Is Stephen Curry the Greatest Point Guard of All-Time?
Stephen Curry's recent declaration that he is the greatest point guard of all-time provides an excellent opportunity to combine a history lesson with a discussion about how to evaluate and rank basketball players. When ranking athletes and teams, there has always been a lamentable tendency to live in the moment and forget about the past, and this tendency seems to have become more pronounced with the proliferation of social media; social media users often drive many public conversations/debates, and social media users tend to be young people who may not know or care about things that happened before they were born. Also, social media platforms encourage brevity at the cost of depth and complexity, which leads to overly simplistic, binary debates such as "Is Michael Jordan or LeBron James the GOAT?" That question ignores even the possibility that the greatest player of all-time might be neither of those players.
Before determining whether or not Curry is the greatest point guard of all-time, it is worth examining if he even is a point guard! Historically, a point guard is a team's primary ballhandler and playmaker. There have been pass-first point guards and there have been scoring point guards, but it is rare that a point guard is neither the primary ballhandler nor the primary playmaker; an obvious exception would be the nominal point guards for the Chicago Bulls when the team won six championships during an eight year span in the 1990s: B.J. Armstrong, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, and Ron Harper may have been listed in the boxscore as the point guards playing alongside shooting guard Michael Jordan at various times, but Scottie Pippen--a point forward--ran the offense while Jordan served as the secondary playmaker. Armstrong, Paxson, and Kerr were spot up shooters, while Harper was a slasher and (at that stage of his career) a defensive specialist.
Curry has not led the Warriors in assists since the 2015 season; Draymond Green has been the Warriors' primary playmaker since that time, while Curry has been most lethal off of the ball. Curry is the team's secondary playmaker, and many of his assists happen after he catches the ball, is trapped, and then passes to an open teammate. In contrast, point guards typically bring the ball up the court, run the offense, and create assist opportunities from their initial action, not after the initial action has already been run.
Curry plays like a shooting guard who has excellent passing skills, and in that regard he is more similar to Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant than he is to Magic Johnson. However, comparing Curry to Jordan or Bryant is not a conversation that would generate much traction on social media, because almost all fans would reflexively take Jordan over Curry, and I suspect that most fans--the sensible ones who understand the importance of size and the value of playing at a high level at both ends of the court--would take Bryant over Curry.
However, Curry is the size of a typical point guard (6-3), he scores more than most of the greatest point guards of all-time, and he has won more championships than most of the greatest point guards of all-time, so framing the conversation as a Curry versus Magic Johnson question--which is what Curry did, and how the conversation has then continued on social media--deftly avoids pitting Curry versus Jordan or Bryant.
For the sake of this discussion, we will accept the premise that Curry is a point guard instead of focusing on the reality that Green is the Warriors' point forward. How should a relatively small sharpshooter who spends a lot of time playing off of the ball be compared with a 6-9 player who was always his team's primary ballhandler and playmaker?
In Part I of my Pantheon series, I mentioned the importance of both high peak value and durability. The greatest players perform at a very high level for a sustained period of time. When evaluating players, their skill set strengths and weaknesses should be assessed as well. A comprehensive, objective evaluation encompasses much more than "ring counting" or sound bites or subjective impressions.
Magic Johnson led the NBA in assists four times (1983-84, 1986-87), he retired as the all-time regular season assists leader (he now ranks seventh with 10,141), and he is still the all-time regular season leader in assists per game (11.2 apg). He tops playoff career leaders in both total assists (2346) and assists per game (12.3 apg). Johnson led the NBA in free throw percentage in 1989 (.911), and he shot at least .843 from the free throw line in each of his final seven full seasons. Johnson is not known for his defense, but he led the league in steals in 1981 and 1982 and he was an excellent defensive rebounder, a skill that fueled the L.A. Lakers' fast break attack because he could just get the ball off of the boards and barrel down court.
Despite playing with several potent scorers--including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who held the regular season career scoring record from 1984-2023--Johnson averaged 19.5 ppg during his career while shooting .520 from the field. Johnson won three regular season MVPs (1987, 1989-90), and three Finals MVPs (1980, 1982, 1987) while playing on five championship teams (1980, 1982, 1985, 1987-88). Johnson's Lakers were the first NBA team to win back to back titles since the 1969 Boston Celtics. Johnson finished in the top three in regular season MVP voting for nine straight seasons (1983-91), and he made the All-NBA First Team in each of those nine seasons as well.
