PDA

View Full Version : Does the Warriors Blowing Out Teams without Steph hurt his case as "MVP"?



Nikeman
05-02-2016, 12:19 PM
Not trying to start a bait thread, just wanting a good, discussion without insults and name calling.

So in your opinion, do the Warriors, blowing out teams, Rockets 3 times, and Blazers in game 1 hurt Steph's case as MVP? Personally, I think to an extent it does. It shows Steph puts up great, great numbers, and is a truly special player, but his greatness is also due to seeing one of the greatest team's ever put together alongside him. He has two borderline superstars alongside him, and 5 players on his bench who could start on other teams in this league.

I have often seen games where you saw Steph shoot extremely poorly, but Klay, Green and the bench picked up his slack and the Warriors still destroyed their opponent. If LeBron shot 3-14 in a game I don't think the Cavs could ever win, and likewise with Durant, etc etc.

If you take LeBron out against the Pistons, I don't think the Cavs get by the eighth seeded Pistons. If you take KD/Russ out of OKC I don't think they can beat any playoff team, and if you take Kawahi out, the Spurs do not beat a HEALTHY Memphis team. Yet the Warriors without Steph have just blown out competition.

If your definition of MVP is the best player on the best TEAM, Steph is your guy, but as far as best "overall" player, I think that has been taken over by Kawahi. Call me crazy, he's by far the best defensive player in the league, who guards the best player on the other team every night and still provides high quality offensive numbers. 21 ppg on 50% shooting, with 45% shooting from 3 and 88% from the line. Steph is often hidden by guarding the worst player on the opposing team allowing him to play offense.

Yes, the Warriors won 73 games, but Kawahi leading the Spurs to 67 is just as impressive, if not more impressive to me, considering his teammates. Steph had two stars and borderline superstars in their primes, and the deepest team in NBA history, while Kawahi had Aldridge, but Duncan, Manu and Parker are all like 35+ with hugely diminished roles. Again, Steph is a legend in his own right, but he had probably half the responsibility Kawahi did, its not a knock on him its just how good that Warriors roster is.

Tony_Starks
05-02-2016, 12:23 PM
Not when the teams they are blowing out are a self destructing Rockets on the verge of a nuclear meltdown and a Portland squad that probably shouldn't even be there in the first place.

Chronz
05-02-2016, 12:30 PM
I hated when this argument prevented KG from winning an MVP in Boston (yes, the year CP3 and Kobe grabbed all the headlines). KG changed everything for them, when you're a historically good team, its very likely that your team can at least contend for HCA without you. Remember MJ, the GOAT. His team won like 2 less without him, if that didn't hurt him nothing will. That said, there is no MVP criteria so guys can do whatever the **** they want.


As for what it means about public perception, that really depends on what you thought of his teammates to begin with, at this point I am starting to wonder if maybe I underrated them alil bit.

Chronz
05-02-2016, 12:39 PM
As for your point on Kawhi, a thousand times yes. People still sleep on this guy with the "system" tag, they are fewer and fewer of them but some still hold Paul George in higher regard, which is absurd. Could just be an odd coincidence but alot of Kobe fans I know love Paul George's game, prolly because they are more similar in their reliance of long 2's (+"superior shot creation") but those same guys who cite rings in defense of Kobe are the same ones who ignore them in this comparison.

I have KL as a top 2-3 player, last year he was the difference between a .500 team and contention. This year hes upped his game so I have him ahead of Durant and depending on how these playoffs go down, prolly ahead of Bron. The only complaint I have against him is he kind of struggles more in tight games.

valade16
05-02-2016, 12:42 PM
Just for fun I looked up the game logs of LeBron, Curry to see whether the team won when they had a bad shooting night.

The Cavs went:
3-5 when LeBron shot under 40%
11-4 when LeBron shot between 40-45%

The Warriors went:
1-3 when Steph shot 30% or less
11-0 when Steph shot between 30-40%
11-1 when Steph shot between 40-45%


So we can see that Steph's bad shooting did have an effect on the wins when it was very bad, but otherwise they were able to win with Steph just having an off shooting night. The same can be said of LeBron James though not to the same degree. The Cavs won roughly just as much when he had a subpar shooting night as not, but struggled when he had a bad shooting night, though not to the degree the Warriors struggled.

Not sure if we can derive any conclusions based on this information, but there it is.

Scoots
05-02-2016, 12:43 PM
No because the MVP voting is already over.

