Between Curry and KD, who is the 2nd best player of the era?

[slapKing]

Obviously LeBron is number 1, but who is the number 2?

Click to read more...

 

[Neutrinos]

Chris Paul

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Curry hands down, he fits much better into team basketball than Durant in both his game and personality. Durant is like if the GOAT pick up basketball player had an NBA career. Which is still good enough to have a superstar player career but the mix is slightly off compared to Curry.

 

[Neutrinos]

Age 21 - 34:

Curry (30302 minutes)
23.8 PER, .627 TS%, 128 WS, .203 WS/48, 6.6 BPM, 65.6 VORP

Durant (30528 minutes)
26.6 PER, .631 TS%, 151.7 WS, .239 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, 75.2 VORP

Paul (32750 minutes)
25.3 PER, .585 TS%, 169.9 WS, .249 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, 80.9 VORP


OP should feel shame for not including Paul in the poll

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Curry hands down, he fits much better into team basketball than Durant in both his game and personality. Durant is like if the GOAT pick up basketball player had an NBA career. Which is still good enough to have a superstar player career but the mix is slightly off compared to Curry.

Durant can impact a game just in the flow of an offense and is a very effective defender. Curry is a below average defensive player who needs plays and (illegal) screens run for him to maximize his effectiveness.

 

[slapKing]

Age 21 - 34:

Curry (30302 minutes)
23.8 PER, .627 TS%, 128 WS, .203 WS/48, 6.6 BPM, 65.6 VORP

Durant (30528 minutes)
26.6 PER, .631 TS%, 151.7 WS, .239 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, 75.2 VORP

Paul (32750 minutes)
25.3 PER, .585 TS%, 169.9 WS, .249 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, 80.9 VORP


OP should feel shame for not including Paul in the poll

Since when was Chris Paul considered in this conversation? I never heard anyone considered Paul on the same level with Steph and KD.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Since when was Chris Paul considered in this conversation? I never heard anyone considered Paul on the same level with Steph and KD.

Maybe you aren't listening to the right people, but he's always been better than Curry

 

[Neutrinos]

Since when was Chris Paul considered in this conversation? I never heard anyone considered Paul on the same level with Steph and KD.

Chris Paul is likely the most underrated player in NBA history. In fact, he's so underrated, I'm not sure he ever qualified as a "superstar"

16th all-time in PER, ahead of players like Tim Duncan, Magic Johnson, Karl Malone, Steph Curry

6th all-time in OWS

9th all-time in WS

6th all-time in WS/48

6th all-time in BPM

6th all-time in VORP

3x playoff leader in PER & WS/48

2x playoff leader in OBPM & BPM

 

[GKJ]

So much of the NBA is weighted on winning and championships, and Chris Paul never did it. He’s in the Dominique Wilkins/Allen Iverson Zone. Good enough player to have won, but he didn’t, and that separates him from others.

 

[Neutrinos]

So much of the NBA is weighted on winning and championships, and Chris Paul never did it. He’s in the Dominique Wilkins/Allen Iverson Zone. Good enough player to have won, but he didn’t, and that separates him from others.

Team accomplishments have no place in the discussion about individual players

And neither Wilkins nor Iverson are in the same "zone" as Paul

Wilkins age 23 - 34 (33493 minutes)
22.1 PER, .539 TS%, 110 WS, .158 WS/48, 3.7 BPM, 48.2 VORP

Iverson age 21 - 34 (37584 minutes)
20.9 PER, .518 TS%, 99 WS, .126 WS/48, 3.2 BPM, 49.6 VORP

Paul age 21 - 34 (32750 minutes)
25.3 PER, .585 TS%, 169.9 WS, .249 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, 80.9 VORP

 

[JackSlater]

Durant comfortably. He has done a lot of dumb stuff and people hold it against him, but he's clearly been the second best player of the past generation. He and Curry were even on the same team, which was built around Curry's strengths, and Durant was better there too. I think the debate starts at #3 and I'm not at all convinced it would be Curry.

To put it in hockey terms, in my eyes Curry is the Brodeur to Durant's Hasek (or Roy).

 

[bambamcam4ever]

So much of the NBA is weighted on winning and championships, and Chris Paul never did it. He’s in the Dominique Wilkins/Allen Iverson Zone. Good enough player to have won, but he didn’t, and that separates him from others.

Iverson is nowhere near Paul. One of the most overrated players ever- he was entertaining, but jacked up so many bad shots.