His numbers and accomplishments speak volumes, but it is important to dig into specifics to understand the context. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Johnson competed for MVPs with his teammate/six-time MVP Abdul-Jabbar, three-time MVP Moses Malone, three-time MVP Larry Bird, four-time MVP Julius Erving, and five-time MVP Michael Jordan; to win championships, Johnson's Lakers beat Erving's 76ers, Bird's Celtics, and Isiah Thomas' great Detroit teams that later won back to back titles.
Johnson was great from day one, and--as indicated above regarding MVP voting and All-NBA First Team selections--he remained dominant for a decade. Abdul-Jabbar only won one of his six NBA titles prior to playing with Johnson. In the 1980 NBA Finals, Abdul-Jabbar averaged 33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, and 4.6 bpg as the Lakers took a 3-2 series lead over Erving's 76ers, but Abdul-Jabbar severely sprained his ankle near the end of game five and was unable to play in game six. With Abdul-Jabbar out of the lineup, rookie Johnson produced 42 points, 15 rebounds, seven assists, three steals, and a blocked shot while shooting 14-23 from the field and 14-14 from the free throw line in a 123-107 Lakers win. After that monumental performance, Johnson explained what position he played: "C-F-G Rover." As John Papanek put it in Sports Illustrated, a "rookie three years out of high school played one of the greatest games in NBA playoff history at all five positions—center, point guard, shooting guard, small forward and power forward."
Few players in pro basketball history could legitimately play all five positions. During his 16 year pro career, Julius Erving made the All-Star team at both forward and guard, and when he was a young player he utilized his jumping ability and superior rebounding skills to play spot minutes at center, but Erving did not have the necessary height or weight to play extended minutes at center. LeBron James can play all five positions. Johnson is the only player who not only played extended minutes at all five positions when the stakes were highest, but he did so in the same NBA Finals game!
After veteran journalist Fred Kerber selected his 12 member all-time NBA team in 2016, I wrote an article with comments about each player who he selected. Here are my observations about Johnson (this was before LeBron James won his fourth championship):
I think that Johnson, more than any player in pro basketball history, could be teamed up with any four decent players and turn that quintet into a very competitive team. That does not necessarily mean that Johnson was the greatest player ever--he was not as good defensively as Jordan or Russell or several other Pantheon members--but it puts him in a special, hard to define category. Young fans may believe that LeBron James has that quality but what I see from James is a mixed bag: he has won three championships but he has also left several championships on the table because of inexplicably passive play. Johnson never left any championships on the table; he lost to all-time great players/teams in their primes (the Malone/Erving Sixers, Bird's Celtics, the Bad Boys Pistons, the Jordan/Pippen Bulls). There is no footage of the 1980s equivalent of Jason Terry outdueling Johnson in the fourth quarter of key NBA Finals games.
Back to the point about Johnson's incredible versatility as a teammate. Russell needed a point guard and someone to be a scoring threat. Jordan needed Pippen (and never advanced past the first round of the playoffs without him). You can go down the line and most of the great players needed a certain kind of accompanying star and/or supporting cast to maximize their greatness--but Johnson legitimately could play all five positions and he exuded a team-first ethos that smoothed over any potential ego conflicts (Abdul-Jabbar was hardly a barrel of laughs to play with for most of his career and it was amazing to see the joy that radiated from him after he had played with Johnson for a little while). Johnson won a championship while paired with point guard Norm Nixon in the backcourt and then he won championships paired with shooting guard Byron Scott. Johnson won championships with Abdul-Jabbar as the main post up scoring threat and then he won championships as a post up scoring threat when Abdul-Jabbar had to accept a lesser role due to his age/declining skills. Johnson made it to the Finals with an aging James Worthy, a young Vlade Divac, journeyman Sam Perkins and not much else in 1991--and it took the combined efforts of Jordan/Pippen in their primes to prevent Johnson from winning a sixth title.
I think that the sudden, shocking end to Johnson's career combined with Jordan's immediate meteoric rise has actually resulted in Johnson being somewhat underrated by today's commentators.