On the actual point ... it's telling that the other Warriors were happy to step aside because Curry was so good on offense his teammates realize that they can't score at the same efficiency. I think if his teammates begrudged Curry's usage the whole team would fall apart (see Rockets and Harden).

ewing
05-02-2016, 12:46 PM
i don't think it should. I also don't think their is a huge gap b/t the impact KL and Curry had for there respective teams this year. Both were great. Curry team had the best regular season ever. He is MVP.

Hawkeye15
05-02-2016, 01:01 PM
MVP's always come from elite teams. So removing the MVP still usually leaves a very good team. I can only think of a player or two whose team becomes bad if you remove just them over time. This is not one of those cases.

Nikeman
05-02-2016, 01:12 PM
Just for fun I looked up the game logs of LeBron, Curry to see whether the team won when they had a bad shooting night.

The Cavs went:
3-5 when LeBron shot under 40%
11-4 when LeBron shot between 40-45%

The Warriors went:
1-3 when Steph shot 30% or less
11-0 when Steph shot between 30-40%
11-1 when Steph shot between 40-45%


So we can see that Steph's bad shooting did have an effect on the wins when it was very bad, but otherwise they were able to win with Steph just having an off shooting night. The same can be said of LeBron James though not to the same degree. The Cavs won roughly just as much when he had a subpar shooting night as not, but struggled when he had a bad shooting night, though not to the degree the Warriors struggled.

Not sure if we can derive any conclusions based on this information, but there it is.

Interesting stat man. I think a 10% range my be a little large for steph, because you dont know whether 30-40% was 31% or 39%, but either way, it shows when Steph shot extremely poorly they lost and when Steph shot just poorly they picked up his slack. Still, crazy how the Cavs go 3-5 when LeBron under 40% and when Steph shot 30-40% they 11-1. Also its interesting to see how many times Steph shot poorly for his standards, quite a bit if you think about it. If you get a chance, look up Kawahi, would be very interested to see what his looks like.

valade16
05-02-2016, 01:16 PM
No because the MVP voting is already over.

On the actual point ... it's telling that the other Warriors were happy to step aside because Curry was so good on offense his teammates realize that they can't score at the same efficiency. I think if his teammates begrudged Curry's usage the whole team would fall apart (see Rockets and Harden).

Didn't the Warriors have to convince Curry to actually shoot more because he was concerned about shooting too much? Amazing that he could increase his volume that much and also increase his efficiency.

Nikeman
05-02-2016, 01:16 PM
MVP's always come from elite teams. So removing the MVP still usually leaves a very good team. I can only think of a player or two whose team becomes bad if you remove just them over time. This is not one of those cases.

I disagree completely with that statement. LeBron won MVP in 2008-2009. The Cavs roster that season?


Daniel Gibson
J.J. Hickson
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Darnell Jackson
LeBron James
Trey Johnson
Tarence Kinsey
Sasha Pavlovic
Joe Smith
Wally Szczerbiak
Anderson Varejao
Ben Wallace
Delonte West
Jawad Williams
Mo Williams
Lorenzen Wright

That roster without LeBron, is a lottery team, LeBron single handedly elevated them to a 60+ win team, so no, that is not an elite team by any stretch. Generally yes, MVPs come from the best team, but to not appreciate the greatness of LeBron which is generally not on this forum is sad.

Chronz
05-02-2016, 01:16 PM
Just for fun I looked up the game logs of LeBron, Curry to see whether the team won when they had a bad shooting night.

The Cavs went:
3-5 when LeBron shot under 40%
11-4 when LeBron shot between 40-45%

The Warriors went:
1-3 when Steph shot 30% or less
11-0 when Steph shot between 30-40%
11-1 when Steph shot between 40-45%


So we can see that Steph's bad shooting did have an effect on the wins when it was very bad, but otherwise they were able to win with Steph just having an off shooting night. The same can be said of LeBron James though not to the same degree. The Cavs won roughly just as much when he had a subpar shooting night as not, but struggled when he had a bad shooting night, though not to the degree the Warriors struggled.

Not sure if we can derive any conclusions based on this information, but there it is.

Something I've wondered regarding splits. Most of the great players we think of saw their teams win more the more they scored. Like Kobe is undefeated when he scores 80 or more (lol) and if you look at his teams winning% when hes in the 40+ ranges, its a more impressive w-l record than otherwise. Same holds true for Shaq, Tmac, MJ etc.... but you look at Tim Duncan, his teams are at their best when hes not scoring much and his teams winning% in games where he blows up is actually lower than you would expect.

What does that tell us? Nothing?

DboneG
05-02-2016, 01:17 PM
Yes...because, we can now see this GSW team is simply amazing. They just win. The Warriors are on cruise control for maybe another two years. (This do not mean they will win championships..because, anything can happen. Like guys getting hurt.) Steph has had an awesome year! He's the MVP in my book.

