It is really hard to compare players from different eras. I am old enough that I got to see Magic play and I am really clear about what he was as a player. I think Magic is clearly better than Curry, but that is just my opinion. It is subjective. One tangible thing is the had check rule. If people could be more physical with Curry, that would make a difference. Teams tried everything against Magic, and couldn't stop him.
One thing that is interesting to me is that Curry wasn't even always the best player on his team. Durant was better for those few seasons. Curry is the best shooter ever, and he did lead his team to a title twice as the best player (although not finals MVP in both cases). The CLE year was helped considerably by injuries to Kyrie and Love, and he wasn't the finals MVP. I asterisk that one. Then he beat the Celtics of course, a team that probably wasn't quite ready for that big stage. But you have to give that one to Curry. He was the best player on the championship team. He was the difference.
I've never agreed that Durant was the better player on those teams. Go back and watch how opposition defences played Golden State during those years - Curry was the clear focal point of their efforts
Durant was the finals MVP both of those title years. I know that is not the end all but it definitely adds credibility to the Durant was the best player on those GSW teams position. It was definitely a 1A and 1B but in either case, I don't think Durant or Curry is better than Magic, so to some extent, it doesn't matter to the core discussion around the statement by Curry that he feels he is the best PG ever, better than Magic.
I know that I probably have Magic higher than most, I am surprised that others don't have Magic higher, but the comments make this clear. I have Magic in the discussion with Jordan and James as the best ever, ahead of Bird. Absolutely the best PG ever.
I think Durant winning FMVPs was a result of him being the secondary focus of the opposition
Curry was easily the most important player even on those teams, though I do think Durant was probably a better player.
The 1st year, Durant missed 20 games, they were 51-11 with him and 16-4 without him. They were 65-14 with Curry (3-1 without him). Curry's on/off differential per 100 possessions was an obscene +17.2, Durant was at a very good +8.7, while Draymond was actually 2nd on the team at +11.2. The next year, Curry missed 31 games, they were 41-10 with him and 17-14 without him. Curry's on/off differential per 100 was +12.1. That 2nd year, Durant missed 14 games, the Warriors were 49-19 with him and 9-5 without him. Durant's differential was only +1.9. In 2019, they had all the injuries in the playoffs, but they were still a 57 win team in the regular season. Durant played 78 games, the Warriors went 3-1 without him. Curry played in just 69 games, they went 5-8 without him. They both had really elite on/off differentials, but Curry was still better at 16.2 vs. 16.1.
The 3 years in the playoffs:
Curry - 20.6, 3.8, 12.1
Durant - 6.0, 10.7, 8.2
So in their 3 seasons together, Curry was the main driver of their success both in the regular season and 2 of the 3 playoff runs. That team does not work without Curry. It doesn't matter if they have Barnes or Durant, Bogut or Looney, as long as they had Curry, they were fine. He played 5 games in 2020, then coming bac from injury the next year they were 37-26 in his 63 games and 2-7 in the 9 games he missed. Then they won 53 games and the title (45-19 with Steph, 8-10 without him).
Curry may not have been better than Durant, but he was certainly their most important player. Durant missed games and they were fine as long as they had Curry, but Curry missed games and they fell off significantly.
