Kawhi wasn’t the best player on his team tonight - a team that is one of the deepest teams in the league and probably the best defensive team in the league.
But a team you don’t think could get out of the first round if he missed a few games.
Gasol: 20-7
Siakam: 32-8
Van Fleet: 15 off the bench
Danny Green: 11 Pts and multiple timely 3s
Smothering defense from the whole team. A team that went 13-3 without Kawhi this year.
But there isn’t any amount of data or logic that will move you from that point so I’ll just leave it alone.
I didn’t change your post. I put ellipses to navigate to where you made the statement in question... which happened to be one sentence later.
This is common practice when quoting someone not just on message boards, but like in literature, period. I feel like you know this but you are playing dumb.
If the FMVP statement didn’t support your original point why did you even type it at all?
Just randomly in the middle of your point?
You mean to tell me because it was the second sentence directly proceeding your point, it has no connection at all to the original statement?
lol Bruh you acting like Kawhi had a bad game. He didn't. Like you said, he wasn't the best on his team tonight, but that's completely different from him not showing or not being there? The question was, would you they have won the game without him?
And I've explained what the FMVP point meant three times now. How do you still not get it? I wasn't saying that Curry is overrated because he doesn't have a FMVP. Again, I said he was overrated by people who credit him with too much of the team's success. The FMVP was meant to highlight just how important his teammates are to that success. It's pretty tough for you to claim that he carried his team through the Finals when someone else was deemed the most important player in each of the Finals they won. Again, that does not mean Curry isn't a good player or a top tier player, it just goes to show that using the team's success to prove his greatness isn't a good idea.
Btw - I, like most people, agree with you - that you have to use more arguments than team success to justify why Curry is a top player in the league. There’s more to it than that.
But that is true of virtually every player.
But I disagree with you that you can virtually ignore team success - which, correct me if I’m wrong, your posts seem to strongly imply ... especially historic team success, just because a great player plays on a great team.
Where’s you lose me is when you leap to saying dude is “overrated” because of his team success - or however you would like to construe it.
Great teams need great players. Being on a great team doesn’t make a player less great.
Btw - I, like most people, agree with you - that you have to use more arguments than team success to justify why Curry is a top player in the league. There’s more to it than that.
But that is true of virtually every player.
But I disagree with you that you can virtually ignore team success - which, correct me if I’m wrong, your posts seem to strongly imply ... especially historic team success, just because a great player plays on a great team.
Where’s you lose me is when you leap to saying dude is “overrated” because of his team success - or however you would like to construe it.
Great teams need great players. Being on a great team doesn’t make a player less great.
I think the bold is the crux of the disagreement here. I'm not saying that Curry is not as good because his team is so great. I'm saying that when you're arguing for his greatness, you have to be careful how much you lean on the success of his team to make your point because his team is just that great. KD is great, but the team was still killing it without him. That doesn't mean KD is any less great, but it does go to show that KD wasn't the sole key to the team's success. Most already knew that though.
I think the bold is the crux of the disagreement here. I'm not saying that Curry is not as good because his team is so great. I'm saying that when you're arguing for his greatness, you have to be careful how much you lean on the success of his team to make your point because his team is just that great. KD is great, but the team was still killing it without him. That doesn't mean KD is any less great, but it does go to show that KD wasn't the sole key to the team's success. Most already knew that though.
Yeah. And and I still believe you place far too much emphasis on this lone factor in your analysis.
Being the “sole key to a team’s success”
Or
“Carrying a team”
A) it’s hard to define objectively
B) If you do manage to define it, I can only think of two players in NBA history who remotely fit that description. And even with them it is debatable.
But you can use a subjective brush to paint anyone in that light.
I could argue Steph in those first few years fits it as much as most stars in history - Certainly most of the stars in the league today.
You are trying to put Kawhi there but I don’t buy it. His team’s record, and team talent say otherwise - he has one of the best rosters in the league.
His first go around he was in one of the best teams of this generation. Frankly as a role player.
They only reason for you to claim he is the “sole key to his team’s success” or he is “Carrying a team” is your personal opinion.
Look - I think the guy is 1B in the league right now. Incredible player on both ends.
