The Straw Hat Band loved the attention and the notoriety. Steve Kerr seems like an absolutely fantastic guy, always has.

concordtom said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

concordtom said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

https://www.offthedeckpodcast.com/podcast/2020/5/1/episode-24-interview-with-kirk-everist-head-mens-water-polo-coach-at-the-university-of-california

Ive listened to this interview of Kirk Everist not once, but twice given how fascinated I am when it comes to the "art" of coaching.

It's 1 hour and 25 minutes.
Well worth it!

---

I like Kirk.

---

But I never knew him to do anything outside of the water.
I'm kinda partial to the land sports: running, jumping, balance.
Well, hey, this is the basketball board, right? Universally known as the best overall athletes!

Most accomplished? Sure.
Best? Don't think so.

---

I was speaking to his coaching ability.
Hence the link to the interview that I provided above.
Terrific interview!

---

Thx.
I need to listen!

---

Its a long one my friend (1 hour and 25 minutes).
But exceptional.

Try this one first.
Only 37 minutes...

Big C said:

---

The Straw Hat Band loved the attention and the notoriety. Steve Kerr seems like an absolutely fantastic guy, always has.

---

I think it is a credit to our fans that Steve had fun with us and our good natured taunts, as opposed to the Arizona State fans who chanted "PLO" at him after his father was assassinated.




.

Every NBA team should have a Designated Heel like Draymond Green


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/21/draymond-green-golden-state-warriors-memphis-grizzlies-nba-feud?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

* The Warriors are lucky to have Draymond and Draymond is lucky to have the Warriors. Had he started with a 2nd tier NBA team, he would be playing for his 5th or 6th team by now because of his antics…..but since success is such an effective deodorant, he found a stable home.

uh oh, Curry has to play against Chet next year...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CfKub88gHyd/

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I say there are multiple eras, not two.

3point shooting did not begin in 1979, but much later. Decades from now we'll see that Steph and Klay ushered in a new era: small ball. His record will be surpassed.

The bad boys and thug knicks ushered in the worst era. Thank god the league toughened up the contact rules!!

---

Two graphs re the rise in NBA 3-pt attempts:




The first graph shows that, on average, there are ten times as many 3-pt attempts per game now than there were in 1979-80, the first year the NBA had the 3-pt shot.

The second graph shows that 2014-15 was the first season in which the volume of 3-pt attempts exceeded the volume of mid-range 2-pt attempts outside the paint (sometimes called "non-paint 2s"), and that difference widened steadily after that. The volume of shots inside the paint has stayed pretty constant, but players are attempting far fewer non-paint 2s and attempting 3s instead. Coaches emphasize this as well, encouraging 3-pt attempts and discouraging non-paint 2s.

It makes sense analytically if you look at the success rates of shots in each area and the average number of points per shot in each of the three areas. Really, the only way to justify a high volume of non-paint 2s is if a player makes them at 60% or better, and AFAIK Kevin Durant is just about the only player who does that.

---

On the college level some coaches still haven't figured it out. It is similar to the many decades it took for the forward pass to be maximized in football. It is amazing how conservative and tied to tradition coaches can be.

---

Gee, I wonder who you could be talking about.






(Cal #296 in 3pt attempts)

---

Maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea for a college coach to be at least competent in recruiting, so that they can win some recruiting battles and get some players who are already good 3-pt shooters?

---

Agreed, everyone wants the athletic player with great size that can shoot threes. The next level question is, failing that, do you pursue the great shooter who is lacking in athleticism or is smaller, or the great athlete with length who is a poor shooter?
The former requires the coach rely more on strategy and schemes, both on offense and defense. The later is favored by coaches who emphasize man defense (Cuonzo Martin included, you can see it in his failing at Missouri)).

6'1" Michael Flowers of WSU lead the PAC-12 with 91 3P FGs made. 17% more than second place. Flowers was a zero star, unrated recruit out of Southfield, MI who originally signed with Western Michigan.

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

---

do you mean like the little recruited player who was just drafted 12th in the first round today? (only got mid-major offers from Santa Clara, Nevada and Hofstra)

Um, let me know when Fox finds one like Jalen Williams.

HoopDreams said:

---

uh oh, Curry has to play against Chet next year...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CfKub88gHyd/

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I say there are multiple eras, not two.

3point shooting did not begin in 1979, but much later. Decades from now we'll see that Steph and Klay ushered in a new era: small ball. His record will be surpassed.

The bad boys and thug knicks ushered in the worst era. Thank god the league toughened up the contact rules!!

