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

[BostonBob]

You still have to control for team situation when comparing the amount of rings a player has. Simply counting them without context is how you get the common idiotic take of Russell being better than Chamberlain, when in reality Wilt is better and it’s not even close.

GTFO here with that garbage. If you prefer Wilt over Russell that's fine ( I personally would take Russell ) but to say that " it's not even close " might be the most idiotic take ever posted on this site.

 

[LightningStorm]

It means being able to win as the #1 guy. That’s why Kobe had to do it without Shaq. His rep, along with other reasons, was damaged post-Shaq. And to his credit, he did what he needed to do. That second run where he won twice without Shaq is what solidified his status as an all-time great, and he knew it too.

Couple things here about Kobe's 2 without Shaq:

1. Plenty of guys are capable of winning a title as a #1 option but never do. Only one team can win the title each year after all. Even before those 2 titles, Kobe was obviously capable.

2. Even though he was no longer with a peak Shaq, he was still with the most powerful organization in the NBA who was able to built a great team around him. Give him credit for taking advantage, but many players who are capable of winning as the #1 option never get as good an opportunity.

Basketball is still a team game, and this winning it as the #1 guy (and the rings argument in general) is a lazy oversimplification that ignores the nuance for how a team is built. For example, Chauncey Billups was the best player on the 2004 Pistons. I don't think of him as a player you win a title with as the #1, but based on how that team was built that was enough for him to do so. I feel the same way about Rasheed Wallace if you prefer him over Billups. While the 2004 Pistons are an extreme case and IMO probably the weakest of the 21st century champions, I feel similar about the 2014 Spurs. The 2014 versions of Duncan and Leonard aren't players I'd want as the #1 guy to win a title (Duncan was past his prime, and Leonard hadn't reached peak). But for how that team was built the Spurs were able to win a title in a dominant season from start to finish.

I think it's fair game to point out when a player is a poor playoff performer, but that's different from not winning a title, despite the correlation. Reggie Miller was a great playoff performer and is arguably the most clutch playoff 3 point shooter of all time, yet doesn't have a ring. That's different from a case like Harden and Embiid, where you can link their lack of team success in the playoffs to their poor performance.

 

[GKJ]

Couple things here about Kobe's 2 without Shaq:

1. Plenty of guys are capable of winning a title as a #1 option but never do. Only one team can win the title each year after all. Even before those 2 titles, Kobe was obviously capable.

2. Even though he was no longer with a peak Shaq, he was still with the most powerful organization in the NBA who was able to built a great team around him. Give him credit for taking advantage, but many players who are capable of winning as the #1 option never get as good an opportunity.

Basketball is still a team game, and this winning it as the #1 guy (and the rings argument in general) is a lazy oversimplification that ignores the nuance for how a team is built. For example, Chauncey Billups was the best player on the 2004 Pistons. I don't think of him as a player you win a title with as the #1, but based on how that team was built that was enough for him to do so. I feel the same way about Rasheed Wallace if you prefer him over Billups. While the 2004 Pistons are an extreme case and IMO probably the weakest of the 21st century champions, I feel similar about the 2014 Spurs. The 2014 versions of Duncan and Leonard aren't players I'd want as the #1 guy to win a title (Duncan was past his prime, and Leonard hadn't reached peak). But for how that team was built the Spurs were able to win a title in a dominant season from start to finish.

I think it's fair game to point out when a player is a poor playoff performer, but that's different from not winning a title, despite the correlation. Reggie Miller was a great playoff performer and is arguably the most clutch playoff 3 point shooter of all time, yet doesn't have a ring. That's different from a case like Harden and Embiid, where you can link their lack of team success in the playoffs to their poor performance.

That Pistons team was a different situation, not every team is the same, they managed to build an elite level team without a true superstar. You build a team that makes your best players better, that’s what’s supposed to happen, obviously. But this is what this era of the NBA is, they not only want to win, they want to be the greatest catalyst in doing it.

