Kyrie Irving is now a...

[lebron23james]

Not all players develop at the same rate or reach the same level.

Not all players get to play with one of the greatest players of all time.

Curry only had a team that was ranked 1 in defense and offense...how could he manage

Not sure why curry is even being brought up in a thread about kyrie Irving's accomplishments by age 24 anyways

 

[lebron23james]

Nice try, but Curry has developed himself into the current 2x league mvp.
Kyrie without James has only seen the playoffs on TV.

See teammates matter, Irving was the 2nd best player on the court last year for both teams in the finals....just having a great player like lebron doesn't mean your game will be any better(ask bosh, ask love)both considered really great superstars...Irving is just that good that he was able to go toe to toe with Lebron

 

[lebron23james]

I get that everyone like to compares LeBron and Jordan. That makes sense. We're talking about two of the best players of all-time -- who by the way never played against one another. If LeBron and Jordan played against one another in their primes, who would waste their time talking about whether Jordan was better at age 21?

I notice that you don't dispute that Curry is better than Irving. It's why we end up talking about something pointless like Irving's stats and accomplishments at a certain age. That's all he has going for him -- the hope that he will get better with time and eventually surpass Curry. Hasn't happened yet and it may never happen.

That's all he has going for him? lol

How about the finals stats you know where they both played each other?

 

[WiggyRuss]

Curry only had a team that was ranked 1 in defense and offense...how could he manage

Not sure why curry is even being brought up in a thread about kyrie Irving's accomplishments by age 24 anyways

I brought up how by age 24 how much more thoroughly better/accomplished Irving is at age 24 compared to Curry....

when told how it was only relevant how they are playing now- i responded how Irving lit his ass up in the Finals and it was subsequently downplayed.

I think you have to give credit to Kyrie for being one of the youngest all stars in NBA history and doing it at the highest level while Curry was lighting up Ball State and UNC Asheville.

and who knows how it will work out- if at age 24 you suggested Curry would win 2 MVP's I think you would have been institutionalized.

 

[lebron23james]

I brought up how by age 24 how much more thoroughly better/accomplished Irving is at age 24 compared to Curry....

when told how it was only relevant how they are playing now- i responded how Irving lit his ass up in the Finals and it was subsequently downplayed.

I think you have to give credit to Kyrie for being one of the youngest all stars in NBA history and doing it at the highest level while Curry was lighting up Ball State and UNC Asheville.

I have a feeling Irving was going to lite up Curry in the previous finals as well, he only played in 1 game but it took OT for GS to win and they were the home team

 

[knowyourenemy]

Curry only had a team that was ranked 1 in defense and offense...how could he manage

Not sure why curry is even being brought up in a thread about kyrie Irving's accomplishments by age 24 anyways

I'm pretty sure it's because you brought it up.

Steph currys accomplishments by 25

1 all star appearance

And that's it...

 

[knowyourenemy]

That's all he has going for him? lol

How about the finals stats you know where they both played each other?

Irving played exceptionally well in the Finals. That doesn't make him better than Curry.

 

[lebron23james]

Irving played exceptionally well in the Finals. That doesn't make him better than Curry.

If you look at their overall playoff stats Irving is better, and Irving isn't in his prime yet

Plus Irving was better in the head to head matchup

 

[CitySushi]

I brought up how by age 24 how much more thoroughly better/accomplished Irving is at age 24 compared to Curry....

when told how it was only relevant how they are playing now- i responded how Irving lit his ass up in the Finals and it was subsequently downplayed.

I think you have to give credit to Kyrie for being one of the youngest all stars in NBA history and doing it at the highest level while Curry was lighting up Ball State and UNC Asheville.

and who knows how it will work out- if at age 24 you suggested Curry would win 2 MVP's I think you would have been institutionalized.

It's always irrelevant to me accomplishments achieved at certain ages. I think the fairest judge of talent is the players at their peak. I don't think we've seen peak Irving yet, but what he's accomplished so far is impressive.

