Basketball is a team sport, right?
Steph Curry - Over-rated as unanimous MVP? (split)
- Thread starter Padrino
- Start date
Sac.Kings
All-Star
Klay was the better player this series no doubt. He drew the tougher defensive assignments and was consistent for a large part of the series. Curry struggled mightily in OKC in games 3 and 4. In fact, it wasn't until Iggy started playing more that the tide really turned. Curry was no MVP of anything this series.
What difference does it make whether it's based on the regular season or the postseason? I want to know why you think it's legitimate to say it's not fair to call Curry overrated because "basketball is a team sport," but you do think it's fair to hand out individual awards like MVP, in spite of "basketball being a team sport"?
And that's cool, but it goes back to what I said before, that whether or not your team is good has nothing to do with whether or not you are overrated. And that's what you tried to hide behind, when I said that Thompson bailed him out of Game 6. Curry is the two-time MVP: he doesn't get to hide behind his teammates when he's off. Them's the breaks.
I've said that he's overrated for a number of reasons, only the most recent of which is the fact that Klay Thompson had to save the Warriors' season. Don't act like I put it all on that one game. What I'm saying at this point in time is, when you're the two-time MVP, and you get criticized for underperforming, don't come at me with that "Team game, tho" response. I am not here for it.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
No matter what you think of Steph Curry, you can't deny that he pretty much ran out of gas by the end of the finals. His shots in the fourth quarter were all off the mark and, considering where and when he was shooting them, would have probably been considered bad shots by anyone else in the league.
Also, that errant behind the back in crunch time is probably not one for the record books.
Also, that errant behind the back in crunch time is probably not one for the record books.
Curry is an immensely talented player. He ability to drive against anyone is surprising and he lead the League in steals. His defense is under rated. He is a very good passer.
I think his only weaknesses are all mental. He is used to winning and presses when coming from behind. A physical team like Cleveland is intimidating to him. He does not have quite enough mental toughness to deal with a player like James. Maybe few players actually do. Curry had shots blocked by James repeatedly. It takes a toll on people.
I think his only weaknesses are all mental. He is used to winning and presses when coming from behind. A physical team like Cleveland is intimidating to him. He does not have quite enough mental toughness to deal with a player like James. Maybe few players actually do. Curry had shots blocked by James repeatedly. It takes a toll on people.
SCKingsfan
Bench
Lebron is a better and more dominant overall player than Curry, straight up. Curry deserved the regular season MVP. Lebron set the record straight in the playoffs.
I don't think it was an accident that Adam Silver said that James was the "Unanimous Finals MVP."
whoopdeedoo
Bench
How good are you saying his defense is? I have seen the spectrum range from terrible to one of the best guards in the league. I don't rate him as a difference maker on that end myself, the Warriors as a team can cover for most matchup issues and often do. I don't think I would call him a bad defender either with how he fits into the Warriors system.
I think his only weakness (in relation to the current team and personnel) is a systemic one that Warriors allowed to grow to a detrimental levels because of how good of shooters Curry and Thompson are. They take such bad shots at times and make a good enough number of them that most people dismiss them as bad shots and say it's ok and allowed since they are historically good shooters. All I can think of is how much better they still could be if they were to knock off most of the ridiculously difficult shots and just continue to abuse their screens as they are known for. I have zero doubt they can get better looks while cutting out the absurd shots. People know what kind of shooter he is, I don't think he has to keep launching bombs from way outside or try to dance 1-on-1 in order to free up for a three. The respect is already there. It's time for him (and the rest of the Warriors) to figure out when the right time and place is for the spectacular.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
And this is of course connected to his regular-season play. One way to look at this final series is that one team spent the season trying to set a record for the season the other team looked at a season that included postseason and planned and played accordingly. I probably greatly over reading into this due to my personal prejudice but to me this was the ultimate indictment of Nellyball. Fast small ball design to get a lot of regular-season wins ground down in the postseason a hard-nosed defense in control of pace. It's why watching Cleveland make me so happy as a rejection of what I consider to be and inferior style of play being played by the best fast-paced jump-shooting team ever put together. Hopefully all those upstairs in the Kings organization pays attention and realized that at least on the basketball court size does matter and speed kills
And how alarming is it that a guy who might not have played in the fourth quarter ten times all season ran out of gas in the Finals?
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Your post reminded me of something I had been thinking about recently.
When all this talk was going on about the Warriors "possibly" being the best team of all time should they go on to win a title simply because they won ONE more regular season game than the 95-96 Bulls, it got me thinking --- why doesn't anybody seem to want to factor the postseason in?
To me, you'd have to add the W/L's from both the regular season and postseason to have a reasonable comparison and discussion.
For example:
95-96 Bulls went 72-10 then 15-3 in the postseason. 87-13 and a winning % of .870
15-16 Warriors went 73-9 then 15-9 in the postseason. 88-18 and a winning % of .830
Obviously the Warriors lost the series making all this a moot point. But had they won GM7, there would be a series debate going on right now about the Warriors being the greatest just because of the 73. However, their overall winning % would still have been lower than the Bulls, which should have ended the argument right there.
1 more win during the regular season shouldn't at all trump 4 more losses during the postseason (had they won on Sunday night). Win % should be the deciding factor if all other things are considered equal.
Just a thought.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Kings News Links
- Sports Illustrated Inside the Kings News
- Kings News Links