---

Two graphs re the rise in NBA 3-pt attempts:




The first graph shows that, on average, there are ten times as many 3-pt attempts per game now than there were in 1979-80, the first year the NBA had the 3-pt shot.

The second graph shows that 2014-15 was the first season in which the volume of 3-pt attempts exceeded the volume of mid-range 2-pt attempts outside the paint (sometimes called "non-paint 2s"), and that difference widened steadily after that. The volume of shots inside the paint has stayed pretty constant, but players are attempting far fewer non-paint 2s and attempting 3s instead. Coaches emphasize this as well, encouraging 3-pt attempts and discouraging non-paint 2s.

It makes sense analytically if you look at the success rates of shots in each area and the average number of points per shot in each of the three areas. Really, the only way to justify a high volume of non-paint 2s is if a player makes them at 60% or better, and AFAIK Kevin Durant is just about the only player who does that.

---

On the college level some coaches still haven't figured it out. It is similar to the many decades it took for the forward pass to be maximized in football. It is amazing how conservative and tied to tradition coaches can be.

---

Gee, I wonder who you could be talking about.





(Cal #296 in 3pt attempts)

---

Maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea for a college coach to be at least competent in recruiting, so that they can win some recruiting battles and get some players who are already good 3-pt shooters?

---

Agreed, everyone wants the athletic player with great size that can shoot threes. The next level question is, failing that, do you pursue the great shooter who is lacking in athleticism or is smaller, or the great athlete with length who is a poor shooter?
The former requires the coach rely more on strategy and schemes, both on offense and defense. The later is favored by coaches who emphasize man defense (Cuonzo Martin included, you can see it in his failing at Missouri)).

6'1" Michael Flowers of WSU lead the PAC-12 with 91 3P FGs made. 17% more than second place. Flowers was a zero star, unrated recruit out of Southfield, MI who originally signed with Western Michigan.

---

If a coaching staff can't recruit well, or even if they can but they're just in a place (like Pullman) that is extremely difficult to recruit to, then they do well to find players like Flowers.

Kyle Smith does a great job finding guys like that, somehow, and getting more out of them than other coaches could.

And then there are coaches who can neither win recruiting battles for top prospects nor find diamonds in the rough elsewhere.

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

---

That all sounds reasonable. I am beginning to think with all the rule changes in favor of the offense now that offense is probably more than half of the game. I feel the recruit rankings for 5-star players are fairly accurate. Those players are well-known and the recruit analysts are following them closely from early on. The 4-star rankings are a little less accurate, and when you get into 3-star, not so accurate.

I remember that 2016 team from Hawaii, composed of 3-star, 2-star, and unranked recruits, which gave Cal such a tough time in the NCAA. Cal had two key players out with injury, but the two 5-star players and the bench we had together was not so shabby, and should have been able to handle Hawaii, based on recruit rankings. Several of those Hawaii players sure seemed to be playing above their ranking in that game, or else those rankings were probably not accurate. Or the Hawaii coach had worked some magic in their development as players.

I still contend that our biggest loss was Wallace because they had two aggressive senior guards and as singer had to start and got in early foul trouble we had to play chacua who was dominated and so even had to try brown at PG which was a failed experiment and got him in foul trouble

Wallace being out also meant we had to play Roger and Fomingo more who did poorly

SFCityBear said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

---

That all sounds reasonable. I am beginning to think with all the rule changes in favor of the offense now that offense is probably more than half of the game. I feel the recruit rankings for 5-star players are fairly accurate. Those players are well-known and the recruit analysts are following them closely from early on. The 4-star rankings are a little less accurate, and when you get into 3-star, not so accurate.

I remember that 2016 team from Hawaii, composed of 3-star, 2-star, and unranked recruits, which gave Cal such a tough time in the NCAA. Cal had two key players out with injury, but the two 5-star players and the bench we had together was not so shabby, and should have been able to handle Hawaii, based on recruit rankings. Several of those Hawaii players sure seemed to be playing above their ranking in that game, or else those rankings were probably not accurate. Or the Hawaii coach had worked some magic in their development as players.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I still contend that our biggest loss was Wallace because they had two aggressive senior guards and as singer had to start and got in early foul trouble we had to play chacua who was dominated and so even had to try brown at PG which was a failed experiment and got him in foul trouble

Wallace being out also meant we had to play Roger and Fomingo more who did poorly

---

You also can't discount the effect of Bird being ruled out on the day of the game. It's one thing if you have time to prepare for a key player being out. Quite another if it's dropped on you right before tipoff.