The reason I disregard accomplishments at certain ages is because the peak is what matters, and how long they've sustained that excellence. For example, take a look at these two players:

Age 22
Player A: 20.6 ppg, 11.9 reb, 2.7 blks, 1.4 assts, 1.2 steals
Player B: 20.7 ppg, 14,2 reb, 2.1 blks, 1.4 assts, 0.9 steals

From those numbers who would end up to be the superior player?

Player A is Hakeem Olajuwon
Player B is Dwight Howard

 

[WiggyRuss]

It's always irrelevant to me accomplishments achieved at certain ages. I think the fairest judge of talent is the players at their peak. I don't think we've seen peak Irving yet, but what he's accomplished so far is impressive.

The reason I disregard accomplishments at certain ages is because the peak is what matters, and how long they've sustained that excellence. For example, take a look at these two players:

Age 22
Player A: 20.6 ppg, 11.9 reb, 2.7 blks, 1.4 assts, 1.2 steals
Player B: 20.7 ppg, 14,2 reb, 2.1 blks, 1.4 assts, 0.9 steals

From those numbers who would end up to be the superior player?

Player A is Hakeem Olajuwon
Player B is Dwight Howard

Only the peak matters?

For the most part- Hall of Fame's put a huge amount of consideration on longevity and how long one has been an elite player for.

Peak performance is obviously another important consideration- but- like Albert Belle- who was a great peak performer- if you do not have the longevity- you dont make it the vast majority of the time.

Right now- at age 24 Kyrie already has a championship, multiple all star appearances, one of the youngest all stars ever, ROY, 3pt contest champ, all star game mvp, rising stars mvp, All NBA 3rd team this year, reputation for being one of the clutchest guys in the league.

I think our point is- at 24 Kyrie has firmly established himself as a great NBA player and he has not even hit his prime yet- and it looks like he could have one of those CP3 like runs where he makes 10 all star teams and has BOTH the longevity AND peak performance that is typical of great Hall of Fame players.


If Steph Curry got hit by a bus tomorrow, is he a HOF'er? I think thats a fascinating question where i think both sides could be argued.

 

[CitySushi]

Only the peak matters?

For the most part- Hall of Fame's put a huge amount of consideration on longevity and how long one has been an elite player for.

Peak performance is obviously another important consideration- but- like Albert Belle- who was a great peak performer- if you do not have the longevity- you dont make it the vast majority of the time.

Right now- at age 24 Kyrie already has a championship, multiple all star appearances, one of the youngest all stars ever, ROY, 3pt contest champ, all star game mvp, rising stars mvp, All NBA 3rd team this year, reputation for being one of the clutchest guys in the league.

I think our point is- at 24 Kyrie has firmly established himself as a great NBA player and he has not even hit his prime yet- and it looks like he could have one of those CP3 like runs where he makes 10 all star teams and has the longevity AND peak performance that is typical of great Hall of Fame players.


If Steph Curry got hit by a bus tomorrow, is he a HOF'er? I think thats a fascinating question where i think both sides could be argued.

If Yao Ming can make the Hall of Fame by such a short career, a 2x MVP and NBA Champion would definitely get in. I don't think there would ever be a chance a two time MVP didn't make the Hall of Fame.

I'm not arguing about Kyrie's greatness, because what he's accomplished so far, again, has been impressive. What I am saying is that the I think a players peak is what really defines how great of a player he was. Ray Allen has had a really impressive career, but I wouldn't say he's better than Dwyane Wade. Wade had a higher peak than Allen ever did, despite their numbers. At age 31 here were their numbers:

Wade: 21.2 ppg, 5.1 asst, 5.0 reb
Allen: 26.4 ppg, 4.1 asst, 4.5 reb

Again, just my opinion, but I believe the peak truly defines how great of a player was. Longevity defines overall career.

 

[WiggyRuss]

If Yao Ming can make the Hall of Fame by such a short career, a 2x MVP and NBA Champion would definitely get in. I don't think there would ever be a chance a two time MVP didn't make the Hall of Fame.