 

[GKJ]

Team accomplishments have no place in the discussion about individual players

And neither Wilkins nor Iverson are in the same "zone" as Paul

Wilkins age 23 - 34 (33493 minutes)
22.1 PER, .539 TS%, 110 WS, .158 WS/48, 3.7 BPM, 48.2 VORP

Iverson age 21 - 34 (37584 minutes)
20.9 PER, .518 TS%, 99 WS, .126 WS/48, 3.2 BPM, 49.6 VORP

Paul age 21 - 34 (32750 minutes)
25.3 PER, .585 TS%, 169.9 WS, .249 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, 80.9 VORP

Unfortunately, in the NBA, over at least the last 50 years, they do. It’s a very tough reality for those who don’t. The very best win championships, and those guys transcend the sport itself. If you don’t, you’re not simply one of them. It doesn’t not make you great, or a hall of fame guy, it just doesn’t make you the very best. Winning championships in the NBA quite frankly means more than any other sport as the players take their teams and make each other global entities. That’s the blueprint that’s been followed since Jordan, and it was the same with Kobe.

The NBA is a league of have and have-nots. The concentration among the best players is so small, and the accolades are so specific, and the league is so star-driven, that entire franchises get blown up on a moment’s notice because it’s so personal to them.

There is no disputing the raw numbers, but in the NBA, not only are you winning, but this era has levels to that where you have to be a top banana like LeBron was and Steph has been, multiple times, Kawhi, Giannis, looks like Jokic is about to get one and we have guys like Durant and Kyrie who were winners but were so compelled to go it alone (looks like Kyrie has given up the ghost). And then you have guys like Paul, like Harden, or Westbrook, possibly Embiid who are never getting there. And it’s just, like, sorry, the top rungs of the ladder are occupied exclusively by those with specific achievements, and anyone who doesn’t have them will always be looking up at them.

 

[GKJ]

Iverson is nowhere near Paul. One of the most overrated players ever- he was entertaining, but jacked up so many bad shots.

That was also a different era. Defense was played harder and scoring was lower. Iverson for his time, he was definitely on that level below Kobe and Duncan. He’d have better numbers today because he wouldn’t be getting bludgeoned every time he went to the basket, and on a superteam actually have someone to pass the ball to (maybe even someone who can shoot)

 

[bambamcam4ever]

That was also a different era. Defense was played harder and scoring was lower. Iverson for his time, he was definitely on that level below Kobe and Duncan. He’d have better numbers today because he wouldn’t be getting bludgeoned every time he went to the basket, and on a superteam actually have someone to pass the ball to (maybe even someone who can shoot)

I do somewhat agree, but he did get a ton of FTs even at that time so I wonder if he was the exception to the rule. But I question how good an Iverson-led offense could become due to his playstyle- even as the league started being more friendly to smaller players, he never changed his game.

But I have Paul as the clear 3rd best player of the last 15 years after James and Durant.

 

[OKR]

I do somewhat agree, but he did get a ton of FTs even at that time so I wonder if he was the exception to the rule. But I question how good an Iverson-led offense could become due to his playstyle- even as the league started being more friendly to smaller players, he never changed his game.

But I have Paul as the clear 3rd best player of the last 15 years after James and Durant.

This is absolutely wild. I totally can understand choosing Paul over AI but wow.

Iverson led his team further than Paul alone ever did, Iverson was the way better scorer and Iverson also peaked higher amongst his peers when he won the MVP. It mostly comes down to preferance which you choose, to think they’re nowhere close is just weird.

 

[Neutrinos]

This is absolutely wild. I totally can understand choosing Paul over AI but wow.

Iverson led his team further than Paul alone ever did, Iverson was the way better scorer and Iverson also peaked higher amongst his peers when he won the MVP. It mostly comes down to preferance which you choose, to think they’re nowhere close is just weird.