Johnson was never a defensive stopper, but for some reason his defense has gotten worse as time passes--at least in the popular imagination. It is important to remember that Johnson was not only an excellent defensive rebounder, but--particularly as a young player--he played the passing lanes very well. His rebounds and steals often became fast break points for the Lakers. Also, he did not shy away from tough defensive assignments, and Coach Pat Riley did not hesitate to give Johnson such assignments. To cite just one example, Riley had Johnson guard Erving at times during the 1982 Finals. Riley explained, "Magic on Doc seemed like an ideal matchup to me. Dr. J is a great offensive rebounder. He'd hurt us real bad. Defensive rebounding is Magic's strength. So we put him in the position we wanted him to be in."
Curry is a 6-3 player who opposing teams "hunt" on defense; Johnson was a 6-9 all-around talent who could effectively guard even Pantheon level players, at least for stretches. That contrast brings us to the crux of why Johnson is a greater point guard (and greater player) than Curry: Johnson's size enabled him to do things--including rebound, defend, and be a post up scoring threat--that Curry just cannot do, and Johnson was better than Curry in every skill set area except for shooting. Johnson passed better, rebounded better, defended better, and handled the ball better.
Curry's accolades include two regular season MVPs (2015-16), one Finals MVP (2022), two scoring titles (2016, 2021), and four free throw percentage titles (2011, 2014-15, 2018). Curry is the career leader in regular season free throw percentage (.909). He has led the league in three point field goals made seven times (2013-17, 2021-22) and his career regular season three point field goal percentage (.428) ranks 12th all-time, but he has never led the league in three point field goal percentage. Curry led the NBA in steals in 2016.
Because Curry won back to back regular season MVPs, it is easy to forget that he has not consistently played at an MVP level throughout his career: he finished in the top five in MVP voting just two other times, and he won one Finals MVP during the Warriors' four championship seasons. Curry has earned just three All-NBA First Team selections. Abdul-Jabbar, Bird, Erving, Jordan, and Moses Malone all performed at a high level in the 1980s, but Johnson was the best player of that decade; Curry has not even been demonstrably the best player in a given five year stretch, let alone the best player for a decade.
One unfortunate aspect of comparisons is that it inevitably sounds like one player is being bashed or diminished. That is why I did not rank the players in my Pantheon and instead chose to highlight why each one could be ranked as the greatest player of all-time. However, sometimes player comparisons are unavoidable and important, particularly when a retired great player is given short shrift by people who are too young to have seen him play and unwilling to do the research to discover the truth.
A strong case can be made that Magic Johnson is the greatest point guard of all-time, but the evidence just does not support ranking Curry as the greatest point guard of all-time. I respect Curry's greatness, and after his 50 point game seven performance versus Sacramento in last year's playoffs I acknowledged that in the past I may have underrated him, but I do not consider him to be a point guard, and even if I considered him to be a point guard I would not rank him ahead of Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, or Jerry West. Robertson and West were big-time scorers like Curry, but they also served as the primary ballhandler and playmaker on their respective teams, and they were better than Curry as rebounders and defenders.
Labels: Jerry West, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Pantheon series, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 10:00 PM
18 Comments:
I just watched the clip and while it appears that Curry was somewhat goaded into answering “yes” he still shouldn’t have said it. Even if it were true, which it certainly isn’t, it’s just a bad look for anyone to call themselves the greatest ever with Muhammad Ali being one of the few exceptions.
As for Arenas bringing up the notion that Curry has “changed the game”, the fact that youth league players who don’t know any better want to jack up threes like Curry hardly qualifies as proof that Curry has changed the professional game. When they move the three-point line several feet back or flat-out get rid of it because of Curry’s dominance from beyond the arc then I will buy the premise that Curry has changed the game. When the league literally has to change the lines on the floor to combat a player’s dominance, as they did with Wilt and George Mikan, that player has a much stronger case than most that they actually changed the professional game.
Michael:
A person cannot be "goaded" into saying something that he does not mean, particularly an NBA player who has received extensive media-relations training (as all NBA players do) and who has years of experience answering all kinds of questions. Curry had at least two viable alternative paths:
1) "I play the best that I can, and I leave it to others to rank players and evaluate legacies."
2) "I have great confidence in my abilities and I am proud of what I accomplished, so naturally I have to think that I am the greatest because that is how we are wired as NBA players, but I don't want to minimize the accomplishments of retired legends or compare myself to them; I will leave that to others."