But that is a weak argument for him or against someone else IMO.
I also think you have overrated this Golden State roster pretty significantly.
You aren’t sure if Klay and Dray were All NBA or will become HOFamers, correct me if I’m wrong, but they form a large part of why you think this team is so great - Especially during that first run.
What other “great players” did they have in 14’ and 15’?
If those guys aren’t even All NBA worthy - that places this team pretty far below the rosters of several great teams In NBA History. Each of those other teams either equaling or not coming close to GSW’s level of success.
So what’s the difference from those teams and this one? The guy at the top.
How could he possibly be overrated if those other HOFame players aren’t?
I never hear this argument before for
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Shaq
Kobe
Or anyone. So why are we applying this standard to someone who isn’t even of their caliber?
Yeah. And and I still believe you place far too much emphasis on this lone factor in your analysis.
Being the “sole key to a team’s success”
Or
“Carrying a team”
A) it’s hard to define objectively
B) If you do manage to define it, I can only think of two players in NBA history who remotely fit that description. And even with them it is debatable.
But you can use a subjective brush to paint anyone in that light.
I could argue Steph in those first few years fits it as much as most stars in history - Certainly most of the stars in the league today.
You are trying to put Kawhi there but I don’t buy it. His team’s record, and team talent say otherwise - he has one of the best rosters in the league.
His first go around he was in one of the best teams of this generation. Frankly as a role player.
They only reason for you to claim he is the “sole key to his team’s success” or he is “Carrying a team” is your personal opinion.
Look - I think the guy is 1B in the league right now. Incredible player on both ends.
But that is a weak argument for him or against someone else IMO.
I also think you have overrated this Golden State roster pretty significantly.
You aren’t sure if Klay and Dray were All NBA or will become HOFamers, correct me if I’m wrong, but they form a large part of why you think this team is so great - Especially during that first run.
What other “great players” did they have in 14’ and 15’?
If those guys aren’t even All NBA worthy - that places this team pretty far below the rosters of several great teams In NBA History. Each of those other teams either equaling or not coming close to GSW’s level of success.
So what’s the difference from those teams and this one? The guy at the top.
How could he possibly be overrated if those other HOFame players aren’t?
I never hear this argument before for
Magic
Bird
Kareem
Shaq
Kobe
Or anyone. So why are we applying this standard to someone who isn’t even of their caliber?
What do you mean you never heard that type of analysis for those players? Kobe basically wanted Shaq gone because people were saying the same exact thing about him at one point.
Also, it's not like I'm saying it's the main factor. My point is only that when you have to players that are close like maybe Curry and Kawhi, I'd personally put more weight on a player's singular value to a team than their team's overall success.
IMO it takes a better player to win a championship with a mediocre team than it does to win 3 with an all-time great team.
I always thought that desire was driven more by Kobe than what people were saying about him.
Regardless tho, I think this is the crux of our disagreement.
I believe what Steph did in his first two runs is similar to what Kobe did without Shaq. Perhaps more impressive.
You see how successful they were and you give all of the credit to his teammates. I see it and I give more credit to the engine of the team.
Kobe’s team had good to great players too. They just weren’t all considered All Stars because the team wasn’t as successful. I would knock Kobe for that rather than praising him.
He didn’t make his teammates as good as Steph made his.
But clearly none of that worked without Kobe.
Just like none of it worked without Steph.
It’s just that Steph went up against a better, more experienced HOFame player in the prime of his career who had a stacked team of his own.
Warriors caught a few bad breaks, Lebron caught fire and Steph ends up 1 and 1.
I believe if they ran that team back and got better instead of just getting KD; they are back in the Finals as the favorites.
Just like Kobe in his stretch against the Celtics.
So we see Steph’s relationship with his team as opposite sides of the coin.
That’s why I see what Kawhi is doing and I see someone trying to do what Steph already did. Kawhi has a great team behind him.
Now he is putting up much better numbers and should get more acclaim as I think he is. But his relationship to his team is not a winning argument in this debate IMO.
The fact that he is 50 lbs heavier, 6 inches taller, significantly stronger, more athletic, worlds better defensively, and has still become one of the elite offensive tools in the game are winning arguments for Kawhi.
