Do you honestly believe Warriors can win another ring without KD? Curry streakiness could hurt their chances

[nikster]

When will people learn to stop doubting Steph.... Smh

People just don't believe a player who has missed two playoffs in row combined with very streaky shooting as his main impact on the game to be able to carry a team to a championship. Is it really odd thing to have opinion on? You people are weird.

Maybe if he hasn’t been to 3 finals and won a ring as the best player on a team your argument wouldn’t be so dumb. Also love that you included a season where he played 5 games as missing the playoffs

You basically described Kobe btw. Kobe missed the playoffs and had 2 consecutive first round exits in the middle of his prime, a player who’s main impact was scoring and was also streaky (Curry has a higher career playoff fg% despite relying on so many 3s)

[jokeboy86]

Me detects a huge Warriors homer in this thread.

[Madhouse]

Depends what Klay Thompson brings when he returns.

If they face healthy Nets I don't like there chances regardless

[Optms]

If Klay is even 80% of his old self, they will win it all.

[Cavsfansince84]

This is probably going to end up being the new 'Steph Curry has been exposed' thread on the gb.

[SpreeChokeJob]

Barring any major injury and everyone back, I see the Warriors winning it all.

[Shock Defeat]

When will people learn to stop doubting Steph.... Smh

People just don't believe a player who has missed two playoffs in row combined with very streaky shooting as his main impact on the game to be able to carry a team to a championship. Is it really odd thing to have opinion on? You people are weird.

Maybe if he hasn’t been to 3 finals and won a ring as the best player on a team your argument wouldn’t be so dumb. Also love that you included a season where he played 5 games as missing the playoffs

You basically described Kobe btw. Kobe missed the playoffs and had 2 consecutive first round exits in the middle of his prime, a player who’s main impact was scoring and was also streaky (Curry has a higher career playoff fg% despite relying on so many 3s)

As the best player on a team, he won a ring when Kyrie and Love got hurt, that is an asterisk championship.

[shoresy69]

No doubt he can be streaky but this is Concern Trolling 101

[Lalouie]

why is this a sans-durant problem.

he was just a player stopping for a bite to eat

[Catchall]

The Warriors are vulnerable to certain matchups. Teams like PHX (with Ayton) and Milwaukee (with Giannis) would probably be favored to beat them in a 7-game series. When the Ws were dominant in the past, they had the #1 offense in the league and were #1 in scoring at the rim. Right now, their offense is ranked #9.

If Klay comes back and boosts their offense into the top 5, that would make a difference, but the rest of the league has now caught up to the offensive efficiency the Ws had several years ago.

Also, the Ws run some unusual off-ball actions on offense and do a lot of switching and trapping on defense. If teams have time to prepare for this during the playoffs, they'll have more success than during the regular season when there isn't much time to prepare.

[jokeboy86]

No doubt he can be streaky but this is Concern Trolling 101

I like this. I'm using it

[og15]

The impertinence from posters such as yourself here is ridiculous. Name the other players in history that brought a team that finished in last place to an above average record the next year. Very short list and it usually happens in the weaker conference. We saw what happened when LeBron came to the Western Conference and was partnered with a 35-win team. Curry exceeded that dramatically. What were the 2015 Warriors expected to do at the start of that season? What were the current Warriors expected to do at the start of this season? Just look at how the Lakers and Nets with what are considered loaded rosters fail to dominate to know just how far ahead Curry is to most other stars.

This is pretty cherry picked but this has also happened much more than you think. Rookie Carmelo did this for example, and he's not a top floor raiser. Then we'll start saying that the Nuggets added other players and there's context, oh so there's no context as to why a Warriors team whose top 5 in total minutes were Paschall, Robinson III, Lee, Burks and Poole won 15 games?

The next season, only one of those guys played 1000+ minutes, Lee, and he was 8th on the team in minutes. Oh, so you mean Curry didn't just get stuck onto a team with those same players leading in minutes and take them from 15 wins to 39-33, well that's what is trying to be implied with this context lacking segment. Come on, do better.

Keep going on with your examples. Rookie Melo but not rookie LeBron that's like 19 years ago. Go on.