But these guys, I’ve said a number of times, they’re still hall of famers. They could have done more given better situations, but they didn’t. They all get chances to win but not everyone does. Reggie Miller was my favorite player when I was a kid, at least until the Sixers ascended. But nobody talks about Reggie Miller being one of the two or three best players of his day, which in his prime included Jordan, Shaq, Isiah, Ewing, eventually Grant Hill, and that’s just in the East.

 

[Neutrinos]

GTFO here with that garbage. If you prefer Wilt over Russell that's fine ( I personally would take Russell ) but to say that " it's not even close " might be the most idiotic take ever posted on this site.

Russell certainly has a commanding lead as the NBA's all time leader in Defensive Win Shares with a career total of 133.64, with Duncan 2nd all time at just 106.34

But Chamberlain is 5th all time in DWS with 93.92, so he's no slouch defensively either


Now, let's take a look at their Offensive Win Shares

Chamberlain's career OWS is 153. 34, which is 3rd all time behind KAJ and LeBron

Russell's career OWS is 29.9, which all time ranks... umm... uhh... I don't know because Basketball-Reference only lists the top 250 all time, and Russell ain't in it! To put that in perspective, Jonas Valanciunas is 223rd all time with a career mark of 41.95


Russell is currently 20th all time in Win Shares with 163.51

Chamberlain is 3rd all time at 247.26, behind only KAJ and LeBron


But since Chamberlain played significantly more career minutes, their career WS/48 will give us a more accurate representation of the on-court value they brought to their respective teams

Russell is 31st all time with .1927

Chamberlain is 3rd all time with .248, which trails only Jordan and David Robinson


And their single season high in WS/48?

Chamberlain's best season was .3251, which is the 3rd highest single season mark in league history, with KAJ owning the top 2 seasons

Russell's best season was .2384, which is 161st all time, and his only other appearance in the top 250 is 191st all time

Chamberlain has 9 seasons above Russell's single season best


So, even as the greatest defensive player by far in league history, Russell's on-court value to his team was considerably less than that which Chamberlain was contributing to his

The hockey equivalent might be something like Bourque vs Langway

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Russell certainly has a commanding lead as the NBA's all time leader in Defensive Win Shares with a career total of 133.64, with Duncan 2nd all time at just 106.34

But Chamberlain is 5th all time in DWS with 93.92, so he's no slouch defensively either


Now, let's take a look at their Offensive Win Shares

Chamberlain's career OWS is 153. 34, which is 3rd all time behind KAJ and LeBron

Russell's career OWS is 29.9, which all time ranks... umm... uhh... I don't know because Basketball-Reference only lists the top 250 all time, and Russell ain't in it! To put that in perspective, Jonas Valanciunas is 223rd all time with a career mark of 41.95


Russell is currently 20th all time in Win Shares with 163.51

Chamberlain is 3rd all time at 247.26, behind only KAJ and LeBron


But since Chamberlain played significantly more career minutes, their career WS/48 will give us a more accurate representation of the on-court value they brought to their respective teams

Russell is 31st all time with .1927

Chamberlain is 3rd all time with .248, which trails only Jordan and David Robinson


And their single season high in WS/48?

Chamberlain's best season was .3251, which is the 3rd highest single season mark in league history, with KAJ owning the top 2 seasons

Russell's best season was .2384, which is 161st all time, and his only other appearance in the top 250 is 191st all time

Chamberlain has 9 seasons above Russell's single season best


So, even as the greatest defensive player by far in league history, Russell's on-court value to his team was considerably less than that which Chamberlain was contributing to his

The hockey equivalent might be something like Bourque vs Langway

I think that Wilt was the better player, but the above is just meaningless words. Using solely box score stats to evaluate a player, especially their defense, isn't worth engaging with.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Couple things here about Kobe's 2 without Shaq:

1. Plenty of guys are capable of winning a title as a #1 option but never do. Only one team can win the title each year after all. Even before those 2 titles, Kobe was obviously capable.