Nikeman
05-02-2016, 01:19 PM
Also, what do you guys think of the fact that Draymond Green, not Steph "the MVP" has the highest (+/-) on the team, in fact Draymond has the highest (+/-) in the history of the NBA.

The top 3 players in terms of (+/-) all belong to GS, obviously as they **** on teams all year long, but whats interesting to me is that Kawahi is #4. The next Spur is ranked #10. What that shows me, is that Kawahi being on the court made a HUGE impact for San Antonio, more so than Steph being on the court for GS.

valade16
05-02-2016, 01:21 PM
Interesting stat man. I think a 10% range my be a little large for steph, because you dont know whether 30-40% was 31% or 39%, but either way, it shows when Steph shot extremely poorly they lost and when Steph shot just poorly they picked up his slack. Still, crazy how the Cavs go 3-5 when LeBron under 40% and when Steph shot 30-40% they 11-1. Also its interesting to see how many times Steph shot poorly for his standards, quite a bit if you think about it. If you get a chance, look up Kawahi, would be very interested to see what his looks like.

Kawhi's looked like this:
11-3 when shooting under 40%
8-4 when shooting between 40-45%

Doesn't look like the Spurs struggled much no matter how he shot. The 2 games he shot under 30% they won.

Chronz
05-02-2016, 01:22 PM
MVP's always come from elite teams. So removing the MVP still usually leaves a very good team. I can only think of a player or two whose team becomes bad if you remove just them over time. This is not one of those cases.
Nash? Dirk? Bron? Maybe KG that one year he had help?

valade16
05-02-2016, 01:25 PM
Something I've wondered regarding splits. Most of the great players we think of saw their teams win more the more they scored. Like Kobe is undefeated when he scores 80 or more (lol) and if you look at his teams winning% when hes in the 40+ ranges, its a more impressive w-l record than otherwise. Same holds true for Shaq, Tmac, MJ etc.... but you look at Tim Duncan, his teams are at their best when hes not scoring much and his teams winning% in games where he blows up is actually lower than you would expect.

What does that tell us? Nothing?

Completely guessing maybe that the Spurs offense is predicated on ball movement so if one guy is scoring a bunch it's possibly stagnating the ball movement and decreasing the offensive efficiency overall?

I really have no idea. It is interesting to see how players volume and usage affects the teams win% and to speculate on how it's all connected. I suspect we'll never get a consistent answer.

Nikeman
05-02-2016, 01:26 PM
My arugument is quite simple, if MVP means best player on the best team, sure its Steph. But Kawahi in my opinion is the most complete player in the NBA today, and in terms impact on the team, Kawahi played a larger impact on the Spurs winning 67 games than Steph played in Golden State winning 73. Steph benefitted tremendously from what is statistically the greatest TEAM of all time in the 2015-2016 Warriors.

DboneG
05-02-2016, 02:19 PM
My arugument is quite simple, if MVP means best player on the best team, sure its Steph. But Kawahi in my opinion is the most complete player in the NBA today, and in terms impact on the team, Kawahi played a larger impact on the Spurs winning 67 games than Steph played in Golden State winning 73. Steph benefitted tremendously from what is statistically the greatest TEAM of all time in the 2015-2016 Warriors.


You couldn't put Kawahi on the 76er's team and say they will make the playoffs. On the other hand, you could put LeBron on the 76ers and know will make the playoffs.

Scoots
05-02-2016, 02:31 PM
Didn't the Warriors have to convince Curry to actually shoot more because he was concerned about shooting too much? Amazing that he could increase his volume that much and also increase his efficiency.

Yeah, that was supposedly one of Walton's biggest contributions to this years Warriors. I don't know if Kerr could have stomached 10 3s a game. There was some talk of going for 15 3s a game from Curry next year ... if he takes the same number of total shots per 100 and hits a similar rate his scoring could go up another 2 points with no other changes.

Scoots
05-02-2016, 02:33 PM
I disagree completely with that statement. LeBron won MVP in 2008-2009. The Cavs roster that season?

That roster without LeBron, is a lottery team, LeBron single handedly elevated them to a 60+ win team, so no, that is not an elite team by any stretch. Generally yes, MVPs come from the best team, but to not appreciate the greatness of LeBron which is generally not on this forum is sad.

He did say he could think of a few that were on bad teams ... so you agree with that part at least :)

Scoots
05-02-2016, 02:35 PM
Also, what do you guys think of the fact that Draymond Green, not Steph "the MVP" has the highest (+/-) on the team, in fact Draymond has the highest (+/-) in the history of the NBA.