Oh there's context all right that might surprise you. Did you realize that the Warriors players that came in 2021 were arguably worse—yes that's right worse—than the ones on the 2020 team? Lineup analysis without Curry suggests so. Burks who left after all did have a positive BPM as did Chriss who also played more than 1000 minutes in 2020 but was injured very early in 2021. So there is analysis to suggest that Curry in 2021 was lifting a team that was worse than the sub-20-win last place team of the year before and I may be understating what Curry was able to do.

Well what are we arguing here? I'm not arguing that Curry isn't a good floor raiser, I'm arguing against the conclusion that Curry is the best floor raiser in the league with the supporting argument of "look at the Warriors record from the season they basically tanked and had no player in their top 5 in minutes starting the next season compared to that next season record".

That's not a very comprehensive argument, and to push the goal post further, it has to be a player who took specifically a last placed team? What about guys who take bad but not last placed teams from bad to very good, not just above average? Same level of raising, but didn't count? Also not every player is put in a position where they are joining a team with a previously poor record or miss a season while their team tanks, especially not in their prime, so we don't even get examples of this to compare.

The addition of Nash had the Suns go from 29 wins to 62 wins. The addition of Kidd took the Nets from 26 wins to 52 wins. Even rookie Chris Paul helped New Orleans go from 18 wins to 38 wins. Now, all those situations, I know there was far more context than just adding the one player such as injured players getting healthy, other additions, coaching changes, etc.

Even the Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 win adding a 19 year old LeBron. The Heat went from 25 wins to 42 wins with rookie Wade, of course they added Odom too.

A bad team becoming an above average team in one season is not something special, happens a lot.

But, let's use BPM for the sake of argument, so your argument here is that Chriss who has a career -2.3 BPM and has the only + BPM in his career with 0.6 that season was actually a good player and is a reason to suggest they had better players in 19-20 than 20-21? Okay, if you think that's how you just use BPM, sure...

Let's continue with BPM, because that is your argument, not mine.

Total Minutes / BPM:
1) Paschall / 1654 / -2.7
2) Robinson III / 1516 / -1.7
3) Lee / 1423 / -2.3
4) Burks / 1390 / 0.1
5) Poole / 1274 / -6.6
6) Green / 1222 / -0.2
7) Chriss / 1196 / 0.6
8) Russell / 1060 / 2.6
9) Bowman / 1050 / -4.3

Out of the 5 players most reponsible for the Warriors record based on minutes played, 4 were -1.7 or worse and the highest was +0.1. I'm not understanding what your BPM argument is here exactly.

The 19-20 Warriors had a -8.6 NetRtg. The 20-21 Warriors when Steph was off the court had a -4.6 NetRtg, now that's not some perfect analysis, but if you combine that with looking at who played the majority of minutes for the Warriors and understand that Kerr was not even focusing on how many wins they got, but on developing guys and having different guys learn roles, then it should be obvious which team was better regardless of Steph.

20-21 Minutes / BPM:
1) Wiggins / 2364 / -0.4
2) Curry / 2153 / 8.7
3) Green / 1982 / 1.7
4) Oubre Jr / 1687 / -1.9
5) Bazemore / 1333 / -1.2
6) Looney / 1161 / -0.9
7) Toscana-Anderson / 1107 / 0.8
8) Lee / 1079 / 0.2
9) Poole / 988 / -0.5
10) Wiseman / 836 / -5.0

So what's your BPM based argument that the rest of players outside of Curry being worse in 20-21? The average of the top 7 players outside of Curry in 20-21 looks like it is slightly positive or 0, while 19-20's is clearly negative.

People just don't believe a player who has missed two playoffs in row combined with very streaky shooting as his main impact on the game to be able to carry a team to a championship. Is it really odd thing to have opinion on? You people are weird.

Maybe if he hasn’t been to 3 finals and won a ring as the best player on a team your argument wouldn’t be so dumb. Also love that you included a season where he played 5 games as missing the playoffs

You basically described Kobe btw. Kobe missed the playoffs and had 2 consecutive first round exits in the middle of his prime, a player who’s main impact was scoring and was also streaky (Curry has a higher career playoff fg% despite relying on so many 3s)

As the best player on a team, he won a ring when Kyrie and Love got hurt, that is an asterisk championship.

Did Curry do something illegal to injure them off the court? If not, what's the asterisk for? Players injured while playing the sport asterisk? I'll only be convinced if you can show a post from 18-19 where after Durant got injured, you said "if the Rockets win this series and then go on to win it all there should be an asterisk". If not then nope, no thanks.