2. Even though he was no longer with a peak Shaq, he was still with the most powerful organization in the NBA who was able to built a great team around him. Give him credit for taking advantage, but many players who are capable of winning as the #1 option never get as good an opportunity.

Basketball is still a team game, and this winning it as the #1 guy (and the rings argument in general) is a lazy oversimplification that ignores the nuance for how a team is built. For example, Chauncey Billups was the best player on the 2004 Pistons. I don't think of him as a player you win a title with as the #1, but based on how that team was built that was enough for him to do so. I feel the same way about Rasheed Wallace if you prefer him over Billups. While the 2004 Pistons are an extreme case and IMO probably the weakest of the 21st century champions, I feel similar about the 2014 Spurs. The 2014 versions of Duncan and Leonard aren't players I'd want as the #1 guy to win a title (Duncan was past his prime, and Leonard hadn't reached peak). But for how that team was built the Spurs were able to win a title in a dominant season from start to finish.

I think it's fair game to point out when a player is a poor playoff performer, but that's different from not winning a title, despite the correlation. Reggie Miller was a great playoff performer and is arguably the most clutch playoff 3 point shooter of all time, yet doesn't have a ring. That's different from a case like Harden and Embiid, where you can link their lack of team success in the playoffs to their poor performance.

Great post. For example, if Lebron had never left Cleveland it's quite possible that he never wins a championship, as with how the NBA's cap structure is set up, developing a good team requires planning and luck, and with how good Lebron was right off the bat, they were never able to draft and develop any top talents to supplement him. But that doesn't change the caliber of player he is. Guys like Paul and Nash never win a championship, but they were still very effective players in the playoffs, with external factors being the reason they didn't win as opposed to on-court ability. There is little doubt that either guy would have won a championship if placed into Kobe or Curry's team situation. Like you said, it's not someone like Harden who has been the reason for playoff failures.

 

[BobColesNasalCavity]

Without Steph, KD would be this generations’ Melo

 

[Neutrinos]

Without Steph, KD would be this generations’ Melo

From age 19 through their age 34 season:

Carmelo Anthony (38129 minutes)
20.3 PER (75th all-time)
.542 TS% (outside the top 250 all-time)
101 WS (90th all-time)
.127 WS/48 (240th all-time)
3.0 OBPM (50th all-time)
1.8 BPM (145th all-time)
36.4 VORP (81st all-time)


Kevin Durant (36181 minutes)
25.3 PER (9th all-time)
.619 TS% (10th all-time)
161.9 WS (23rd all-time)
.215 WS/48 (14th all-time)
6.0 OBPM (5th all-time)
6.8 BPM (8th all-time)
80.3 VORP (12th all-time)


Saying "Without Steph, KD would be this generation's Melo", would be akin to saying "Without Joe Sakic, Bourque would be viewed like Phil Housley"

 

[BobColesNasalCavity]

From age 19 through their age 34 season:

Carmelo Anthony (38129 minutes)
20.3 PER (75th all-time)
.542 TS% (outside the top 250 all-time)eeee
101 WS (90th all-time)
.127 WS/48 (240th all-time)
3.0 OBPM (50th all-time)
1.8 BPM (145th all-time)
36.4 VORP (81st all-time)


Kevin Durant (36181 minutes)
25.3 PER (9th all-time)
.619 TS% (10th all-time)
161.9 WS (23rd all-time)
.215 WS/48 (14th all-time)
6.0 OBPM (5th all-time)
6.8 BPM (8th all-time)
80.3 VORP (12th all-time)


Saying "Without Steph, KD would be this generations’ Melo", would be akin to saying "Without Joe Sakic, Bourque would be viewed like Phil Housley"

The point was he’d have no rings despite good stats Mr Stats

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Without Steph, KD would be this generations’ Melo

There's been a lot of contenders recently as to who can proffer the dumbest opinion possible.