Steph actually gets the significant edge in terms of impact on winning.
Which is interesting considering he doesn’t have the tools that most other great players have.
I always thought that desire was driven more by Kobe than what people were saying about him.
Regardless tho, I think this is the crux of our disagreement.
I believe what Steph did in his first two runs is similar to what Kobe did without Shaq. Perhaps more impressive.
You see how successful they were and you give all of the credit to his teammates. I see it and I give more credit to the engine of the team.
Kobe’s team had good to great players too. They just weren’t all considered All Stars because the team wasn’t as successful. I would knock Kobe for that rather than praising him.
He didn’t make his teammates as good as Steph made his.
But clearly none of that worked without Kobe.
Just like none of it worked without Steph.
It’s just that Steph went up against a better, more experienced HOFame player in the prime of his career who had a stacked team of his own.
Warriors caught a few bad breaks, Lebron caught fire and Steph ends up 1 and 1.
I believe if they ran that team back and got better instead of just getting KD; they are back in the Finals as the favorites.
Just like Kobe in his stretch against the Celtics.
So we see Steph’s relationship with his team as opposite sides of the coin.
That’s why I see what Kawhi is doing and I see someone trying to do what Steph already did. Kawhi has a great team behind him.
Now he is putting up much better numbers and should get more acclaim as I think he is. But his relationship to his team is not a winning argument in this debate IMO.
The fact that he is 50 lbs heavier, 6 inches taller, significantly stronger, more athletic, worlds better defensively, and has still become one of the elite offensive tools in the game are winning arguments for Kawhi.
Steph actually gets the significant edge in terms of impact on winning.
Which is interesting considering he doesn’t have the tools that most other great players have.
I think you believe I'm more down on Steph than I actually am. Before KD got to GS, I believe Steph was clearly the best player on his team and I don't believe they would have won that first championship without him. You have this impression that I'm talking about the greatness of GS to tear Steph down. That's not true. I'm talking about the greatness of GS to raise his teammates up more. Klay is not as good as Steph, but he is very good. Klay being good does not take away from Steph's greatness, but Klay being there does make some things easier for Steph and allows Steph to shine more. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on Steph and Golden State being comparable to Kobe and the Lakers. I believe the Lakers were a lot more dependent on Kobe than the Warriors are on Steph and that was to the team's detriment.
Look at it this way. I'm not a James Harden fan at all. I hate the way he plays no defense, but when he was putting up all those offensive numbers, all the talking heads were praising him and trying to put him on MJ and Kobe's level as a player. Then he disappears in the playoffs and they instantly turn on him and act like he was never all that great. The difference with Steph is that he hasn't had to worry about that. He's had times where he had weak performances and people questioned him, but those questions never stick because his team still manages to win. Neither player really deserves to be torn down because of one bad run, but it's a lot easier to avoid that when your team is good enough to cover you here and there.
You think it's been difficult for the Warriors to get to the championship? I believe the Warriors are an all time great team in a relatively weak league. It hasn't been that hard for them to get to the championship, especially not when compared to a team like Toronto.
Look at tonight's game. Kawhi showed up, but didn't really get much help from anyone else, whereas Curry had a somewhat off game by his standards but his teammates did what they needed. If Kawhi somehow leads his team to victory that's going to be more impressive than if Curry does the same for the Warriors IMO.
You think it's been difficult for the Warriors to get to the championship? I believe the Warriors are an all time great team in a relatively weak league. It hasn't been that hard for them to get to the championship, especially not when compared to a team like Toronto.
Look at tonight's game. Kawhi showed up, but didn't really get much help from anyone else, whereas Curry had a somewhat off game by his standards but his teammates did what they needed. If Kawhi somehow leads his team to victory that's going to be more impressive than if Curry does the same for the Warriors IMO.
Look man, if you got a team that has more talent and is better assembled than every other team, they are going to run over the competition. That's what GS has done. They've only really been challenged two series so far in a five year Finals streak. If you don't like the word "easy" then call it something else, but stop acting like they have been facing tough competition outside of a couple teams here and there.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
