Michael Jordan!
Mikan was All-NBA first team five straight years. NBA championships in 5 of the 6 years he played before retiring, and in each case he would've been by far the Finals MVP -- if only it had been awarded back then. The man owned an entire NBA era.
My final word on Wilt (who I saw live): never omit him from a top 10. Just don't do it. He's simply the man who owns the records, the Babe Ruth of our sport.
And please, tool up before you come at Mr. Mikan! That goes for you too, Nate Silver!
Appreciate the response! I'm not a huge fan of the Finals MVP debate surrounding Curry, given that he should have 2 (arguably 3), but it is a fair point to raise. I feel like the unanimous MVP has to mean something here, especially given it stemmed the three or four greatest offensive seasons of all time. I also believe that he is one of the handful of greats who truly raised the profile of the sport by creating moments which cannot be replicated. Obviously, that's subjective, but I think his cache of highlights belong next to anyone else on your list. I maintain my belief in his greatness!
With that being said, I truly appreciate your perspective on Wilt and Mikan. I still tend to think that even including Mikan in these comparisons is a challenge; I recognize that my initial argument was unfair by looking at his efficiency and impact through a modern lens, but your points illustrated how the sport he dominated was different enough from these other eras. I definitely need to see a lot more of his footage to get a real sense of who he was. Do you think that he'd still be equally dominant in a league where the average height is 6'6.7 (today) compared to 6'3.6 (1950)?
Genuinely enjoyed your reply, glad you took the time to write it out!
First I have to mention again something that you still haven't, ever, which is defense. This is what sets Curry apart from almost every other player on all our lists -- in a negative sense. Wilt, for example, retired the year before blocked shots became an official stat, but there is an unofficial stat for 112 of his games played at the very end of his career when he was 35-36 -- and he averaged an astonishing 8.8 blocks per game. Bill Russell averaged 8.1. By contrast, the best Hakeem (the most proficient shotblocker on our lists) ever did was 4.59 per game.
Similarly but even more so, you're right that Mikan is impossible to compare to current players. He was so much bigger and stronger than anyone in his day that he dominated because of it. Would Mikan be able to average 28 points per game in today's NBA? Not even close. But that doesn't change the fact that in his era, Mikan was the greatest basketball player on earth. I doubt Russell would win 11 championships in 13 years if he were playing today. I doubt Wilt Chamberlain would be able to snare 55 rebounds in a single game today. (He did that against Bill Russell!)
The admitted difficulty of comparing eras, however, doesn't mean that we can totally shrug off the task entirely and ignore Mikan's very compelling case. We still have to try. That's why the NBA always ranks him in its greatest players ever. We have to do what we can with the means available to us.
Speaking of bigger and stronger than anyone else, so were Wilt and Shaq in their eras. One thing that differentiated Wilt and Russell from every other major NBA center is that both of them were national-caliber track and field athletes. Russell was the #2 high-jumper in the US and #7 in the world. He ran the 440-yard dash in 49.6. According to Wikipedia, competing in high school, Chamberlain "high-jumped 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot 53 feet, 4 inches, and long jumped 22 feet."
Finals MVP aren't the most objective measure, I agree with you there too, but they are a measure. Arguably, other than the eye test, they are the best thing Jordan's got going in his favor as greatest player of all time. 6 for 6 only happened once in NBA history, and it might well have been 8 for 8 if he hadn't retired for almost 2 years.
Russell always has to be kept near the top because he was easily the most outstanding (and only common denominator) on a team that won 11 championships in 13 years. And if they'd given Finals MVPs before his final year, who knows how many he'd've won?
As for Curry's being jobbed out of two Finals MVPs, I have to demur. Even leaving aside the crucial question of defense -- which would weigh strongly in Durant's favor -- please look at the finals composite boxes. Durant scored better in both finals, esp. in 2017, when he scored 8.4 points more per game (he also scored more in 2018). In both finals Durant was far the more efficient player, shooting .556 to only .440 from the field in 2017 and a steady .526 to a miserable .402 for Curry in 2018. Surprisingly, Durant even out-assisted Curry in 2017 (though not in 2018, when Curry enjoyed a nice margin). On/off stats aren't kept for the finals per se, but Curry had a better on/off (2nd overall; Draymond first) than Durant (4th overall) for the whole of the 2017 playoffs. The following year, however, Durant turned that around: he finished 1st among all players, and Curry was 4th. (The Warriors had the entire top 5 that year!) I don't know if you trust advanced stats, but in terms of Game Score, both Finals series Durant wiped the floor with Curry, 30.3 to 24.1 and 26.9 to 20.1. So in sum, though I was rooting for Curry at the time, I have to agree that Durant had the better case in both of those years.