 

[Voight]

Yeah, wouldn't take it too serious.

Same poster said they could have played in the NHL in the 80s-90's with their current skill.

Also claimed Harden > Kobe

 

[LightningStorm]

Great post. For example, if Lebron had never left Cleveland it's quite possible that he never wins a championship, as with how the NBA's cap structure is set up, developing a good team requires planning and luck, and with how good Lebron was right off the bat, they were never able to draft and develop any top talents to supplement him. But that doesn't change the caliber of player he is.

Good point about Lebron being good from the jump to where they weren't picking high enough in the draft to get some more high end talent. Boozer leaving after Lebron's rookie year really hurt them. He would've been a great 2nd option seeing the success he had with Deron Williams in Utah during that time.

For how much Cavs fans had their hearts ripped out during The Decision in 2010, it's crazy to think that was good for them in the long run. I agree about the Cavs never winning it had Lebron stayed the entire time. But by going to Miami for 4 years, the Cavs bottomed out and drafted the strong supporting cast he never had his first stint for when he returned there in 2014.

Guys like Paul and Nash never win a championship, but they were still very effective players in the playoffs, with external factors being the reason they didn't win as opposed to on-court ability. There is little doubt that either guy would have won a championship if placed into Kobe or Curry's team situation. Like you said, it's not someone like Harden who has been the reason for playoff failures.

Exactly, Paul and Nash did their part while Harden didn't. Had Paul not gotten injured in the 2018 WCF there's a 50/50 chance him and Harden have a ring by now.

 

[LightningStorm]

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.

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).

Getting back to the topic at hand, both of you sum up well why I choose Durant over Curry. As I said upthread, there wouldn't have been the same shock when KD joined the Warriors had people genuinely believed Steph was better. And their play as teammates showed KD was the superior player. It's easier to fit KD within the structure of a team's offense, and he's clearly better defensively.

 

[JackSlater]

Getting back to the topic at hand, both of you sum up well why I choose Durant over Curry. As I said upthread, there wouldn't have been the same shock when KD joined the Warriors had people genuinely believed Steph was better. And their play as teammates showed KD was the superior player. It's easier to fit KD within the structure of a team's offense, and he's clearly better defensively.

Yeah I don't think it's even a really close question. Durant is one of the best players ever, Curry had one of the best teams ever built around him. Curry is still great but I see them on different levels historically. If I needed someone to defend I'd take Durant. If I needed someone to go out and get a score it would also be Durant, and I don't see much else to it.

 

[TorontoTrades]

More accolades and a better legacy of being the face of a dynasty.

Curry easily. Curry is probably 8-13 all time depending how you want to rank it whereas Durant is probably just cracking top 20 of people's lists.

I'm a Durant guy but bounced around with quite a few injuries and only ring is with Curry.

 

[Neutrinos]

More accolades and a better legacy of being the face of a dynasty.

Curry easily. Curry is probably 8-13 all time depending how you want to rank it whereas Durant is probably just cracking top 20 of people's lists.

I'm a Durant guy but bounced around with quite a few injuries and only ring is with Curry.

More accolades, being the face of a dynasty, and where they rank on all-time lists are irrelevant to the question being posed in the OP

 

[TorontoTrades]

More accolades, being the face of a dynasty, and where they rank on all-time lists are irrelevant to the question being posed in the OP

Uhh the OP is literally "what do you think?"

Also I think the guy higher on the all time list is very relevant to who's better

 

[Aladyyn]

Yeah I don't think it's even a really close question. Durant is one of the best players ever, Curry had one of the best teams ever built around him. Curry is still great but I see them on different levels historically. If I needed someone to defend I'd take Durant. If I needed someone to go out and get a score it would also be Durant, and I don't see much else to it.

Well there's the problem then.

 

[JackSlater]

Well there's the problem then.