The first defers the question entirely, while the second acknowledges that he--like all great players--is confident but does so without making a definitive statement that is (1) demonstrably false and (2) sounds unseemly. It is one thing for Ali or a competitor in an individual sport to declare himself to be the greatest, but how can one competitor in a team sport definitively declare himself to be the greatest? If anyone had justifiable reason to do so, that very short list would start with Bill Russell--who led his teams to more titles than any other player in pro basketball history--and also include Wilt Chamberlain, who was by far the most dominant individual performer in pro basketball history.
I don't take seriously anything that Arenas says, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a clown, albeit a clown who was clever enough/fortunate enough to make a lot of money playing in the NBA despite being much more focused on himself than on team success. Specifically regarding the extent to which Curry has changed the game, I have noted in other articles that the three point revolution began before him and is driven as much by the "advanced basketball statistics" touted by "stat gurus" as it is by any one player, though of course Curry has garnered a lot of attention by being a prolific three point shooter while winning four NBA titles.
I'm not gonna delve into the Curry/Magic discussion much. I do think Magic is definitely better. But, I also think Curry has an argument, albeit a very small one. Being the best PG in the league for roughly a decade or so gives that player a case to be made.
However, just because Green has led GS in assists most years lately, doesn't mean Curry isn't actually a PG. Curry still has the ball in hands more than Green. Playmaking isn't just setting up your teammates. Playmaking is setting up your teammates plus setting up yourself. Curry is still by far GS #1 playmaker. Green still usually doesn't average that many more assists than Curry. Curry leads career assists over Green 6.5apg to 5.6apg, too. Curry is #45 all-time on for assists, and will likely finish inside the top 25 when he retires, if not higher. Curry might play like a SG sometimes, but he plays like a PG most of the time. There's also no one specific way to play each position and the game has changed into more tweener positions. Traditionalists say PGs are really pass first, pass second, pass third, and so on, and then maybe take an occasional shot if necessary. Some PGs are like that, but not all and most aren't now, and much less than in the past. Curry compared to Green is nowhere near the example you gave of guys like Kerr/Paxson compared to Pippen and even Harper, who all had puny assist averages and were total role players with the Bulls except Armstrong for a few years.
Anonymous:
I would be interested to hear a logical argument that a smaller player who is not as good at rebounding, passing, ballhandling, or defense is better than a larger player who is superior in those categories. Stephen Curry can outshoot Magic Johnson, but he cannot do anything else better than Magic, and Magic could legitimately play all five positions, which would make him even more valuable in today's game than he was when he was the best player of the 1980s.
I also am not convinced that Curry has been the league's best pg for a solid decade.
Green is the fulcrum of Golden State's offense, as the Warriors themselves often state when they excuse his angry outbursts. That is not to say--and I didn't say--that Curry does not make plays for himself and others.
Curry's apg lead over Green is inflated by the years when Green had a much smaller role. Since Kerr became the head coach and for most of the Warriors' championship-contending years Green has run the offense.
You are correct that Curry is obviously a much better playmaker (and player) than the 1990s Bulls' nominal point guards, but my larger point is just because a player is called a point guard in the boxscore does not mean that he plays like a point guard. Curry plays like a shooting guard. The Warriors' offense has a point forward (Green), a traditional small forward (Wiggins), two shooting guards (Curry, Thompson), and an undersized center who rebounds and defends the paint like an old school center (Looney).
I agree. but for thoroughness' sake, how does Magic's versatility to play all 5 positions make him a better "PG"? (esp. when you strictly enforce position designation in discussing Curry.)
also, wouldn't you say Curry is a better ball-handler in some specific discrete skills, such as one-on-one creating space for step backs, whereas Magic was better in most or all other aspects of ball-handling -- but segment ball-handling into different areas before ranking them? i.e., Magic is better ball-handler overall, but not in every single ball-handling skill, right?
Anonymous:
All other things being equal, a point guard who can play multiple positions is inherently more valuable than a point guard who cannot for several reasons, including the ability to switch on defense, greater flexibility in team lineup construction, and the ability to consistently get defensive rebounds and start the fast break without needing an outlet pass. The 6-3 Curry can only play effectively alongside certain types of players; Magic could play effectively alongside anyone, and he would still run the show as the point guard even if he nominally played center (as he did in game six of the 1980 NBA Finals).
Magic actually had a decent stepback move, but it was not his primary weapon because with his size and skill he could relentlessly attack the paint. Curry's relatively small stature makes him susceptible to double teams/traps. Good luck trapping the 6-9 Magic, who could see over or power through most traps.
As great as Curry is, I cannot see a logical way to rank him ahead of Magic as a point guard or as a player overall.