You should do a little research before posting your uneducated opinion as if it's a fact

Iverson's '01 MVP season:
7th in PER (24.0). Shaq was 1st with 30.3
10th in WS (11.8). Shaq was 1st with 14.9
12th in WS/48 (.190) David Robinson was 1st with .249
6th in BPM (6.1). Shaq was 1st with 7.6
6th in VORP (6.1). Vince Carter was 1st with 7.2

Paul's '08 season:
2nd in PER (28.3). LeBron was 1st with 29.1
1st in WS (17.8)
1st in WS/48 (.284)
2nd in BPM (10.4). LeBron was 1st with 10.9
2nd in VORP (9.3). LeBron was 1st with 9.8

Paul's '09 season:
3rd in PER (30.0). LeBron was 1st with 31.7, Wade was 2nd with 30,4)
2nd in WS (18.3). LeBron was 1st with 20.3
2nd in WS/48 (.292). LeBron was 1st with .318
2nd in BPM (11.0). LeBron was 1st with 13.2
2nd in VORP (9.9). LeBron was 1st with 11.8)

 

[Neutrinos]

Unfortunately, in the NBA, over at least the last 50 years, they do. It’s a very tough reality for those who don’t. The very best win championships, and those guys transcend the sport itself. If you don’t, you’re not simply one of them. It doesn’t not make you great, or a hall of fame guy, it just doesn’t make you the very best. Winning championships in the NBA quite frankly means more than any other sport as the players take their teams and make each other global entities. That’s the blueprint that’s been followed since Jordan, and it was the same with Kobe.

The NBA is a league of have and have-nots. The concentration among the best players is so small, and the accolades are so specific, and the league is so star-driven, that entire franchises get blown up on a moment’s notice because it’s so personal to them.

There is no disputing the raw numbers, but in the NBA, not only are you winning, but this era has levels to that where you have to be a top banana like LeBron was and Steph has been, multiple times, Kawhi, Giannis, looks like Jokic is about to get one and we have guys like Durant and Kyrie who were winners but were so compelled to go it alone (looks like Kyrie has given up the ghost). And then you have guys like Paul, like Harden, or Westbrook, possibly Embiid who are never getting there. And it’s just, like, sorry, the top rungs of the ladder are occupied exclusively by those with specific achievements, and anyone who doesn’t have them will always be looking up at them.

A player can only control how they perform, and that's all they should be judged on

It's irrelevant what the outcome of the game is

 

[GKJ]

A player can only control how they perform, and that's all they should be judged on

It's irrelevant what the outcome of the game is

That’s not how sports talk works. Players play to win. All of the greats in any sport will tell you that. That’s what separates the best from the great.

 

[Neutrinos]

That’s not how sports talk works. Players play to win. All of the greats in any sport will tell you that. That’s what separates the best from the great.

I don't care about the false narratives being spun

A player can only control how they perform, and that's all they should be judged on

 

[GKJ]

I don't care about the false narratives being spun

A player can only control how they perform, and that's all they should be judged on

False narrative? what? The NBA has never been about this at any point over the last 30 years, and maybe not ever.

Winning championships aren’t false narratives. Establishing yourself as an alpha in this league isn’t either. Jordan knew it, Kobe knew it, LeBron. They knew, to be the greatest, they had to attain ALL of the highest accomplishments. They took the metaphorical ball on their hands, and they did not settle for controlling how only they performed, they forced themselves and others - entire organizations- to find and take more and spared little expense to do it.

It’s much easier to say winning doesn’t matter when you don’t do it. Bottom line, tried and true, without dispute, the absolute best are winners, and ones who did not, are not. It doesn’t make them not great, they just cannot objectively be considered on the highest levels.

 

[Neutrinos]

False narrative? what? The NBA has never been about this at any point over the last 30 years, and maybe not ever.

Winning championships aren’t false narratives. Establishing yourself as an alpha in this league isn’t either. Jordan knew it, Kobe knew it, LeBron. They knew, to be the greatest, they had to attain ALL of the highest accomplishments. They took the metaphorical ball on their hands, and they did not settle for controlling how only they performed, they forced themselves and others - entire organizations- to find and take more and spared little expense to do it.

It’s much easier to say winning doesn’t matter when you don’t do it. Bottom line, tried and true, without dispute, the absolute best are winners, and ones who did not, are not. It doesn’t make them not great, they just cannot objectively be considered on the highest levels.

A player can only control how they perform, and that's all they should be judged on

 

[GKJ]

A player can only control how they perform, and that's all they should be judged on

Ok, obviously this is a lie you’ve repeated to yourself to the point you’ve convinced yourself that it’s true despite all evidence otherwise.

 

[Neutrinos]

Ok, obviously this is a lie you’ve repeated to yourself to the point you’ve convinced yourself that it’s true despite all evidence otherwise.

Opinions are not evidence

 

[GKJ]

Opinions are not evidence

Perception is reality.