[BoatsNZones]

Can they? Of course. They have superstar talent, depth and championship experience all over the roster. Not to mention they are elite on both sides of the ball + extremely cohesive.

That said, nobody quite has the firepower of the Nets. They’re going to be the favorites with even 50% of Kyrie. Not to mention the potential blood bath there could be to make it out of the West (making no mention of the defending champs in the East…).

Odds are they will not win it all obviously, but yes, they will be amongst the scariest few teams in the playoffs.

[WarriorGM]

There were no major roster moves between 2021 and 2022 for Golden State.

Curry is also playing noticeably worse now than he was last year, yet the team is much better.

So how bad could the 2021 roster of been?

There is a major roster change: Wiseman hasn't played.

After Wiseman's injury last year the Warriors closed the year going 15-5. That is a 60-win pace. That kind of performance was predicted by lineup data earlier in the season which were showing lineups with Steph but without Wiseman had an offensive rating that would be the best in the league.

There are many many implications one can take from that information. I personally think it would make for many interesting discussions but instead we get topics like this one for this thread.

How bad were the 2021 Warriors without Steph?

Here's an analysis:

The 2021 Warriors are The Worst Team in The NBA When Steph isn't On The Court. And It Gets Worse.

Just checked the warriors last 20 games (where they went 15-5),

- 3 wins against OKC (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 2 wins against Houston (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 1 win against Cleveland (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 1 win against Sacramento (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 2 wins against New Orleans (A team outside of the play-in tournament)

That's 9 out of the 15 you picked. So 9 wins against trash teams.

Also, Wiseman only played 21 minutes a game anyways.

So you're saying the "best player in the league" was being held back by a rookie playing rotation level minutes? That's your excuse?

But let's ignore the weak schedule and that Wiseman only played rotation level minutes.

Golden State this year is on pace for 60+ wins. Steph is noticeably worse now than he was in the 20 game sample you quoted (which, as you noted, was a 60+ win pace). So without Wiseman this year, Golden State is pretty much equivalent to the 20 game pace from 2021, with a much worse Steph.

So I'll ask again, how bad could the 2021 team be?

Uh. What exactly are you arguing again? Are you saying that the 15-5 run was not indicative? So are you saying that the team was actually really weak?

I thought you were trying to argue that the 2021 team was strong.

Maybe you should figure out what you are trying to say?

As for how bad could the 2021 team could be if you had read the link I gave it, you would see someone else has argued that it could be very very bad.

Well what are we arguing here? I'm not arguing that Curry isn't a good floor raiser, I'm arguing against the conclusion that Curry is the best floor raiser in the league with the supporting argument of "look at the Warriors record from the season they basically tanked and had no player in their top 5 in minutes starting the next season compared to that next season record".

That's not a very comprehensive argument, and to push the goal post further, it has to be a player who took specifically a last placed team? What about guys who take bad but not last placed teams from bad to very good, not just above average? Same level of raising, but didn't count? Also not every player is put in a position where they are joining a team with a previously poor record or miss a season while their team tanks, especially not in their prime, so we don't even get examples of this to compare.

The addition of Nash had the Suns go from 29 wins to 62 wins. The addition of Kidd took the Nets from 26 wins to 52 wins. Even rookie Chris Paul helped New Orleans go from 18 wins to 38 wins. Now, all those situations, I know there was far more context than just adding the one player such as injured players getting healthy, other additions, coaching changes, etc.

Even the Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 win adding a 19 year old LeBron. The Heat went from 25 wins to 42 wins with rookie Wade, of course they added Odom too.

A bad team becoming an above average team in one season is not something special, happens a lot.

But, let's use BPM for the sake of argument, so your argument here is that Chriss who has a career -2.3 BPM and has the only + BPM in his career with 0.6 that season was actually a good player and is a reason to suggest they had better players in 19-20 than 20-21? Okay, if you think that's how you just use BPM, sure...

Let's continue with BPM, because that is your argument, not mine.

Total Minutes / BPM:
1) Paschall / 1654 / -2.7
2) Robinson III / 1516 / -1.7
3) Lee / 1423 / -2.3
4) Burks / 1390 / 0.1
5) Poole / 1274 / -6.6
6) Green / 1222 / -0.2
7) Chriss / 1196 / 0.6
8) Russell / 1060 / 2.6
9) Bowman / 1050 / -4.3

Out of the 5 players most reponsible for the Warriors record based on minutes played, 4 were -1.7 or worse and the highest was +0.1. I'm not understanding what your BPM argument is here exactly.