MSaviolives said:

---

You're triggering me dude! Stop making me think of these terrible heartbreaking Tournament disappointments

Oh God, now I'm thinking of that Wisconsin Green Bay game.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I still contend that our biggest loss was Wallace because they had two aggressive senior guards and as singer had to start and got in early foul trouble we had to play chacua who was dominated and so even had to try brown at PG which was a failed experiment and got him in foul trouble

Wallace being out also meant we had to play Roger and Fomingo more who did poorly

SFCityBear said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

---

That all sounds reasonable. I am beginning to think with all the rule changes in favor of the offense now that offense is probably more than half of the game. I feel the recruit rankings for 5-star players are fairly accurate. Those players are well-known and the recruit analysts are following them closely from early on. The 4-star rankings are a little less accurate, and when you get into 3-star, not so accurate.

I remember that 2016 team from Hawaii, composed of 3-star, 2-star, and unranked recruits, which gave Cal such a tough time in the NCAA. Cal had two key players out with injury, but the two 5-star players and the bench we had together was not so shabby, and should have been able to handle Hawaii, based on recruit rankings. Several of those Hawaii players sure seemed to be playing above their ranking in that game, or else those rankings were probably not accurate. Or the Hawaii coach had worked some magic in their development as players.

---

---

I agree with all you said. I also think Wallace was our best player, and not ranked as a recruit anywhere near as high as Rabb and Brown, the two 5-stars. Of course he was older and much more experienced. I also remember Brown playing point guard for a half against Arizona or ASU earlier in the season, and he played really well, with some dazzling passes for assists. Maybe it was a bad example, but I was writing less about Cal losing, but more about how good the Hawaii players looked, which either was a lot of development over their careers, or a lot of recruit rankings for their players which did not turn out to be good predictions of how good they were. Besides the NCAA win, they had a very good season, and did not play badly in the 2nd round, as I remember.

BTW, who is Fomingo? Did you mean Flamingo? (Just kidding) I know who you meant, Domingo, who was another player who did not live up to his recruit ranking, IMO.

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I still contend that our biggest loss was Wallace because they had two aggressive senior guards and as singer had to start and got in early foul trouble we had to play chacua who was dominated and so even had to try brown at PG which was a failed experiment and got him in foul trouble

Wallace being out also meant we had to play Roger and Fomingo more who did poorly

SFCityBear said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

---

That all sounds reasonable. I am beginning to think with all the rule changes in favor of the offense now that offense is probably more than half of the game. I feel the recruit rankings for 5-star players are fairly accurate. Those players are well-known and the recruit analysts are following them closely from early on. The 4-star rankings are a little less accurate, and when you get into 3-star, not so accurate.

I remember that 2016 team from Hawaii, composed of 3-star, 2-star, and unranked recruits, which gave Cal such a tough time in the NCAA. Cal had two key players out with injury, but the two 5-star players and the bench we had together was not so shabby, and should have been able to handle Hawaii, based on recruit rankings. Several of those Hawaii players sure seemed to be playing above their ranking in that game, or else those rankings were probably not accurate. Or the Hawaii coach had worked some magic in their development as players.

---

---

I agree with all you said. I also think Wallace was our best player, and not ranked as a recruit anywhere near as high as Rabb and Brown, the two 5-stars. Of course he was older and much more experienced. I also remember Brown playing point guard for a half against Arizona or ASU earlier in the season, and he played really well, with some dazzling passes for assists. Maybe it was a bad example, but I was writing less about Cal losing, but more about how good the Hawaii players looked, which either was a lot of development over their careers, or a lot of recruit rankings for their players which did not turn out to be good predictions of how good they were. Besides the NCAA win, they had a very good season, and did not play badly in the 2nd round, as I remember.

BTW, who is Fomingo? Did you mean Flamingo? (Just kidding) I know who you meant, Domingo, who was another player who did not live up to his recruit ranking, IMO.

---

Highly unlikely, but could you imagine if Domingo had a kid and named him(her) "Flamingo"? Performance art!

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I still contend that our biggest loss was Wallace because they had two aggressive senior guards and as singer had to start and got in early foul trouble we had to play chacua who was dominated and so even had to try brown at PG which was a failed experiment and got him in foul trouble

Wallace being out also meant we had to play Roger and Fomingo more who did poorly

SFCityBear said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

---

That all sounds reasonable. I am beginning to think with all the rule changes in favor of the offense now that offense is probably more than half of the game. I feel the recruit rankings for 5-star players are fairly accurate. Those players are well-known and the recruit analysts are following them closely from early on. The 4-star rankings are a little less accurate, and when you get into 3-star, not so accurate.