Well if Durant is the better defender and the better scorer, there isn't much ground for Curry to make up. He's a better playmaker to some degree. Durant is a more useful rebounder. Durant is a bit of a headcase, though not compared to some other NBA stars, so that's a slight edge for Curry. What else is there?

 

[Aladyyn]

Well if Durant is the better defender and the better scorer, there isn't much ground for Curry to make up. He's a better playmaker to some degree. Durant is a more useful rebounder. Durant is a bit of a headcase, though not compared to some other NBA stars, so that's a slight edge for Curry. What else is there?

"Better playmaker to some degree" is hilariously understating the gap between them in terms of both on-ball and off-ball playmaking. "More useful rebounder" is frankly a shocking take because KD is a horrible rebounder for his size. They actually average the same number of offensive rebounds and Curry unlike Durant actually boxes people out when he's in a rebounding position whereas KD generally just collects freebies. KD is also a verry overrated defender, he's only had like 2 seasons total where he was genuinely good and outside of that it's just omg he's long he must be a good defender. Then there's also the matter of Curry being the much better playoff performer and also just generally better offensive player overall when we look at them beyond "who's the better scorer" (and I'd also disagree with the notion that KD clearly wins here too).

 

[bambamcam4ever]

"Better playmaker to some degree" is hilariously understating the gap between them in terms of both on-ball and off-ball playmaking. "More useful rebounder" is frankly a shocking take because KD is a horrible rebounder for his size. They actually average the same number of offensive rebounds and Curry unlike Durant actually boxes people out when he's in a rebounding position whereas KD generally just collects freebies. KD is also a verry overrated defender, he's only had like 2 seasons total where he was genuinely good and outside of that it's just omg he's long he must be a good defender. Then there's also the matter of Curry being the much better playoff performer and also just generally better offensive player overall when we look at them beyond "who's the better scorer" (and I'd also disagree with the notion that KD clearly wins here too).

Durant has greatly improved his decision making and understanding of the game with the ball in his hands, and can beat a guy to draw an additional defender to him (and this create an open teammate) without needing the refs to look the other way on push-offs or illegal screens. Curry does not process the game all that quickly, which is why double teams 30 feet from the rim are surprisingly effective on him, while other stars will eat it alive.

Your caveat "for his size" is also ridiculously biased. This isn't the special olympics, basketball is a tall people sport. Maybe Durant could be better for his height but in no way can it be construed as a negative. Being tall with long arms is a significant defensive talent, not the only thing necessary but a huge plus.

 

[Aladyyn]

Durant has greatly improved his decision making and understanding of the game with the ball in his hands, and can beat a guy to draw an additional defender to him (and this create an open teammate) without needing the refs to look the other way on push-offs or illegal screens. Curry does not process the game all that quickly, which is why double teams 30 feet from the rim are surprisingly effective on him, while other stars will eat it alive.

Your caveat "for his size" is also ridiculously biased. This isn't the special olympics, basketball is a tall people sport. Maybe Durant could be better for his height but in no way can it be construed as a negative. Being tall with long arms is a significant defensive talent, not the only thing necessary but a huge plus.

This is a genuinely absurd take

Durant is the most double team prone superstar in the league currently ffs

 

[bambamcam4ever]

This is a genuinely absurd take

Durant is the most double team prone superstar in the league currently ffs

It is not at all. He generally plays within his ability level which is a mark in his favor, but his processing of the game is not remarkable at all. This is one of those things where you have to understand the sport at a certain level to be able to identify this. But there's always room to improve.

 

[LightningStorm]

More accolades and a better legacy of being the face of a dynasty.

I'll concede that Curry has the better Wikipedia summary, but I still think Durant is the better player when watching them play.

 

[Neutrinos]

Uhh the OP is literally "what do you think?"

Also I think the guy higher on the all time list is very relevant to who's better

Bill Russell has more accolades, was the face of a dynasty, and is often ranked higher on people's all-time lists

Was he a better player than Wilt Chamberlain?