The 19-20 Warriors had a -8.6 NetRtg. The 20-21 Warriors when Steph was off the court had a -4.6 NetRtg, now that's not some perfect analysis, but if you combine that with looking at who played the majority of minutes for the Warriors and understand that Kerr was not even focusing on how many wins they got, but on developing guys and having different guys learn roles, then it should be obvious which team was better regardless of Steph.

20-21 Minutes / BPM:
1) Wiggins / 2364 / -0.4
2) Curry / 2153 / 8.7
3) Green / 1982 / 1.7
4) Oubre Jr / 1687 / -1.9
5) Bazemore / 1333 / -1.2
6) Looney / 1161 / -0.9
7) Toscana-Anderson / 1107 / 0.8
8) Lee / 1079 / 0.2
9) Poole / 988 / -0.5
10) Wiseman / 836 / -5.0

So what's your BPM based argument that the rest of players outside of Curry being worse in 20-21? The average of the top 7 players outside of Curry in 20-21 looks like it is slightly positive or 0, while 19-20's is clearly negative.

You say you are not arguing that Curry is a good floor raiser. You are arguing against the notion, as I understand it correct me if I'm wrong, that he is the best floor raiser. All right what is your argument then?

I'm using a last place example because we are looking at an extreme and last place teams can be much worse than just poor teams. I think there is a noticeable difference even this year between a team such as the Thunder which is 4th from the bottom and the teams at the bottom. But of course that need not be the only example. Curry's entire career is full of him beating expectations massively from taking Davidson to the Elite Eight to winning a championship with a late lottery pick and second round pick as his two main supporting players on a team that had the longest odds at the start of the season of any championship team in at least the last 30 years.

Many people also concede that Curry may well be the best ceiling raiser. I would say though if he is the best ceiling raiser isn't that evidence that he would be the best floor raiser also? The distinction to me looks largely artificial. They strike me as almost the same thing. I don't recall the terms being used prior to Curry.

As for the BPM stuff I need not rely on that only. You can look at the other link I provided in answer to another poster above. But if we are to look at just the BPM you will notice Curry in part replaces the player with the worst the prior year. Curry's presence means a couple of those players with the worst BPM don't need to be played as many minutes and minutes in the starting rotation at that. Do you expect their numbers to improve against opponents' starters rather than bench players? Curry also is known to generally have positive effects on his teammates' numbers. Your simplistic averaging method doesn't factor any of that in.

[a8bil]

Curry has always been streaky...which is why, in part, he was not awarded two final's MVPs, at least one of which he deserved. A shooter can and will have off quarters, halves, or even nights particularly in a 7 game series. Curry will sometimes go for 1 for 10 in the first half, then go 10 for 12 with 7 3 pts in the second half. It is that threat of going off, however, which makes Curry so valuable and dangerous...he draws so much attention that other players, i.e., Wiggins, Poole, Lee, GPII, OPJ...get wide open looks. Wide open looks turn avg shooters into good shooters (see list in last sentence), and very good shooters into great ones (KD). But, you don't need great shooting to win -- great shooting from KD turned the playoffs into a GSW cake walk to the championship. They can still win with just good shooting from Curry's supporting cast...it just won't be a cake walk.

[og15]

There is a major roster change: Wiseman hasn't played.

After Wiseman's injury last year the Warriors closed the year going 15-5. That is a 60-win pace. That kind of performance was predicted by lineup data earlier in the season which were showing lineups with Steph but without Wiseman had an offensive rating that would be the best in the league.

There are many many implications one can take from that information. I personally think it would make for many interesting discussions but instead we get topics like this one for this thread.

How bad were the 2021 Warriors without Steph?

Here's an analysis:

The 2021 Warriors are The Worst Team in The NBA When Steph isn't On The Court. And It Gets Worse.

Just checked the warriors last 20 games (where they went 15-5),

- 3 wins against OKC (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 2 wins against Houston (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 1 win against Cleveland (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 1 win against Sacramento (A team outside of the play-in tournament)
- 2 wins against New Orleans (A team outside of the play-in tournament)

That's 9 out of the 15 you picked. So 9 wins against trash teams.