The top 3 players in terms of (+/-) all belong to GS, obviously as they **** on teams all year long, but whats interesting to me is that Kawahi is #4. The next Spur is ranked #10. What that shows me, is that Kawahi being on the court made a HUGE impact for San Antonio, more so than Steph being on the court for GS.

Or it's that the rising tide lifts all boats. Curry being out there creates space and motion for everybody else which resulted in the offense growing to what it is now showing playing against bad defensive teams.

Scoots
05-02-2016, 02:36 PM
You couldn't put Kawahi on the 76er's team and say they will make the playoffs. On the other hand, you could put LeBron on the 76ers and know will make the playoffs.

I'm not sure even LeBron could have dragged that team to the playoffs.

JasonJohnHorn
05-02-2016, 03:22 PM
It depends on how you define 'MVP'.

If you say the MVP is the best player in the league, then no.

If you say the MVP should go to the player who is most valuable to his team winning, then yes. Which is how I define MVP.


LBJ would get my vote this year. I think if you remove him from the Cavs this year, they are a lottery. Keep in mind that Kyrie missed essentially the first half the season, which means it would have been Love running the show on his own with Smith as a second option. That is not good enough to get to the playoffs as we saw when he was in Minny. When Kyrie came back, he wasn't playing well for about a month. They would have been too far behind to come back. With LBJ, they have the best record in the East. That is huge.

You take Curry off the Warriors and replace him with a decent starter, like Rondo ro D-Will.... and that team is still a 60 win team and first or second in the conference.


I think removing CP3 from the Clippers this year would put that team in the lottery. We saw how poorly they played without him against Portland. They'd be a lottery team. Without Blake, they were still playing well. Without Paul..... nothing.


But... if you ask me who the best player in the league is, I'm going with Curry.

IndyRealist
05-02-2016, 03:35 PM
Just for fun I looked up the game logs of LeBron, Curry to see whether the team won when they had a bad shooting night.

The Cavs went:
3-5 when LeBron shot under 40%
11-4 when LeBron shot between 40-45%

The Warriors went:
1-3 when Steph shot 30% or less
11-0 when Steph shot between 30-40%
11-1 when Steph shot between 40-45%


So we can see that Steph's bad shooting did have an effect on the wins when it was very bad, but otherwise they were able to win with Steph just having an off shooting night. The same can be said of LeBron James though not to the same degree. The Cavs won roughly just as much when he had a subpar shooting night as not, but struggled when he had a bad shooting night, though not to the degree the Warriors struggled.

Not sure if we can derive any conclusions based on this information, but there it is.

Needs to be redone with TS%. 39% when you shoot a ton of 3s is vastly different than 39% when you take a couple of 3s a game.

Sly Guy
05-02-2016, 03:36 PM
no, none of those teams are in the class of the warriors yet. Wait until they face either OKC (yeah right) or the Spurs before making that kind of judgement.

numba1CHANGsta
05-02-2016, 03:49 PM
The MVP a.k.a MPP (Most Popular Player) award doesn't mean jack sh_t

Scoots
05-02-2016, 04:19 PM
The MVP a.k.a MPP (Most Popular Player) award doesn't mean jack sh_t

Tell that to players who have contract clauses based on it.

Snakeyestx
05-02-2016, 04:23 PM
An "MVP" in my opinion is a player that plays at an exceptional level, that your team could not win without.

Two seasons ago, I was part of the Harden-for-MVP camp because this was the case. He literally carried the team to the WCF and without him, Houston would have never made it. With Steph that season, they could have easily have made it to the WCF without him - but just not with as wide of a margin of victory - just like what's going on this season.

That being said, who would I consider this year for MVP ? I could make the case for Paul George. Despite coming back from a heinous leg injury, he literally helped carry that team to the first round, but fell short without a great supporting cast this year.

valade16
05-02-2016, 04:28 PM
Needs to be redone with TS%. 39% when you shoot a ton of 3s is vastly different than 39% when you take a couple of 3s a game.

True, but I think it's safe to say If you shoot less than 30%, your TS won't be great no matter if they were all 3's or not.

Saddletramp
05-02-2016, 04:33 PM
No because the MVP voting is already over.

On the actual point ... it's telling that the other Warriors were happy to step aside because Curry was so good on offense his teammates realize that they can't score at the same efficiency. I think if his teammates begrudged Curry's usage the whole team would fall apart (see Rockets and Harden).

Although I'm not quite sure about the dig on the Rockets, pretty much this. In the first half of the game when Curry got hurt in Game 4, the Warriors looked beatable with Curry not playing very well. His teammates didn't know what to do when their star wasn't being a star. Best thing to happen to them that game was Curry leaving; they knew it was on them and they took over.

