LesGrossman wrote:Salieri wrote:MrPerfect1 wrote:Everyone acknowledges that Durant was GS's best player while he was on the team so those years are eliminated from contention.
Prior to Durant joining, in order for Curry to be Top 2 that would have to mean Curry got worse Post Durant or Durant improved after joining. I see no evidence of that.
The most likely conclusion is that Durant was always better but his team's success made others think Curry was better until they joined up and it was obvious Durant was better once they were playing together.
Absolutely not.
Durant was never GS's best player. Neither he was GS's most important player. He was the one who benefited the most from GS's system -or in other words, from Curry himself- but he was never the best player. Only the one who scored the most points.
It's been proven time after time: during those years, the Warriors without Curry was a much worse team than the Warriors without Durant.
LeBron has an argument to be above Curry (and a pretty good one, I won't deny it) during those years when the Warriors punched their ticket for the Finals in the preseason. Durant hasn't. Neither does Kawhi or anyone else. Not a single soul can claim to be as valuable as those two. Other players were magnificient pieces of brilliant systems. Those two players were THE system. And they kept meeting in the Finals, which says something about the rest of the systems and their fantastic pieces.
Thats a whole lot of opinion, bias and ignorance. You just make statements as if they were undeniable facts, without backing them up. Dont let your personal preferences and sympathies get in the way of how you assess a players' value.
Pot, meet kettle. You just straight up insulted me without even suggesting a reason! Okay, I'm game:
I don't need to back my post up with evidence and information. Do you know why? Because it's already available to you and incredibly easy to find out.
Do you need me to find the data for you that proves the Warriors were a much better team without Durant than without Curry? Do you need me to find the data for you that proves the Warriors and the Cavs were the teams reaching the Finals every year? Is the Internet that difficult for you to master? How old are you? It says a lot about you that you demand evidence because apparently it's impossible for you to find it on your own.
At some point, anyone will say enough is enough. If you can't see how much more important Curry was than Durant, if you can't be bothered to check a couple of partial records, let alone who played in the Finals, I can't be bothered to spoonfeed you with the information.
Asking for evidence when said evidence is not available -or understandable- to everyone is fair, because you just wanna have the most amount of information and consequently form the most informed opinion.
Asking for evidence (or worse: whining for the lack of it) when it's already available to everyone and one google search away, is laziness and demagoguery. And you can be as unbearably lazy as you want, just don't expect me to validate it. Let's hope you didn't demand your mom to PROVE there was water in the fridge when you were a kid, asked for water and were given the answer "in the fridge, go fetch it yourself"
Oh, and by the way: I don't have personal preferences or sympathies for either one of them. You have seen plenty of posters mocking Durant, calling him a snake, diminishing his accolades and whatnot. I wasn't one of them. You can check my posting history, every single time I've talked about Durant, I've described him as a brilliant, outstanding player and an all-time great talent and offensive force. He just happens to be not quite as good as Curry when it comes to team performance impact, which is how I value players. And there's nothing wrong with that, I don't fall for that "if you're not better than the best, you're mediocre" fallacy.