The Magic / Steph debate is very forced and rooted in recency bias. Magic had a strong argument for being the best player of his era in what was likely a stronger league. Even with the ring count being equal I’m not convinced that Steph is in the same stratosphere as lebron nor am I convinced that he’s definitively better than Durant or Kawhi; I do rank him over Kawhi all time but largely because Kawhi can’t stay healthy and has had a very short peak, from a skillset/ability that is a meaningful debate to me
Magic’s superior versatility on both ends as a 6’9 point forward is difficult to ignore, people like to use Ben Simmons as a reference point to what Magic would look like today but Simmons has none of the charisma or leadership that Magic had, Magic also would never intentionally avoid 3s or point blank layups in the playoffs or protect his field goal %. It’s such a lazy and disrespectful comparison. I think Luka/Jokic are better reference point for how Magic would look today - not saying they are just like Magic but those two are far closer to Magic than Simmons has ever demonstrated
Even if one wants to call Steph a SG he’s definitely not better than MJ or Kobe. Those two were better players on both ends (without question better defenders) and won more rings in a stronger more big man oriented era with less help while facing better competition . Jordan was easily the best of his era and Kobe had a very strong case for being the best of his era (imo he was the best of his era) and both guys peaked in an era full of great bigs which enhances their career to me
I think the best categorization for Steph is combo guard and if we’re arguing that he might have a case, I see Magic as more of a point forward anomaly playing PG and MJ and Kobe as wings, that leaves guys like West/O/Wade as his competition. I can entertain it but I’m not sure he’s the clear best out of that group either, but that’s a more closely contested debate than whether he’s the best PG or guard in league history
David,
You're spot on with your "size matters" analysis of Curry's claim to be better than Magic. Six-foot-nine Magic could rebound and play the center position, when needed, and yet playmake like no other--the man was the career leader in assists when he retired. Magic was indeed the best point guard ever, insofar as we understand the playmaking essence of the point guard position.
I think that Curry has a better argument for best "pound for pound" player ever, or best NBA player ever that's six-foot-three or under. I put Curry at no. 2 behind Isiah Thomas. Isiah was not as flashy, statistically, as has been Curry. But he was the more dominant player, much more in control of games night in and night out than has been Curry. Isiah was a better floor general, indeed, the better playmaker. But he could score whenever his team needed buckets!
To me, re: Curry, that's the real debate: Curry or Isiah for the crown of best NBA little man ever. Neither compares to the man you rightly describe as the best player of the 1980s.
Nor does Curry compare to a Kobe or a Jordan, to your point about Curry's more shooting-guard role.
Kevin:
Comparing Simmons to Magic is ridiculous. Magic was a dominant winner at all levels of the sport, from high school to college to the NBA to the Olympics. Simmons' resume is not even close to matching that. Simmons can rebound and pass, but he has always been a low energy/low motor player who does not consistently impact winning.
The Jokic-Magic comparison is interesting. Both players are team-first and have an all-around skill set. Doncic is more of a score-first player, and he has yet to prove that he can impact winning consistently the way that Magic did. Also, Magic impacted winning immediately. Jokic learned to be a dominant player, and Doncic is still learning. Magic had "it" right from the start.
Anonymous:
The Isiah-Curry comparison is interesting. Young people will reflexively take Curry, but the matchup is much closer than many people may think in terms of skill set and impact. Curry has the advantage in terms of honors (two regular season MVPs to none) and scoring/shooting, but Isiah was a much better passer, and I agree with your assessment that Isiah had more "control of games night in and night out." Isiah is very underrated because (1) he played a long time ago and (2) many people don't like him personally for various reasons, which can affect their objectivity when ranking him as a player. Curry has had more elite level regular seasons than Isiah did, but part of that is because Isiah willingly sacrificed his regular season statistics for team success; in short, the numbers favor Curry, but in terms of skill set and impact they are evenly matched.
Another big hit on Isiah's legacy are the petty politics that kept him off the Dream Team. One of the bigger snubs in sports history. Isiah was much, much better than, say, John Stockton. But Stockton was the more likeable person evidently, at least, he was more likeable to the Dream Teamers that mattered.
Anonymous:
Isiah being left off of the Dream Team was a travesty. He should have been the third guard taken after Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan. At that time, the only Dream Team members who had won more championships than Isiah were Magic and Bird.