He's the best player on the best team but you can't deny that he didn't get this good until Kerr showed up and he's surrounded by multiple top ten draft picks, motor guys like Green, former Allstars that couldn't win as the main guy like AI, and former #1 pick overall that sets a gritty defensive tone. Not to mention a bench filled with underpaid guys like Barbosa, Speights and perhaps Livingston (although I'm not sure he would've gotten significantly more than the MLE on too many other teams).

Without Harden, the Rockets are nowhere near the playoffs (with him they barely made it). And they know it so they deal, for better or for worse. Without Curry, the Warriors are high-middle of the pack (Thunder/Clipper level).

Saddletramp
05-02-2016, 04:47 PM
Also, what do you guys think of the fact that Draymond Green, not Steph "the MVP" has the highest (+/-) on the team, in fact Draymond has the highest (+/-) in the history of the NBA.

The top 3 players in terms of (+/-) all belong to GS, obviously as they **** on teams all year long, but whats interesting to me is that Kawahi is #4. The next Spur is ranked #10. What that shows me, is that Kawahi being on the court made a HUGE impact for San Antonio, more so than Steph being on the court for GS.

I thought that about Harden last year and people laughed that he thought that he was MVP*. Best player on best team aside, the MVP should be the guy (like LeBron in his early Cavs days) that takes his team to the next level solely because of him. That's why people wanted to give LeBron the Finals MVP last year even though they only won two games.

*Same basic team from last year and this year with one glaring difference (besides them being a lot healthier this year). Harden's defense last year wasn't great, but it was at least adequate. He was trying. This year? Look, I'm not saying that was the difference in a 2 to 8 drop but it just goes to show that one guy is the difference maker in that team. One guy is icing on the best cake in the world on the other. And that's where I think the MVP discussion gets skewed. It is what it is.

True Sports Fan
05-02-2016, 04:58 PM
I've been arguing all year how strong the Warriors are as a team, and I'm glad they are finally showcasing just how good and deep that team is.

But regardless, I think Curry should receive the MVP award. Best player on a great team.

TrueFan420
05-02-2016, 05:34 PM
if you take Kawahi out, the Spurs do not beat a HEALTHY Memphis team.

This is just straight up wrong. Kawahi takes heat for being a system player and doesn't get enough love from the media. He's definately a top 5 player. But there isn't a chance the Spurs lose to that Memphis team Kawahi or not. You say the Warriors are the deepest team in NBA history when the Spurs are equally deep. Manu, Mills, Diaw, West are extremely good players to have coming off the bench.

Vee-Rex
05-02-2016, 05:52 PM
Well, the Warriors are obviously a great team w/o Curry, but that's not really enough to hurt Curry's case for MVP.

W/O Curry: Great team
W/Curry: GOAT team

I'd put the Warriors below OKC/SA/CLE and LAC w/o Curry. I think those teams beat them in a 7 game series. But this is a team that not only broke the all-time season record, but could probably hammer a gargantuan, record-breaking SA team in 5 or 6 games with a healthy Curry.

They really are THAT good, heh.

CHANGO
05-02-2016, 07:00 PM
I'm sure the MVP voting is done, BUT, I do think that this hurt his case as MVP.

It does help tho that they played the LOLRockets so that's not a big sample size, let's see 2 more games with him sitting and we'll have a better idea of how the Warriors play without him.

numba1CHANGsta
05-02-2016, 07:34 PM
I'm sure the MVP voting is done, BUT, I do think that this hurt his case as MVP.

It does help tho that they played the LOLRockets so that's not a big sample size, let's see 2 more games with him sitting and we'll have a better idea of how the Warriors play without him.

Whatever happens in the playoffs has no affect on the MVP voting cuz the MVP award is a regular season award.

lol, please
05-02-2016, 08:38 PM
Not trying to start a bait thread, just wanting a good, discussion without insults and name calling.

So in your opinion, do the Warriors, blowing out teams, Rockets 3 times, and Blazers in game 1 hurt Steph's case as MVP? Personally, I think to an extent it does. It shows Steph puts up great, great numbers, and is a truly special player, but his greatness is also due to seeing one of the greatest team's ever put together alongside him. He has two borderline superstars alongside him, and 5 players on his bench who could start on other teams in this league.

I have often seen games where you saw Steph shoot extremely poorly, but Klay, Green and the bench picked up his slack and the Warriors still destroyed their opponent. If LeBron shot 3-14 in a game I don't think the Cavs could ever win, and likewise with Durant, etc etc.