I'm not arguing about Kyrie's greatness, because what he's accomplished so far, again, has been impressive. What I am saying is that the I think a players peak is what really defines how great of a player he was. Ray Allen has had a really impressive career, but I wouldn't say he's better than Dwyane Wade. Wade had a higher peak than Allen ever did, despite their numbers. At age 31 here were their numbers:

Wade: 21.2 ppg, 5.1 asst, 5.0 reb
Allen: 26.4 ppg, 4.1 asst, 4.5 reb

Again, just my opinion, but I believe the peak truly defines how great of a player was. Longevity defines overall career.

oh i would without a doubt take Allen over Wade even though I agree that peak Wade was prob ahead of peak Allen.

and id tend to agree with you Curry is in--- could i see a 1 time MVP being left out? possibly- a two time? highly doubtful- though Curry has only been one of the best in the game for those 2 years.

like my point theo ther day- its so hard to compare Curry because that career path is just so totally unique.

 

[Black Adam]

oh i would without a doubt take Allen over Wade even though I agree that peak Wade was prob ahead of peak Allen.

and id tend to agree with you Curry is in--- could i see a 1 time MVP being left out? possibly- a two time? highly doubtful- though Curry has only been one of the best in the game for those 2 years.

like my point theo ther day- its so hard to compare Curry because that career path is just so totally unique.

Couldn't be because of the uni Wade wears, could it...?

 

[CitySushi]

oh i would without a doubt take Allen over Wade even though I agree that peak Wade was prob ahead of peak Allen.

and id tend to agree with you Curry is in--- could i see a 1 time MVP being left out? possibly- a two time? highly doubtful- though Curry has only been one of the best in the game for those 2 years.

like my point theo ther day- its so hard to compare Curry because that career path is just so totally unique.

I don't think Curry's career is that unique. There have been plenty of great players who didn't really start thriving until later in their careers. It's just that Kyrie's is more in-line with what we've seen previously. If you think about Kyrie, he's really more of a straight to the pro's out of HS than he is a traditional collegiate athlete. He only played 10 games (?) in college and didn't really experience much in terms of growth there.

It's entirely possible that Kyrie ends up an all-time great player, but right now I view his trajectory as Tracy McGrady. Great scorer and really great player, but not sure if I ever see him jumping into that all-time great category. If you do an actual side by side comparison right now of their numbers, they come out very comparable.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I don't think Curry's career is that unique. There have been plenty of great players who didn't really start thriving until later in their careers. It's just that Kyrie's is more in-line with what we've seen previously. If you think about Kyrie, he's really more of a straight to the pro's out of HS than he is a traditional collegiate athlete. He only played 10 games (?) in college and didn't really experience much in terms of growth there.

It's entirely possible that Kyrie ends up an all-time great player, but right now I view his trajectory as Tracy McGrady. Great scorer and really great player, but not sure if I ever see him jumping into that all-time great category. If you do an actual side by side comparison right now of their numbers, they come out very comparable.

i think that Mcgrady comparison falls flat because Kyrie has already won a title and has proven to be an extremely clutch player.

McGrady was great dont get me wrong- i jsut dont like the Kyrie comparison.

and Curry- a two time MVP to kind of come out of nowhere I think is incredibly unique. Obviously the only guy you could even reasonably compare is Steven Nash- all though Nash had serious longevity. Both of those guys were poor defenders early in their careers and kind of came out of nowhere to win multiple MVP's.--- Nash narrowly missing a third MVP actually.

The thing i see similar between the two is they took off because of circumstance. Nash moves to Phoenix and goes under Dantoni---- Curry gets Kerr in, they deal older guys like Ellis not conducive to the system and the young guys develop.

Where Nash and Curry substantially different players their last year in Dallas and the last year under Mark Jackson (respectively)? probably not.--- which goees to just prove our conversation that MVP is a lot different than a "best player" award and often times is heavily dependent on circumstance.

 

[CitySushi]

i think that Mcgrady comparison falls flat because Kyrie has already won a title and has proven to be an extremely clutch player.