I remember that 2016 team from Hawaii, composed of 3-star, 2-star, and unranked recruits, which gave Cal such a tough time in the NCAA. Cal had two key players out with injury, but the two 5-star players and the bench we had together was not so shabby, and should have been able to handle Hawaii, based on recruit rankings. Several of those Hawaii players sure seemed to be playing above their ranking in that game, or else those rankings were probably not accurate. Or the Hawaii coach had worked some magic in their development as players.

---

---

I agree with all you said. I also think Wallace was our best player, and not ranked as a recruit anywhere near as high as Rabb and Brown, the two 5-stars. Of course he was older and much more experienced. I also remember Brown playing point guard for a half against Arizona or ASU earlier in the season, and he played really well, with some dazzling passes for assists. Maybe it was a bad example, but I was writing less about Cal losing, but more about how good the Hawaii players looked, which either was a lot of development over their careers, or a lot of recruit rankings for their players which did not turn out to be good predictions of how good they were. Besides the NCAA win, they had a very good season, and did not play badly in the 2nd round, as I remember.

BTW, who is Fomingo? Did you mean Flamingo? (Just kidding) I know who you meant, Domingo, who was another player who did not live up to his recruit ranking, IMO.

---

Highly unlikely, but could you imagine if Domingo had a kid and named him(her) "Flamingo"? Performance art!

---

God Shamgod would beg to differ. Don't count out Flamingo Domingo.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I still contend that our biggest loss was Wallace because they had two aggressive senior guards and as singer had to start and got in early foul trouble we had to play chacua who was dominated and so even had to try brown at PG which was a failed experiment and got him in foul trouble

Wallace being out also meant we had to play Roger and Fomingo more who did poorly

SFCityBear said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If I can judge by most of the Cal fans who post on this forum, they won't want Fox or any Cal coach poking around the country looking for zero star unrated recruits. They want 5-star recruits, and will accept 4-stars, and tolerate 3-stars. Anything lower is chopped liver, apparently.

---

Speaking only for myself, I would love 4-stars and be happy with 3-stars. Of course, as you have mentioned, some of those work out and some don't.

I think it's rare to find a 2-star who can contribute right away. I'm OK with 2-stars if:
1) The coach can find those who have the talent and desire to improve.
2) The coach can coach them up.
3) The coach can create schemes to maximize their effectiveness.

A case could be made that our coach can do the above at the defensive end. I have yet to see it at the offensive end, which is half of the game.

---

That all sounds reasonable. I am beginning to think with all the rule changes in favor of the offense now that offense is probably more than half of the game. I feel the recruit rankings for 5-star players are fairly accurate. Those players are well-known and the recruit analysts are following them closely from early on. The 4-star rankings are a little less accurate, and when you get into 3-star, not so accurate.

I remember that 2016 team from Hawaii, composed of 3-star, 2-star, and unranked recruits, which gave Cal such a tough time in the NCAA. Cal had two key players out with injury, but the two 5-star players and the bench we had together was not so shabby, and should have been able to handle Hawaii, based on recruit rankings. Several of those Hawaii players sure seemed to be playing above their ranking in that game, or else those rankings were probably not accurate. Or the Hawaii coach had worked some magic in their development as players.

---

---

I agree with all you said. I also think Wallace was our best player, and not ranked as a recruit anywhere near as high as Rabb and Brown, the two 5-stars. Of course he was older and much more experienced. I also remember Brown playing point guard for a half against Arizona or ASU earlier in the season, and he played really well, with some dazzling passes for assists. Maybe it was a bad example, but I was writing less about Cal losing, but more about how good the Hawaii players looked, which either was a lot of development over their careers, or a lot of recruit rankings for their players which did not turn out to be good predictions of how good they were. Besides the NCAA win, they had a very good season, and did not play badly in the 2nd round, as I remember.

BTW, who is Fomingo? Did you mean Flamingo? (Just kidding) I know who you meant, Domingo, who was another player who did not live up to his recruit ranking, IMO.

---

Highly unlikely, but could you imagine if Domingo had a kid and named him(her) "Flamingo"? Performance art!

---

God Shamgod would beg to differ. Don't count out Flamingo Domingo.

---

God Shammgod. There's a name from the past... and I mean a name!

I had to google him to see how he turned out: Played a bit in the NBA and then in China, after the turn of the century. Coached in player development for Providence and now is in the same capacity for the Dallas Mavericks. Heck, we might have seen glimpses of him during their playoff series with the Warriors. Goes to show: You might see God and not even know it.