If you take LeBron out against the Pistons, I don't think the Cavs get by the eighth seeded Pistons. If you take KD/Russ out of OKC I don't think they can beat any playoff team, and if you take Kawahi out, the Spurs do not beat a HEALTHY Memphis team. Yet the Warriors without Steph have just blown out competition.

If your definition of MVP is the best player on the best TEAM, Steph is your guy, but as far as best "overall" player, I think that has been taken over by Kawahi. Call me crazy, he's by far the best defensive player in the league, who guards the best player on the other team every night and still provides high quality offensive numbers. 21 ppg on 50% shooting, with 45% shooting from 3 and 88% from the line. Steph is often hidden by guarding the worst player on the opposing team allowing him to play offense.

Yes, the Warriors won 73 games, but Kawahi leading the Spurs to 67 is just as impressive, if not more impressive to me, considering his teammates. Steph had two stars and borderline superstars in their primes, and the deepest team in NBA history, while Kawahi had Aldridge, but Duncan, Manu and Parker are all like 35+ with hugely diminished roles. Again, Steph is a legend in his own right, but he had probably half the responsibility Kawahi did, its not a knock on him its just how good that Warriors roster is.

No, it shouldn't. The MVP stands for "most valuable player" not "player that carries a team a scrubs". Curry has the +/- among other things to prove his impact, and being the most impactful player to your team is what it's all about.

What it does do, is make the whole "the warriors are only curry" crowd feel foolish, because they have been dead wrong from the get-go. The team is stacked/deep. Deal with it. (not you directly, but anyone with that previous mentality I mentioned).

Scoots
05-02-2016, 08:54 PM
Although I'm not quite sure about the dig on the Rockets, pretty much this. In the first half of the game when Curry got hurt in Game 4, the Warriors looked beatable with Curry not playing very well. His teammates didn't know what to do when their star wasn't being a star. Best thing to happen to them that game was Curry leaving; they knew it was on them and they took over.

He's the best player on the best team but you can't deny that he didn't get this good until Kerr showed up and he's surrounded by multiple top ten draft picks, motor guys like Green, former Allstars that couldn't win as the main guy like AI, and former #1 pick overall that sets a gritty defensive tone. Not to mention a bench filled with underpaid guys like Barbosa, Speights and perhaps Livingston (although I'm not sure he would've gotten significantly more than the MLE on too many other teams).

Without Harden, the Rockets are nowhere near the playoffs (with him they barely made it). And they know it so they deal, for better or for worse. Without Curry, the Warriors are high-middle of the pack (Thunder/Clipper level).

FWIW that wasn't intended as a dig at Harden, just that the Rockets seemed disillusioned by the lack of ball movement by the end of the season and seemed to maybe begrudge Harden the shots. Not that Harden wasn't BY FAR the best offensive option the team had. My point was that it's easy for teams to get toxic and frankly it's a bit of a miracle the Warriors stayed so good with Curry taking so many shots that would generally be considered "bad".

On the "surrounded by top 10 picks" ... the Warriors have 4 around Curry in Bogut, Barnes, Livingston, and Iguodala. I was curious so I used the Rockets as a barometer since I have no idea how many players on other teams are top 10 picks ... the Rockets have 5 too, Harden, Howard (#1 overall, like Bogut), Terry, Brewer, Beasley. That said I have no idea what the average NBA team has in top 10 picks.

Scoots
05-02-2016, 08:57 PM
I thought that about Harden last year and people laughed that he thought that he was MVP*. Best player on best team aside, the MVP should be the guy (like LeBron in his early Cavs days) that takes his team to the next level solely because of him. That's why people wanted to give LeBron the Finals MVP last year even though they only won two games.

*Same basic team from last year and this year with one glaring difference (besides them being a lot healthier this year). Harden's defense last year wasn't great, but it was at least adequate. He was trying. This year? Look, I'm not saying that was the difference in a 2 to 8 drop but it just goes to show that one guy is the difference maker in that team. One guy is icing on the best cake in the world on the other. And that's where I think the MVP discussion gets skewed. It is what it is.

The problem there is in judging who has the most impact is essentially guesswork. Harden was incredible last year no doubt and it was REALLY close for anybody reasonable whichever way they leaned.

CHANGO
05-02-2016, 10:22 PM
Whatever happens in the playoffs has no affect on the MVP voting cuz the MVP award is a regular season award.

I'm not talking about this season, obviously voting is over.

I'm talking about next season and how people will perceive Curry if the Warriors go on and sweep the Blazers without Curry for example...