I rank the top 14 (in order) as MJ, Russell, Kareem, Wilt, Lebron, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan, Mikan, and then a clump of Hakeem-Kobe-Curry-Durant. But with both Curry and Durant still going strong, they might rise as far as #11 depending on the rest of their careers. Lebron has slowed down, which is only natural, so he can't make my Mt. Rushmore.
Me neither, but hey, it's something he wanted to write about and I could have skipped it.
Plus, from a pragmatic point of view, Nate needs something to sustain the substack between major elections. I expect we'll see a lot more sports content post-November.
Love this post Nate. Agreed that Curry seems generally undervalued somehow and should be considered higher. My only bone to pick is that Bird seems undervalued by you in couple of key ways. 1. Rebounds! Bird averaged 10 a game! That also makes his overall basic stat impact - Points+ Rebounds+ Assists, higher than Magic and much higher than Curry. 2. Teammates! - Magic played with Kareem. That can't be ignored. Kareem has a legitimate GOAT argument, was dropping 20+ a game in late 30's and possesed the league's most iconic and unstoppable shot...until Curry's 3. Speaking of Curry there's the general sense that Durant was the better of the two, when they played together. Either way, Durant is most likely a top 20 all timer. Meanwhile Bird didnt have a Kareem or a Durant. Without getting too deep we can fairly say his best teammates (McHale, DJ, Parish) were more or less on the level of Worthy, Thompson or Green. They are HOF's, but not close to sniffing the top 20. Finally, unlike Bird or Magic, Curry was not dominant early in his career, some fans actually preferred Monta Ellis!
It's a fun sports post, so keeping comments open to everyone here. Be nice, everybody!
Can we please have the subscriber q and a!?
Did you purposely leave
Your infographic has Magic highlighted with the best RPG stat of 7.2, when Bird is 10.0.
In my opinion, it's his height and weight (Table 1) that really seal it. 6'2 and 185 pounds is getting close to "normal guy" territory. Granted, as he's aged, he's done a great job of putting on muscle so that he can drive and defend better, so that weight is probably a bit higher by now.
Still, every other person considered an all-timer is at least 6'6 (Kobe and MJ's height). There's only a couple guys ever regarded even remotely close to Curry at 6'2ish - Isiah Thomas, Kyrie, Iverson... It's a short list of guys who were able to leave their impact among the trees. The difference is that Curry is the only short guy who made the entire game smaller, with teams like the Rockets opting to play 6'6 centers so that they could run and shoot from ~2017-2021.
That era is over now - feels like the game is bigger than ever, with 6'10+ "unicorn" shooters on half the teams in the league. France literally has one of them - Wemby is 7'4 and made a third of his 3s last season! But Curry is still there, after 15 seasons of carrying the Warriors, showing up in crunch time on even the biggest stages. So inspirational.
Steph is starting at a H/W disadvantage, yes. While GOAT lists can be substantiated statistically, they don't take into account game flow things like clutch play (Curry seems to always rise when it's on the line) and really, passing. All three of these guys are outstanding passers of the ball. But shooting is where Curry distinguishes his game. He shoots the ball with a high arc (probably borne of necessity due to being 6'2") and he makes almost half the time from beyond the arc. Sometimes well beyond the arc.
But how does this affect Kamala in Michigan
Best comment here, easily.
I didn't see anything in your article indicating the playoff road the respective teams needed to go through. Without taking absolutely anything away from Magic, the Lakers won the Western Conference 8 times in the 10 year period from 1980-1989. Who was their competition? On the flip side, the Celtics had to complete with an always very good-great 76ers team, and then a Pistons dynasty. How many more Finals appearances would the Celtics have had if the 76ers had been lesser?
The 1987 Lakers played a 37-45, 42-40, and 39-43 team on route to the finals. Boston that year faced the 40-42 bulls, 50-32 bucks, and 52-30 Pistons.
Or if the Sixers and Pistons were in the other conference
I'm not sure "comfortably" is the best word - it's a good argument but when you start making the actual list you run into problems. Jordan, LeBron, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Duncan, Oscar, Kobe, Jerry West, Shaq, Durant - Curry is absolutely in there, and I'm not saying he needs to be outside the top ten, but you need to get into qualitative value judgements to compare different generations and peak vs overall career to cut five of those guys. He's comfortably in the discussion for top ten all time, which is pretty spectacular given that he's still playing at an elite level.