McGrady was great dont get me wrong- i jsut dont like the Kyrie comparison.

and Curry- a two time MVP to kind of come out of nowhere I think is incredibly unique. Obviously the only guy you could even reasonably compare is Steven Nash- all though Nash had serious longevity. Both of those guys were poor defenders early in their careers and kind of came out of nowhere to win multiple MVP's.--- Nash narrowly missing a third MVP actually.

The thing i see similar between the two is they took off because of circumstance. Nash moves to Phoenix and goes under Dantoni---- Curry gets Kerr in, they deal older guys like Ellis not conducive to the system and the young guys develop.

Where Nash and Curry substantially different players their last year in Dallas and the last year under Mark Jackson (respectively)? probably not.--- which goees to just prove our conversation that MVP is a lot different than a "best player" award and often times is heavily dependent on circumstance.

Cool, we disagree on the McGrady part. No issues there.

I think saying Curry came out of no-where is too heavy handed a take. Curry was a heralded collegiate player. He single-handedly took his team to the Elite 8 of the NCAA tournament, while frequently being double and triple teamed during his sophmore year. His Junior year, he lead the entire country in scoring.

He was drafted 7th overall, despite all critics against him not having a position and not having a typical NBA body. It's not like he was drafted at the beginning of the second round or anything like that. He was the 7th overall pick in his draft class which featured Blake Griffin, James Harden, a super hyped up Ricky Rubio and Jonny Flynn who was riding that fame from the 6 overtime game. Despite concerns about him being able to play the PG position, he was still taken over Brandon Jennings, Jeff Teague, Jrue Holiday, Ty Lawson, Eric Maynor and Darren Collison.

His rookie year he averaged 17.5, 5.9 assists and 4.5 rebounds a game. Considering he had to play along side Monta Ellis, that's significant. His second year, he improved those numbers and was continuing his upward trajectory until he suffered that massive ankle injury. After that injury, he came back to average 22.9 pts, 6.9 assists and 4.0 rebounds a game and lead his team, being the best player to the second round of the NBA playoffs. That was his 4th year in the league.

If you're saying that no one would have thought he could have been as great as he was, yeah that's true. But the same could be said of Kobe, KG, Tmac, Dirk, etc. None of those guys were a top 3 pick.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Cool, we disagree on the McGrady part. No issues there.

I think saying Curry came out of no-where is too heavy handed a take. Curry was a heralded collegiate player. He single-handedly took his team to the Elite 8 of the NCAA tournament, while frequently being double and triple teamed during his sophmore year. His Junior year, he lead the entire country in scoring.

He was drafted 7th overall, despite all critics against him not having a position and not having a typical NBA body. It's not like he was drafted at the beginning of the second round or anything like that. He was the 7th overall pick in his draft class which featured Blake Griffin, James Harden, a super hyped up Ricky Rubio and Jonny Flynn who was riding that fame from the 6 overtime game. Despite concerns about him being able to play the PG position, he was still taken over Brandon Jennings, Jeff Teague, Jrue Holiday, Ty Lawson, Eric Maynor and Darren Collison.

His rookie year he averaged 17.5, 5.9 assists and 4.5 rebounds a game. Considering he had to play along side Monta Ellis, that's significant. His second year, he improved those numbers and was continuing his upward trajectory until he suffered that massive ankle injury. After that injury, he came back to average 22.9 pts, 6.9 assists and 4.0 rebounds a game and lead his team, being the best player to the second round of the NBA playoffs. That was his 4th year in the league.

If you're saying that no one would have thought he could have been as great as he was, yeah that's true. But the same could be said of Kobe, KG, Tmac, Dirk, etc. None of those guys were a top 3 pick.

well not only at the time of drafting, but years in- Curry had still not established himself as a guy who looked to be an all star player.

I think we pretty much knew early on that Kobe, KG, Tmac would all make multiple all star teams and absent extremely negative luck- be the best players of their era.

When do you think it became likely that Curry would be considered one of the best players of his era and a guy that could make the hall of fame? When did he make that leap? age 27-28? What about Kobe and KG and Kyrie? 22? 24?

For Kobe, and KG I think it was pretty clear their trajectory towards being one of the very best of their ERA was apparent very very early on.