Saddletramp
05-02-2016, 10:56 PM
FWIW that wasn't intended as a dig at Harden, just that the Rockets seemed disillusioned by the lack of ball movement by the end of the season and seemed to maybe begrudge Harden the shots. Not that Harden wasn't BY FAR the best offensive option the team had. My point was that it's easy for teams to get toxic and frankly it's a bit of a miracle the Warriors stayed so good with Curry taking so many shots that would generally be considered "bad".

On the "surrounded by top 10 picks" ... the Warriors have 4 around Curry in Bogut, Barnes, Livingston, and Iguodala. I was curious so I used the Rockets as a barometer since I have no idea how many players on other teams are top 10 picks ... the Rockets have 5 too, Harden, Howard (#1 overall, like Bogut), Terry, Brewer, Beasley. That said I have no idea what the average NBA team has in top 10 picks.

Didn't realize Klay was an 11th. Huh.

Also, c'mon. Terry is 38 or so and Beasely was picked up off the China Wire. Not quite the same. And I was sorta getting at the "tanked for 5 years to get a bunch of high picks and now they're all gelling at the same time and then you add a second rounder that blew away expectations, traded a high pick that didn't mesh for a #1 overall pesky defender that couldn't get it done as the man and another couldn't get it done as a man and a bunch of waaaay underpriced vets". You know, sorta getting at that. It took time, and I'm sure they might not have known it at times, but they put together a stacked as af team.

gauth25
05-02-2016, 11:23 PM
The only way you would ever really understand what Curry means to this team is if/when the Spurs and GS move on to the conference finals. If Curry isn't available then in my opinion, GS will have no chance to beat them. Curry is one of those players that is what a few have already mentioned - takes a very good team to a championship team. They can get by Houston and Portland without him because they run the same kind of offense but GS has more talent. If they would've had to play the Clippers or OKC this round then it would be a different story.

I really hope they let Curry rest the whole series so he's ready to go against SA because they have more depth top to bottom than GS does. Just watching tonight's games and having watched many of GS games this season I don't see Cleveland beating GS or SA unless Lebron and Kyrie play other worldly. Kevin love is their weak link and both teams would expose him big time.

Scoots
05-03-2016, 01:34 AM
Didn't realize Klay was an 11th. Huh.

Also, c'mon. Terry is 38 or so and Beasely was picked up off the China Wire. Not quite the same. And I was sorta getting at the "tanked for 5 years to get a bunch of high picks and now they're all gelling at the same time and then you add a second rounder that blew away expectations, traded a high pick that didn't mesh for a #1 overall pesky defender that couldn't get it done as the man and another couldn't get it done as a man and a bunch of waaaay underpriced vets". You know, sorta getting at that. It took time, and I'm sure they might not have known it at times, but they put together a stacked as af team.

I wasn't trying to make a comparison of value ... I just wondered how many top 10 picks were on other teams and since it was from a conversation with you I chose the Rockets.

Sadly the Warriors only tanked for half of one year. The rest of the time they just sucked despite trying to win. And if the "high pick that didn't mesh" is Monta Ellis, he was a 2nd round pick. And the "waaaay underpriced vets" were not under priced until they were title winners. Speights barely had any interest, Barbosa had no interest, Livingston was looking to rescue his career after the only season in his career where he played more than 73 games ... I think there was one other team making him an offer.

But yeah, the team works well.

Chances are Speights, Rush, and Varejao are gone next year ... Barbosa probably comes back. No idea about Barnes.

Hopefully next year Ian Clark, James Michael McAdoo, Kevon Looney, and rookie X can contribute even more too. Plus I bet the front office looks for more shooting since they do that every year!

And hey, maybe KD! (I really doubt it, my guess is he stays where he is).

KnicksorBust
05-03-2016, 11:43 AM
Portland only beat the Clippers because of injuries and the Houston Rockets were a chemistry disaster who barely made the playoffs. So 3-4 games against these teams is "proving" Curry is less valuable? Seems like a real stretch to me. If the Warriors won the title without him (which they won't) or beat the Spurs/OKC without him (which they wouldn't) that would be interesting but the best comparison of situations was from this post:


I hated when this argument prevented KG from winning an MVP in Boston (yes, the year CP3 and Kobe grabbed all the headlines). KG changed everything for them, when you're a historically good team, its very likely that your team can at least contend for HCA without you. Remember MJ, the GOAT. His team won like 2 less without him, if that didn't hurt him nothing will. That said, there is no MVP criteria so guys can do whatever the **** they want.

That 94 season did exactly what it should have done. It elevated Pippen in the public perception and took nothing away from Jordan. That's how I see this small stretch playing out. Klay and to a lesser extent Draymond (who already seems to be considered a top 10 player) finally get more attention and recognition for their contributions to the team. Also can we please stop with these garbage "Curry couldn't drag team X to the playoffs but LeBron could!!!" ? They are not based in reality.