He’s had a better career than Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, & Durant, equal-ish to West, Kobe, Oscar imho. This puts him in the top 10, comfortably.
I’d disagree. Shaq and Duncan have had better careers than Curry. Curry has had a better career than Durant, Oscar, Kobe, or West. Kobe won 5 championships but he was Shaq’s sidekick on 3 of them.
Competing alongside a very talented generation of players, Curry gets overshadowed more than he should. Out of the cohort, he is the only one that fundamentally changed the way the game is played.
No the rules changed.
Steph and analytics caused the proliferation of 3 pointers much more so than any rules I’m aware of. If I’m incorrect, please elaborate.
Easily top 10 all time as long as you give zero weight to defense.
Any chance that we will see NFL forecasts here in the Silver Bulletin?
Is Steph ahead of Kobe?
Yes
No. Get serious. Who would you really rather have on your team.
Steph
Curry.
Steph. Kobe was a high volume shooter who needed big rebounders to be effective.
Basketball-reference doesn't list a player's OGT. Anywhere I can find it?
It’s close, but yeah I’d say so
I can't believe anyone thinks Kobe is in the same league as Steph. The Mamba got more mileage off of a scowl than any player in history. Poor poor man's Michael Jordan.
Kobe could win championships when he had all star bigs to rebound all of his missed shots.
If Steph plays five more years and somehow the Warriors start challenging for championships again while he is still there, then it will be interesting to see how high he goes on the list. He literally and figuratively will be competing against the big guys with big numbers to back him up. What he did yesterday was amazing.
Love that there is finally some sports content, a much healthier obsession than politics. I think Curry gets knocked down a beg often because of the Durant years and him not necessarily being the clear #1 while Durant was on the team, though this was salvaged by his latest championship being sans Durant. I'd also add that being the best player on the team with the best regular season record should help push him into top 10 (not to mention 5 straight NBA finals).
OK, Nate, you sound like a relative newcomer to the NBA, because I'm getting a heady whiff of recency bias. As someone who watched Wilt jump center (every quarter!) as a kid, and Kareem come into the league as Lew Alcindor that same year, my central question is, which 3 of the following are you bumping to make room for Steph? MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, Oscar, Durant, Mikan? Please bear in mind that there are non-statistical criteria too, esp. way when many stats just weren't kept: (1) dominance in era (hence Mikan and maybe even Pettit, who I didn't mention for relative lack of championships) -- Steph suffers here mostly because, according to Finals MVP voting, he was the second-best player on his team during two of his championships; (2) Eye test (c.f. Kobe); and (3) Defense, which is mainly a non-statistical category "measured" only since '68 by membership on the All-Defense Teams and by various regular stats since '83, Defense is a category in which Steph does not exactly excel, with other teams regularly going at him not just to tire him out on offense but primarily because he's always been viewed as the Warriors weakest link on that end of the floor. PS "Fun sports post" sounds like a politics guy talking. I do love you on politics, and in fact I enjoyed this post immensely. But don't forget that sports can get many people, er, quite exercised!
Top Ten: MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Bird, Curry, and Russell.
Don't tell me Russell is actually 10th on your list, Theo. Please don't tell me that.
There is literally nothing Duncan did better than Hakeem besides be drafted to the best organization in the league. Hakeem was a better defender scorer and rebounder and an equal passer. They had similar longevity and Hakeem got better in the playoffs. And if we're counting the Olympics Duncan in 04 had the worst showing ever.
For what it's worth (everyone's opinion will differ), I think that that Steph is definitively ahead of Oscar, Durant, and Mikan, and there's a strong case to put him ahead of Hakeem, Wilt, and Shaq as well. (I notice that you're missing Bird, by the way. He certainly belongs on this list!) I think that it's fun to have these kinds of conversations, and I welcome any pushback.
Durant is the easiest - his greatest successes came on Curry's teams. Only one of them won without the other.
Mikan was surprisingly inefficient - 40% career field goal on high volume. Watching some tape, it's clear that it was harder to score in an era with so many short jumpers and scoop shots, but if we're playing the dominance card, his massive size advantage should've yielded more offensive impact.
Oscar didn't translate his well-rounded game into championships - never made it to the finals in Cincinnati and only won 1 chip on a stacked roster in Milwaukee with a young Kareem.