Conversation seems like one that may be more compelling once Curry retires. Right now Magic has clear advantages in elite-caliber years (12 to 9 or so), titles (5-4), FMVPs (3-1), and MVPs (3-2), but depending on how the rest of Curry's career goes he has a chance to catch or surpass Magic in most of those (though he will not catch him in All-NBA First Team selections).
The conversation looks very different if the Warriors come back strong and rack up two or three more titles behind Curry, which is probably unlikely but certainly not implausible.
Anonymous:
It is highly unlikely that Curry--who will turn 36 before the end of the upcoming season--will win two more Finals MVPs or even one more regular season MVP. I suppose that it is possible that the Warriors win one more title, but that seems unlikely as well. Whether or not Curry closes the gap in "elite caliber years" depends in part on how one defines that category, but even if we say that Curry has already had "nine or so" (which seems generous to me) it is unlikely that he will have three more by any reasonable definition of "elite."
Further, even if all of the unlikely events mentioned above happen, how does that change the reality that Curry is a 6-3 player whose only skill set superiority over Magic is shooting? Magic is bigger, more versatile, a better rebounder, a better passer, a better ballhandler, and a better defender. Magic racked up his awards and accomplishments in a more competitive, more physically demanding era; even if Curry matched Magic in one or more of the categories you mentioned, that would not prove Curry's superiority.
Marcel
I wouldn't take curry over magic or big o
I give curry slight edge over zeek
Curry greatness is the gravity
Idk if green or looney are starters on any other team without curry
He gets trapped at halfcourtt which allows green to play 3 on 2 and
In turn let's looney get a lob or offensive rebound.
Also curry movement with the ball and without the ball the best ever. The way he passes than reposition himself a sight to see.
He a great passer and finisher as well
I don't think he better than magic
Magic and Robinson was better passer rebounder and defenders
They was also much bigger than curry
But if curry thinks he the best he good enough to do that
I got curry 15 or 16 all time
Not shabby league been around 75 years that pretty good
Marcel:
I agree with most of what you wrote. I disagree that Green and Looney would not be starters without Curry. I would agree that Green would not be an All-Star without being surrounded/protected by better players--that was made crystal clear when we saw how much Green and the Warriors struggled without Curry and Thompson--but Green and Looney are hustle players who defend and rebound; those kinds of players can start for most teams, with the only exception being teams that have an elite power forward better than Green or an elite center better than Looney.
(I'm the anon who thinks its silly to get too into this until and unless Curry makes the counting stats closer before he retires, so I'll keep my response brief)
I am not sure I agree with some of the premises of your argument about who's better at what, but if I did I would probably feel the way you feel. I think Magic is very indisputably the better passer and rebounder, and I think Curry is very indisputably the better scorer, shooter, and off-ball threat. I think defense and ballhandling are disputable in both directions, and I think there is a very complicated argument to be had about how valuable each of those categories is relative to one another. I likewise think there is room for reasonable debate as to which era was more competitive, who had the stronger teammatess around them for how long, etc. In general I would say that Magic faced generally much tougher Finals opponents but Curry played in a much tougher conference, either of which might matter "more" depending on how one chooses to frame the debate.
Regardless, I think that so long as Curry is so far behind Magic in impact years and accomplishments, those variables are not enough to swing it either way so we needn't wrestle over the minutiae.
I am inclined to agree with you that it is unlikely Curry will catch Magic in most of those numbers but I have enough respect for Curry to stop shy of saying it is implausible.
Anonymous:
I don't see how defense is "disputable." Magic is 6-9 and could guard all five positions. His defensive rebounding fueled the Lakers' fast break. Curry is 6-3 and is regularly targeted by opposing teams. For all of the talk about Magic's allegedly poor defense, I do not recall anyone targeting him. Magic was not an elite one on one stopper by any means, but he put his size, versatility, and intelligence to good use on defense.
Ballhandling is subjective. There is not a statistic for ballhandling other than turnovers, but it is often the case that the best ballhandlers have a lot of turnovers because they handle the ball a lot. I would argue that Magic is a better ballhandler in terms of efficiently getting from point A to point B with the primary goal being that his team scores, and I would argue that Curry at times does flashy dribbling that does not enhance the likelihood that his team will score.
Magic's era was more physical and more competitive: load management did not exist, the game was officiated differently so that physical play was more tolerated than in today's game, and the game was played more in the paint than on the perimeter.
Post a Comment
<< Home