Not only that- but Kobe coming out as a 19 year old kid is obviously going to take time. Curry coming out, much like Lillard- was much better prepared and seasoned for the NBA- than say a Kyrie Irving or Kobe.

Nash to me seems like the best comparison by far to Curry--- throwing in some Ray Allen.

Kyrie- i think has a LITTLE Iverson in him, a little Kobe, a little Kevin Johnson, ---- Kyrie is not the greatest of athletes, lacks anything more than a mediocre defensive game (when he is trying at least), extremely clutch, and extremely versatile offensively. Its hard for me to find a PG comparison to Kyrie becuase its obvious he is more of a combo guard- but its rare for a combo guard to have the efficiency that Kyrie has.

you simply could not have made any kind of argument that at age 26 it looked like Curry was on his way to becoming one of the best of his era, a future MVP contender (let alone multi-time recipient) and perennial all star and likely Hall of Famer. Kobe and Kg? WAAAY earlier.

 

[tlance]

Here is the thing though.

Irving's championship is nowhere near as valuable to his legacy as Curry's was to his. Curry was the best player on his team when he won.

Championships don't improve legacies as much for Robin as they do for Batman. Irving is nowhere near as valuable as LeBron is. This recent title will likely end up being the defining moment for LeBron. If it ends up being so for Irving also (I think it will be) then all his critics will be proven right.

 

[tlance]

well not only at the time of drafting, but years in- Curry had still not established himself as a guy who looked to be an all star player.

I think we pretty much knew early on that Kobe, KG, Tmac would all make multiple all star teams and absent extremely negative luck- be the best players of their era.

When do you think it became likely that Curry would be considered one of the best players of his era and a guy that could make the hall of fame? When did he make that leap? age 27-28? What about Kobe and KG and Kyrie? 22? 24?

For Kobe, and KG I think it was pretty clear their trajectory towards being one of the very best of their ERA was apparent very very early on.

Not only that- but Kobe coming out as a 19 year old kid is obviously going to take time. Curry coming out, much like Lillard- was much better prepared and seasoned for the NBA- than say a Kyrie Irving or Kobe.

Nash to me seems like the best comparison by far to Curry--- throwing in some Ray Allen.

Kyrie- i think has a LITTLE Iverson in him, a little Kobe, a little Kevin Johnson, ---- Kyrie is not the greatest of athletes, lacks anything more than a mediocre defensive game (when he is trying at least), extremely clutch, and extremely versatile offensively. Its hard for me to find a PG comparison to Kyrie becuase its obvious he is more of a combo guard- but its rare for a combo guard to have the efficiency that Kyrie has.

you simply could not have made any kind of argument that at age 26 it looked like Curry was on his way to becoming one of the best of his era, a future MVP contender (let alone multi-time recipient) and perennial all star and likely Hall of Famer. Kobe and Kg? WAAAY earlier.

Iverson is actually a pretty good comp. Aside from making the Finals once out of a very weak East, Iverson never won crap. You know why? Guys like him are difficult to play with. They don't make their teammates better because they dominate the ball too much.

Take LeBron away and Kyrie has nothing meaningful on his NBA resume.

 

[Heatles84]

I don't think Curry's career is that unique. There have been plenty of great players who didn't really start thriving until later in their careers. It's just that Kyrie's is more in-line with what we've seen previously. If you think about Kyrie, he's really more of a straight to the pro's out of HS than he is a traditional collegiate athlete. He only played 10 games (?) in college and didn't really experience much in terms of growth there.

It's entirely possible that Kyrie ends up an all-time great player, but right now I view his trajectory as Tracy McGrady. Great scorer and really great player, but not sure if I ever see him jumping into that all-time great category. If you do an actual side by side comparison right now of their numbers, they come out very comparable.

My view of Irving as well. He'll be compared to the likes of McGrady, Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, etc....

He won't ever be in the conversation of Jordan, Kareem, Lebron, Bird, etc...

Great great talent. It's just sad that we have to argue against Irving because of Wiggy.