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Guys, I think Steph Curry might be one of the greats.

---

At this point, gotta be considering him for one of the Top Ten of all time.

(Not sure exactly who the others are, besides Jordan and Lebron... good debate. Curry is in that conversation now.)

---

Others to consider:

Russell
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Wilt
Big O
Hakeem

---

Almost exactly my list, which proves you know your hoops! I might throw in West. I didn't have Duncan and Hakeem, but they are surely worthy (lower case "w").

Anyway, Stephen Curry gets mentioned up there now, IMO. Two weeks ago, he was on the "others receiving votes" list.

---

Interesting video on this very topic:



Top 10 discussion starts around seven minutes in, where he shows basically the same candidates we had above and argues Stephen Curry is now in the group. Probably the strongest argument he presents is how much better the team does with him on the floor than without. Curry is off the charts in that stat, even among this elite group. That definitely backs up our thoughts that Curry makes the whole team better just by his presence.

And as an aside, Wilt Chamberlain seems to rank relatively low in this stat (again, compared to the greats), which does support the common criticism of him being more about personal stats than team success.

Further to Curry among the all time stars, and how he makes teams and teammates better, there are only three players who have won multiple championships without a top 75 team mate:

Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Steph

Maybe someday Klay will be considered top 75, but so far he is not, nor is Dray (and I doubt Dray will ever be considered top 75).

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/only-3-players-won-multiple-nba-championships-without-a-top-75-teammate

Shaq not considered top 75?

MSaviolives said:

---

Further to Curry among the all time stars, and how he makes teams and teammates better, there are only three players who have won multiple championships without a top 75 team mate:

Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Steph

Maybe someday Klay will be considered top 75, but so far he is not, nor is Dray (and I doubt Dray will ever be considered top 75).

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/only-3-players-won-multiple-nba-championships-without-a-top-75-teammate

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Shaq not considered top 75?

MSaviolives said:

---

Further to Curry among the all time stars, and how he makes teams and teammates better, there are only three players who have won multiple championships without a top 75 team mate:

Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Steph

Maybe someday Klay will be considered top 75, but so far he is not, nor is Dray (and I doubt Dray will ever be considered top 75).

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/only-3-players-won-multiple-nba-championships-without-a-top-75-teammate

---

---

He won two more without Shaq, right?

sycasey said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Shaq not considered top 75?

MSaviolives said:

---

Further to Curry among the all time stars, and how he makes teams and teammates better, there are only three players who have won multiple championships without a top 75 team mate:

Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Steph

Maybe someday Klay will be considered top 75, but so far he is not, nor is Dray (and I doubt Dray will ever be considered top 75).

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/only-3-players-won-multiple-nba-championships-without-a-top-75-teammate

---

---

He won two more without Shaq, right?

---

did he?

I've said I don't follow the NBA and never watched Kobe, Shaq, or even Jordan

it's actually only recently that I started following the Warriors (as a fair weather fan), and even then I only watch the Finals, or (again, more recently) some of the playoffs. I only attended my first NBA game this season.

My vote is for Curry to be top 10 of all time, but I posted I felt there should be two eras as it's just too hard to separate the great ones, especially with the rule changes and because most voters haven't even see games (I'm not talking about myself)

of course, given my credentials you can pretty much ignore anything I say about the nba

HoopDreams said:

---

sycasey said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Shaq not considered top 75?

MSaviolives said:

---

Further to Curry among the all time stars, and how he makes teams and teammates better, there are only three players who have won multiple championships without a top 75 team mate:

Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Steph

Maybe someday Klay will be considered top 75, but so far he is not, nor is Dray (and I doubt Dray will ever be considered top 75).

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/only-3-players-won-multiple-nba-championships-without-a-top-75-teammate

---

---

He won two more without Shaq, right?

---

did he?

I've said I don't follow the NBA and never watched Kobe, Shaq, or even Jordan

it's actually only recently that I started following the Warriors (as a fair weather fan), and even then I only watch the Finals, or (again, more recently) some of the playoffs. I only attended my first NBA game this season.

My vote is for Curry to be top 10 of all time, but I posted I felt there should be two eras as it's just too hard to separate the great ones, especially with the rule changes and because most voters haven't even see games (I'm not talking about myself)

of course, given my credentials you can pretty much ignore anything I say about the nba

---

Slightly different premise, but given the way the NBA game is played today, it's hard to imagine anyone having a "10-man all-time Dream Team" without Curry being on it.