Also, Wiseman only played 21 minutes a game anyways.

So you're saying the "best player in the league" was being held back by a rookie playing rotation level minutes? That's your excuse?

But let's ignore the weak schedule and that Wiseman only played rotation level minutes.

Golden State this year is on pace for 60+ wins. Steph is noticeably worse now than he was in the 20 game sample you quoted (which, as you noted, was a 60+ win pace). So without Wiseman this year, Golden State is pretty much equivalent to the 20 game pace from 2021, with a much worse Steph.

So I'll ask again, how bad could the 2021 team be?

Uh. What exactly are you arguing again? Are you saying that the 15-5 run was not indicative? So are you saying that the team was actually really weak?

I thought you were trying to argue that the 2021 team was strong.

Maybe you should figure out what you are trying to say?

As for how bad could the 2021 team could be if you had read the link I gave it, you would see someone else has argued that it could be very very bad.

Well what are we arguing here? I'm not arguing that Curry isn't a good floor raiser, I'm arguing against the conclusion that Curry is the best floor raiser in the league with the supporting argument of "look at the Warriors record from the season they basically tanked and had no player in their top 5 in minutes starting the next season compared to that next season record".

That's not a very comprehensive argument, and to push the goal post further, it has to be a player who took specifically a last placed team? What about guys who take bad but not last placed teams from bad to very good, not just above average? Same level of raising, but didn't count? Also not every player is put in a position where they are joining a team with a previously poor record or miss a season while their team tanks, especially not in their prime, so we don't even get examples of this to compare.

The addition of Nash had the Suns go from 29 wins to 62 wins. The addition of Kidd took the Nets from 26 wins to 52 wins. Even rookie Chris Paul helped New Orleans go from 18 wins to 38 wins. Now, all those situations, I know there was far more context than just adding the one player such as injured players getting healthy, other additions, coaching changes, etc.

Even the Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 win adding a 19 year old LeBron. The Heat went from 25 wins to 42 wins with rookie Wade, of course they added Odom too.

A bad team becoming an above average team in one season is not something special, happens a lot.

But, let's use BPM for the sake of argument, so your argument here is that Chriss who has a career -2.3 BPM and has the only + BPM in his career with 0.6 that season was actually a good player and is a reason to suggest they had better players in 19-20 than 20-21? Okay, if you think that's how you just use BPM, sure...

Let's continue with BPM, because that is your argument, not mine.

Total Minutes / BPM:
1) Paschall / 1654 / -2.7
2) Robinson III / 1516 / -1.7
3) Lee / 1423 / -2.3
4) Burks / 1390 / 0.1
5) Poole / 1274 / -6.6
6) Green / 1222 / -0.2
7) Chriss / 1196 / 0.6
8) Russell / 1060 / 2.6
9) Bowman / 1050 / -4.3

Out of the 5 players most reponsible for the Warriors record based on minutes played, 4 were -1.7 or worse and the highest was +0.1. I'm not understanding what your BPM argument is here exactly.

The 19-20 Warriors had a -8.6 NetRtg. The 20-21 Warriors when Steph was off the court had a -4.6 NetRtg, now that's not some perfect analysis, but if you combine that with looking at who played the majority of minutes for the Warriors and understand that Kerr was not even focusing on how many wins they got, but on developing guys and having different guys learn roles, then it should be obvious which team was better regardless of Steph.

20-21 Minutes / BPM:
1) Wiggins / 2364 / -0.4
2) Curry / 2153 / 8.7
3) Green / 1982 / 1.7
4) Oubre Jr / 1687 / -1.9
5) Bazemore / 1333 / -1.2
6) Looney / 1161 / -0.9
7) Toscana-Anderson / 1107 / 0.8
8) Lee / 1079 / 0.2
9) Poole / 988 / -0.5
10) Wiseman / 836 / -5.0

So what's your BPM based argument that the rest of players outside of Curry being worse in 20-21? The average of the top 7 players outside of Curry in 20-21 looks like it is slightly positive or 0, while 19-20's is clearly negative.

You say you are not arguing that Curry is a good floor raiser. You are arguing against the notion, as I understand it correct me if I'm wrong, that he is the best floor raiser. All right what is your argument then?