Hakeem follows a similar vein - after a year 2 breakthrough to the finals, his team was bounced from 4 straight playoffs in round 1, won 2 finals while Jordan was gone, and never made it back. Granted, as a 2 time DPOY and 1 time MVP during a period of great ball, along with his longevity, this is a harder case.
Regarding Wilt and Shaq, I generally disagree that dominance is the same as greatness. There's a point where I think a player's dominance raises the question of whether they met their potential. Wilt put up insane numbers but was continuously foiled by Russell's tight, team-oriented approach. For as good as Shaq was and as much as he won, he could've been even better had he kept in shape and practiced during the offseason (his words, not mine). I find the legendary hard-workers much more impressive.
For what it's worth, my top 10 in a loose order is:
MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Russell, Magic, Duncan, Curry, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem. These lists get harder and harder...
Excellent rejoinder, Wil! Mea culpa to the omission of Bird! Of course I didn't mean it (except subconsciously in my Laker-fan past).
As for Shaq, I totally agree and disagree. Yes, he would've been much greater if he'd been the kind of worker Kobe was, a point made fiercely by, well, Kobe. But I think "as is" he was the most dominant player of his era. Admittedly, "era" is a slippery thing, because MJ was better at the beginning and everyone was better by the end. He was the only three-time consecutive Finals MVP winner other than Jordan (twice). These are the facts of his career, unblurred by considerations of what might have been. I think he is ahead of Akeem on the all-time list.
Curry is the worst defensive player on either of our lists. He has one Finals MVP. He's still relegated to kissing the hems of those in my top 10 (and, oh yeah, Bird is definitely there!).
I see your points on Oscar. (And he was also nothing special on D.)
But recency bias and not having your ducks in a row (cf. me on Bird!) mean you've missed the boat by a surprisingly wide margin on Mikan. Bad field goal percentages are your argument, seriously? His "bad" FG% were actually among the league's elite: in his very short career he finished 2nd in FG% in 1949, 5th in 1950, 3rd in 1951, 17th in 1952, 12th in 1953, 16th in 1954, retired (well, back the following year for only that one year).
Not enough of an offensive impact, that's your other argument? You forget that Mikan played only one season in his prime before the 24-second clock, which means offensive numbers were wayyyy lower. The lowest-scoring game in history happened in 1950 because the Fort Wayne Pistons legally played "keep-away" from Mikan. That game ended 19-18.
When Mikan led the league in 1948 with a 28.4 scoring average, only THREE players in the league scored over 20! He beat the next-best player by 6.7 points, or a preposterous 24%. Try that offensive dominance on for size, Michael Jordan!
Mikan was All-NBA first team five straight years. NBA championships in 5 of the 6 years he played before retiring, and in each case he would've been by far the Finals MVP -- if only it had been awarded back then. The man owned an entire NBA era.
My final word on Wilt (who I saw live): never omit him from a top 10. Just don't do it. He's simply the man who owns the records, the Babe Ruth of our sport.
And please, tool up before you come at Mr. Mikan! That goes for you too, Nate Silver!
Appreciate the response! I'm not a huge fan of the Finals MVP debate surrounding Curry, given that he should have 2 (arguably 3), but it is a fair point to raise. I feel like the unanimous MVP has to mean something here, especially given it stemmed the three or four greatest offensive seasons of all time. I also believe that he is one of the handful of greats who truly raised the profile of the sport by creating moments which cannot be replicated. Obviously, that's subjective, but I think his cache of highlights belong next to anyone else on your list. I maintain my belief in his greatness!
With that being said, I truly appreciate your perspective on Wilt and Mikan. I still tend to think that even including Mikan in these comparisons is a challenge; I recognize that my initial argument was unfair by looking at his efficiency and impact through a modern lens, but your points illustrated how the sport he dominated was different enough from these other eras. I definitely need to see a lot more of his footage to get a real sense of who he was. Do you think that he'd still be equally dominant in a league where the average height is 6'6.7 (today) compared to 6'3.6 (1950)?
Genuinely enjoyed your reply, glad you took the time to write it out!
Interesting debate, Wil, I'm enjoying!
First I have to mention again something that you still haven't, ever, which is defense. This is what sets Curry apart from almost every other player on all our lists -- in a negative sense. Wilt, for example, retired the year before blocked shots became an official stat, but there is an unofficial stat for 112 of his games played at the very end of his career when he was 35-36 -- and he averaged an astonishing 8.8 blocks per game. Bill Russell averaged 8.1. By contrast, the best Hakeem (the most proficient shotblocker on our lists) ever did was 4.59 per game.