Scoots
05-03-2016, 12:18 PM
I heard something in a way I hadn't really thought about it ... Curry's WS was 17.9, so let's call that 18 wins. Take those 18 wins away from the Warriors and they are a 55 win team and finish 2nd in the west.

Now I know win shares is hardly a perfect stat, but 18 is a REALLY good win share, and losing 18 more games the Warriors were STILL good enough to finish with a #2 seed.

Chronz
05-03-2016, 09:21 PM
Yeah, WS might underrate his offensive impact and overrate his impact defensively but 18 is historic, its just certain people think 1 guy makes or breaks a team and thus they judge their individual success entirely on their teams results.

Chronz
05-03-2016, 10:28 PM
That 94 season did exactly what it should have done. It elevated Pippen in the public perception and took nothing away from Jordan. That's how I see this small stretch playing out. Klay and to a lesser extent Draymond (who already seems to be considered a top 10 player) finally get more attention and recognition for their contributions to the team. Also can we please stop with these garbage "Curry couldn't drag team X to the playoffs but LeBron could!!!" ? They are not based in reality.
Depends on the public you speak of, to this day I have people telling me the Bulls would've gotten to the Finals if not for that blown call. Either way, you're talking about perception man, does that really hold much sway for you? I mean, I knew Pippen was that good beforehand and its not like his production changed, whereas it seems like several GS players are capable of more.

I much rather discuss what you personally think than what the masses believe. And personally, the Bulls have a bunch of excuses why they only lost 2 games that most wont care to investigate, from team efficiency/expected win-loss, to the Olympic fatigue that Phil cited. Like the Bulls weren't trying to set history after winning 3 straight anymore, but when they lost MJ they played their ***** off.


Anyways, Im just sick of this narrative that the Spurs and Dubs are anything but the most talented teams in the league. Some mistake that fact to mean no one else stands a chance but I've never believed the most talented team always wins.

Shlumpledink
05-03-2016, 10:52 PM
It just shows how teams are great because because of multiple players, not because of one player.

Scoots
05-03-2016, 11:00 PM
Depends on the public you speak of, to this day I have people telling me the Bulls would've gotten to the Finals if not for that blown call. Either way, you're talking about perception man, does that really hold much sway for you? I mean, I knew Pippen was that good beforehand and its not like his production changed, whereas it seems like several GS players are capable of more.

I much rather discuss what you personally think than what the masses believe. And personally, the Bulls have a bunch of excuses why they only lost 2 games that most wont care to investigate, from team efficiency/expected win-loss, to the Olympic fatigue that Phil cited. Like the Bulls weren't trying to set history after winning 3 straight anymore, but when they lost MJ they played their ***** off.


Anyways, Im just sick of this narrative that the Spurs and Dubs are anything but the most talented teams in the league. Some mistake that fact to mean no one else stands a chance but I've never believed the most talented team always wins.

I never understand people who think talent=wins. There have been a lot of very talented teams that can't win it all. It happens all the time, look at the Thunder with KD.

ClassyAshyLarry
05-04-2016, 03:02 PM
No, but it does show that the people saying "Steph doing it all by himself" early in the year are dumb. Steph is definitely the MVP, but people acting like he was single handedly carrying them got a bit annoying.

JordansBulls
05-04-2016, 09:37 PM
The similarity between MJ and Curry is that there teams won the title the season before so that changes everything. I mean imagine the Bulls in 2012 when they lose Rose had they won the title in 2011 they would have played with much much more confidence. To me that is the major difference.

FlashBolt
05-04-2016, 11:51 PM
The only way you would ever really understand what Curry means to this team is if/when the Spurs and GS move on to the conference finals. If Curry isn't available then in my opinion, GS will have no chance to beat them. Curry is one of those players that is what a few have already mentioned - takes a very good team to a championship team. They can get by Houston and Portland without him because they run the same kind of offense but GS has more talent. If they would've had to play the Clippers or OKC this round then it would be a different story.

I really hope they let Curry rest the whole series so he's ready to go against SA because they have more depth top to bottom than GS does. Just watching tonight's games and having watched many of GS games this season I don't see Cleveland beating GS or SA unless Lebron and Kyrie play other worldly. Kevin love is their weak link and both teams would expose him big time.

That's literally for every team except even when healthy.. so it's not like it is saying much. I don't know but I think a case can be made that Draymond is just as valuable to the Warriors as Curry is. Any thoughts?

Bostonjorge
05-07-2016, 11:12 PM
So did Curry's case get stronger today?