Sigh. There comes a certain point here where there is nothing much more to say than that you just don't get it, and worse, don't want ot get it.
Well, it's difficult to "get" your point when you are all over the place and don't make a coherent point.
Your first statemnt is patently false. Yes there is a "rule". There are "rules" top every system. Yes there are traits that dominate NBA games and those that don't. And a LOT of people don't understand what they are or aren't are. You aren't alone. But that lot of people also does not get it, and will spend their NBA viewing lives perpetually confused and surprised by things perfectly obvious to those of us who have cracked the code. The championships are a reflection of the ENTIRE LEAGUE, not some freak occurrence. Its not as if "well once you get past the championship winners then scrawny three point chuckers dominate the league. Hardly. Once you get past the championship winners you run into LeBron, and Melo, and Dwight Howard and CP3 and Derrick Rose, and a whole host of other people who ALSO do not play anything like Stephen Curry. Who attack the rim, dominate physically, and generally make life hell. This is the NBA.
First off, there's no need to be a condescending ***. Second, I GET what your opinion is, but I disagree. Not only do I disagree with your opinion on the matter, but I disagree with the basis of your opinion, which I have attempted to clarify and failed to do so.
I acknowledge that you are looking at things from the vantage point of which TYPE of player is better suited to BUILD A TEAM AROUND and WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP. What I have attempted to explain is that this viewpoint is IRRELEVANT in comparing the two players, because that is NOT the benchmark on which every single player should be judged.
So now I have disagreed with the basis. Curry doesn't have to be a franchise cornerstone of a championship team in order for there to be a comparison of the two players. Just because Evans may have a seemingly better chance at being that type of player eventually doesn't automatically make him the better player, because he actually has to accomplish that first in order for that to be a relevant point.
Now let me move onto your actual opinion, which is that a jumpshooter like Curry cannot possibly fill that role which you so restrictively place upon him. You say a jumpshooter cannot lead a contending team. And while I agree, my point all along, that you have failed to get, is that Curry may be that player NOW, but that may not be the kind of player he is in year 3. As I have said time and time again, these guys are still developing and are young. Curry is already a great playmaker, and can improve upon that ability to be a scoring point guard, which we have seen to have tremendous success in the NBA before.
And of course the point that every Curry jocker I have ever run into has wanted to deny is that Curry CANNOT develop the things that make Reke and his ilk special. Can NEVER overwhelm physically. Can never ever make serious inroads at it. While Reke CAN develop the things that make Curry good. That does not mean he has to be as good as Curry is at them. When you are one of the special dominant players all you have to be is passable at the learned skills. But they ARE learned skills.
Curry in a lot of ways is alreayd maxed out. Oh, like all young players (and here I will note he's two season ahead of Reke in development) he'll improve. But he can never develop the physically dominant skills that Reke probably had at 15. And he's ALREADY developed the learnable skills to a high level. He has no onvious path to dramatic iomprovement, and he already wasn't as good as Reke was this year.
I have already addressed this. No need to repeat myself.
Reke on the other hand is in PERFECT position to make huge strides. Actually one step from true perfect -- he's not a special athlete, so that may hold him back at the very top end. But otherwise....perfect. He already has all the abilities you cannot teach, and all of his deficiencies are tied up in areas that you can improve, that virtually every young player improves just by maturing.
I will totally disagree here. He is in a position to make vast improvements, but he's by no means one or two steps away from being "perfect". He still has a LOT of room for improvement in not only fundamental skills, but also in decision making and IQ as a team leader making decisions on the floor.
All of which makes this NOT CLOSE. Curry scrambled around in a stat padding system and was not as good as a younger Tyreke in his first year. And now his paths toward major improvement are few, while Tyreke's are all open to him. Curry can never make major inroads in all the areas Tyreke already has an advantage. While on the other hand if he did not work at all Tyreke would still likely make inroads in Curry's areas of advantage just by turning 21 instead of 20, 22 instead of 21 etc.
This is patently false. Evans may have more upside, but that doesn't make Curry's room to improve so minute that he couldn't possibly be as productive of a player. You keep up the charade that because Curry is already skilled, that he can't improve very much in those same areas. Not only that, but you have a false understanding of what makes players effective. You compared the physical and innate advantages of Tyreke and automatically assume he will be the better player based on those "major inroads in all areas he already has an advantage." And yet, we have seen time and time again players with those same advantages get outplayed by smarter, more productive players with those disadvantages. This is the crux of my point. You are basing your opinion of Evans's superiority on unfulfilled potential. If he fulfills that potential, then we can discuss that. But we have yet to see what kind of players these guys will be in 3 years.
I cannot, nor can anyone, 100% predict anything. If nothing else injuries could tell the tale in the end. But I, and certianly many other people (it is the heart of gambling after all) can certianly tell you what the rough odds were based on the very thing you keep arguing is irrelevent -- the hsitory of how players like these have fared in the past. And if I were to use my omnipotent powers to play out the NBA's next 15 seasons 100 different times, which one of these players turned out to be the better would not be close, nor should the results be close in an open poll amongst people who know what they are talking about.
You are incorrect, and that's my point. This isn't about how players like Curry have faired (because there have been great examples of very successful players), but it's how they fair IN YOUR CRITERIA OF LEADING TEAMS TO CHAMPIONSHIPS. And not only that, but you are making that leap by assuming that Curry today is going to be THE EXACT SAME PLAYER over his entire career, which may not be the case. Even with players like Curry today, there have been very good players like him who were guards who could shoot and play with or off the ball who played integral roles for successful teams.
Gail Goodrich was one of those players. Mark Price another. Steve Nash. Mike Bibby almost won a ring playing a shooting role without the playmaking ability of Curry. Tim Hardaway had a HOF career as a scoring PG who relied upon the jumper later in his career with the heat. Allen Iverson carried his teams, and only let his mind limit his success. If Curry gets another coach who asks more of a PG role from him, I can definitely see his PG skills develop to potentially be a star like Kevin Johnson. But you don't see these types of successful players in Curry, because you would rather compare him to the JJ Redicks and the Eddie Houses of the league. If all you think Curry is an undersized 2 guard spot shooter, then of course you would never think he is going to do much in the league.
My point has always been that not only can he change that perception by developing his skills be play both guard positions, but that Nelly's system often clouds the actual impact players can make, because the stats can be deceptive. We won't really know what kind of player Curry will be until a few years have past, and optimally plays for another coach.
There are good and bad examples of every kind of player in the league. You can't look at Tyreke's potential and assume a Wade type level and ignore the possibility he will end up like Joe Johnson or even a Larry Hughes type player.
So not only do I disagree with your assessment of Curry and his potential to develop and be productive, but I also disagree with your basis that he must be judged based on the specific role of leading a team to a championship. Just because Evans may have a seemingly better shot at being that kind of player doesn't make it so. He has to do it first.
Finally, I will say that in ROY debates, I have continually stated Evans deserved it for many of the same reasons you have pointed out, and flat out said he has a greater chance at being better because of his upside. But that does not at all make enough of an argument that Evans is, right now, so much far beyond Curry that any comparison is unmerited. They are both very good young players who have a chance at being top guards. I have said that Curry can be a top guard, while Evans can be a top PLAYER in the NBA. But that remains to be seen.