Similarly but even more so, you're right that Mikan is impossible to compare to current players. He was so much bigger and stronger than anyone in his day that he dominated because of it. Would Mikan be able to average 28 points per game in today's NBA? Not even close. But that doesn't change the fact that in his era, Mikan was the greatest basketball player on earth. I doubt Russell would win 11 championships in 13 years if he were playing today. I doubt Wilt Chamberlain would be able to snare 55 rebounds in a single game today. (He did that against Bill Russell!)
The admitted difficulty of comparing eras, however, doesn't mean that we can totally shrug off the task entirely and ignore Mikan's very compelling case. We still have to try. That's why the NBA always ranks him in its greatest players ever. We have to do what we can with the means available to us.
Speaking of bigger and stronger than anyone else, so were Wilt and Shaq in their eras. One thing that differentiated Wilt and Russell from every other major NBA center is that both of them were national-caliber track and field athletes. Russell was the #2 high-jumper in the US and #7 in the world. He ran the 440-yard dash in 49.6. According to Wikipedia, competing in high school, Chamberlain "high-jumped 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot 53 feet, 4 inches, and long jumped 22 feet."
Finals MVP aren't the most objective measure, I agree with you there too, but they are a measure. Arguably, other than the eye test, they are the best thing Jordan's got going in his favor as greatest player of all time. 6 for 6 only happened once in NBA history, and it might well have been 8 for 8 if he hadn't retired for almost 2 years.
Russell always has to be kept near the top because he was easily the most outstanding (and only common denominator) on a team that won 11 championships in 13 years. And if they'd given Finals MVPs before his final year, who knows how many he'd've won?
As for Curry's being jobbed out of two Finals MVPs, I have to demur. Even leaving aside the crucial question of defense -- which would weigh strongly in Durant's favor -- please look at the finals composite boxes. Durant scored better in both finals, esp. in 2017, when he scored 8.4 points more per game (he also scored more in 2018). In both finals Durant was far the more efficient player, shooting .556 to only .440 from the field in 2017 and a steady .526 to a miserable .402 for Curry in 2018. Surprisingly, Durant even out-assisted Curry in 2017 (though not in 2018, when Curry enjoyed a nice margin). On/off stats aren't kept for the finals per se, but Curry had a better on/off (2nd overall; Draymond first) than Durant (4th overall) for the whole of the 2017 playoffs. The following year, however, Durant turned that around: he finished 1st among all players, and Curry was 4th. (The Warriors had the entire top 5 that year!) I don't know if you trust advanced stats, but in terms of Game Score, both Finals series Durant wiped the floor with Curry, 30.3 to 24.1 and 26.9 to 20.1. So in sum, though I was rooting for Curry at the time, I have to agree that Durant had the better case in both of those years.
I rank the top 14 (in order) as MJ, Russell, Kareem, Wilt, Lebron, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan, Mikan, and then a clump of Hakeem-Kobe-Curry-Durant. But with both Curry and Durant still going strong, they might rise as far as #11 depending on the rest of their careers. Lebron has slowed down, which is only natural, so he can't make my Mt. Rushmore.
While I am a new Silver Bulletin reader, I did not expect to be reading an Article on Steph Curry.
Me neither, but hey, it's something he wanted to write about and I could have skipped it.
Plus, from a pragmatic point of view, Nate needs something to sustain the substack between major elections. I expect we'll see a lot more sports content post-November.
Now I find myserlf curious if Nate is a NFL fan...
Love this post Nate. Agreed that Curry seems generally undervalued somehow and should be considered higher. My only bone to pick is that Bird seems undervalued by you in couple of key ways. 1. Rebounds! Bird averaged 10 a game! That also makes his overall basic stat impact - Points+ Rebounds+ Assists, higher than Magic and much higher than Curry. 2. Teammates! - Magic played with Kareem. That can't be ignored. Kareem has a legitimate GOAT argument, was dropping 20+ a game in late 30's and possesed the league's most iconic and unstoppable shot...until Curry's 3. Speaking of Curry there's the general sense that Durant was the better of the two, when they played together. Either way, Durant is most likely a top 20 all timer. Meanwhile Bird didnt have a Kareem or a Durant. Without getting too deep we can fairly say his best teammates (McHale, DJ, Parish) were more or less on the level of Worthy, Thompson or Green. They are HOF's, but not close to sniffing the top 20. Finally, unlike Bird or Magic, Curry was not dominant early in his career, some fans actually preferred Monta Ellis!