i say it every year, but teams that rely on outside shooting find ways to stumble during seven-game series. i said it last year, when the warriors were down 2-1 against both memphis and cleveland. of course, the former was at a lack for talent and the latter was heavily injured, rendering an ultimate warriors' victory a foregone conclusion--they really had a smooth, cleanly-paved road to the larry o'brien trophy. but this year, the dubs have run into a goddamned tornado in the western conference finals. it's the first legitimate challenge they've had to face in the playoffs, dating all the way back to the first round in 2015. the thunder are peaking at the best possible moment, and the warriors are slipping at the worst possible moment. the quick-and-deep three's that might not have seemed like bad shots throughout the regular season look terrible now. worse yet, there's no one to rebound over the thunder's length, which only draws greater attention to the warriors' poor shot-selection, as second-chance points have been tough for them to come by in this series. elsewhere, the bench is underperforming, the passes aren't crisp, and the defense looks passive and limp...
perhaps most surprising of all, the league's first unanimous mvp looks utterly mortal right now, with much credit deservedly going to billy donovan for preparing his team well, and much credit deservedly going to the thunder for executing their game plan with precision. when asked how he's felt about guarding stephen curry, russell westbrook said, "he's a shooter. he's not nothing i haven't seen." and it's kinda hard to argue with him on that point right now. steph is an otherworldly shooter, but while he's super-elite in that one skill, he's not truly elite in any other, and he's struggling to impact the game positively while his shot isn't falling. more importantly, he's a sub-par defender being exposed as such by a team unafraid to blaze downhill against the warriors. steve kerr has had curry guarding westbrook rather often in this series, and that seems like a sizable miscalculation to me. curry's simply not up to the task, and the thunder are absolutely feeding off westbrook's energy as a result...
personally, i don't have a problem with curry being named mvp this season, but the fact that it was unanimous is a little bit bothersome to me. are you telling me nobody else deserved a single first-place vote? are you telling me no other player who impacts the game in multiple ways at an elite level was worthy of a first-place vote? i feel like the distinction of unanimity should go to a player who's presence is clearly felt on both sides of the ball. hell, two-way marvels like michael jordan, tim duncan, and lebron james were never unanimous mvp's. it's easy to be dazzled by stephen curry's 30-footers, but is that what we should value now in nba basketball? circus shooting?
curry's ability is no doubt impressive, but is he great because he's great, or is he great because of an arbitrary line on the court that dictates the majority of his shots are worth an additional point (note: curry actually shot more three's than two's this season, and by a fairly large margin). jordan, duncan, and james would have been all-time greats under any circumstance. would stephen curry be considered an all-time-great if the nba hadn't instituted the three-point line in '79--a move roundly criticized as a gimmick at the time, and still considered a gimmick by respected basketball minds like gregg popovich? i don't know, of course, but i think it's worth the debate. a great player finds a way to assert his will on the game even when his shot isn't falling. a great player finds his way back into the game. i'm waiting to see if curry and the warriors know how to respond. after all, they didn't just get beat by the thunder twice in a row; they got completely steamrolled twice in a row...
perhaps most surprising of all, the league's first unanimous mvp looks utterly mortal right now, with much credit deservedly going to billy donovan for preparing his team well, and much credit deservedly going to the thunder for executing their game plan with precision. when asked how he's felt about guarding stephen curry, russell westbrook said, "he's a shooter. he's not nothing i haven't seen." and it's kinda hard to argue with him on that point right now. steph is an otherworldly shooter, but while he's super-elite in that one skill, he's not truly elite in any other, and he's struggling to impact the game positively while his shot isn't falling. more importantly, he's a sub-par defender being exposed as such by a team unafraid to blaze downhill against the warriors. steve kerr has had curry guarding westbrook rather often in this series, and that seems like a sizable miscalculation to me. curry's simply not up to the task, and the thunder are absolutely feeding off westbrook's energy as a result...
personally, i don't have a problem with curry being named mvp this season, but the fact that it was unanimous is a little bit bothersome to me. are you telling me nobody else deserved a single first-place vote? are you telling me no other player who impacts the game in multiple ways at an elite level was worthy of a first-place vote? i feel like the distinction of unanimity should go to a player who's presence is clearly felt on both sides of the ball. hell, two-way marvels like michael jordan, tim duncan, and lebron james were never unanimous mvp's. it's easy to be dazzled by stephen curry's 30-footers, but is that what we should value now in nba basketball? circus shooting?
curry's ability is no doubt impressive, but is he great because he's great, or is he great because of an arbitrary line on the court that dictates the majority of his shots are worth an additional point (note: curry actually shot more three's than two's this season, and by a fairly large margin). jordan, duncan, and james would have been all-time greats under any circumstance. would stephen curry be considered an all-time-great if the nba hadn't instituted the three-point line in '79--a move roundly criticized as a gimmick at the time, and still considered a gimmick by respected basketball minds like gregg popovich? i don't know, of course, but i think it's worth the debate. a great player finds a way to assert his will on the game even when his shot isn't falling. a great player finds his way back into the game. i'm waiting to see if curry and the warriors know how to respond. after all, they didn't just get beat by the thunder twice in a row; they got completely steamrolled twice in a row...