I'm using a last place example because we are looking at an extreme and last place teams can be much worse than just poor teams. I think there is a noticeable difference even this year between a team such as the Thunder which is 4th from the bottom and the teams at the bottom. But of course that need not be the only example. Curry's entire career is full of him beating expectations massively from taking Davidson to the Elite Eight to winning a championship with a late lottery pick and second round pick as his two main supporting players on a team that had the longest odds at the start of the season of any championship team in at least the last 30 years.

Many people also concede that Curry may well be the best ceiling raiser. I would say though if he is the best ceiling raiser isn't that evidence that he would be the best floor raiser also? The distinction to me looks largely artificial. They strike me as almost the same thing. I don't recall the terms being used prior to Curry.

As for the BPM stuff I need not rely on that only. You can look at the other link I provided in answer to another poster above. But if we are to look at just the BPM you will notice Curry in part replaces the player with the worst the prior year. Curry's presence means a couple of those players with the worst BPM don't need to be played as many minutes and minutes in the starting rotation at that. Do you expect their numbers to improve against opponents' starters rather than bench players? Curry also is known to generally have positive effects on his teammates' numbers. Your simplistic averaging method doesn't factor any of that in.

You made the claim that Curry is "the best floor raiser in the league". You supported your argument by citing the terrible Warriors going from that to above average.

You then further supported you argument by citing BPM. You are the one that needs to clarify and be consistent with your arguments, not me.

Ceiling raiser and floor raiser did not come because of Curry, you maybe just didn't have those discussions, but they aren't some Curry derived definitions. Floor raiser for example, Westbrook in 16-17 raised the Thunders floor, but most don't believe that adding Westbrook to an already good team makes them elite. They are not the same thing, though a player can be good to great at both. Someone like Chris Paul is a guy many people say is both a great floor and ceiling raiser. On most teams he can rally guys and get most teams to be competitive and overachieve offensively and even push guys on defense. Then if you add him to good teams and other good players, he can play alongside them and help the team good teams have an even higher ceiling, for example when he joined the Rockets.

Curry is a player that can do both, sure. Westbrook for example is a guy who is better at making poorer teams decent than making good teams great or great teams elite.

But if we are to look at just the BPM you will notice Curry in part replaces the player with the worst the prior year. Curry's presence means a couple of those players with the worst BPM don't need to be played as many minutes and minutes in the starting rotation at that. Do you expect their numbers to improve against opponents' starters rather than bench players? Curry also is known to generally have positive effects on his teammates' numbers. Your simplistic averaging method doesn't factor any of that in

You made the argument that the 20-21 team was worse than the 19-20 team based on BPM, that was YOUR argument. You cited the positive BPM of Bazemore and Chriss as part of your support, whatever that was supposed to indicate.

I asked where you were coming up with the conclusion based on BPM. I showed the BPM of the players who played the most minutes both those seasons, and I'm still trying to see how you are consistent with the initial argument you made the the BPM of players in 19-20 showed that they were actually a better team than the 20-21 team.

Show us all step by step how you are coming to the conclusion because you made the statement.

Now you are pushing it to me, I wouldn't cite BPM, so I'm not going to start spending time defending a BPM based argument, I'm just following your own line of argumentation.

You are talking about Curry's presence taking lesser players out of the rotation, yea, every player who is a starter level player does that to 9th and 10th men who are starting, not to even talk of stars. That's nothing specific to do with Curry.

Okay, Curry has positive impact on teammates numbers, sure, I never said he didn't, but your argument is that he is the best floor raiser in the league, but you haven't given adequate or consistent support for your claim. You cited record from one season to another and BPM as your supports, but your BPM argument is poor, and your season to season record lacks context, especially of what the teams aim was and what players were on the court vs the next season.

The Thunder aren't trying to win that is, on the court they are trying, but they aren't putting out rosters they think can win much. If they added star and switched to trying to win next season, they would have different rotations, they would play differently. The Warriors did the same thing, they switched from trying to win to development mode, judging the true quality of a team based on that situation is just not really the best method.

[WarriorGM]

You made the argument that the 20-21 team was worse than the 19-20 team based on BPM, that was YOUR argument. You cited the positive BPM of Bazemore and Chriss as part of your support, whatever that was supposed to indicate.

I asked where you were coming up with the conclusion based on BPM. I showed the BPM of the players who played the most minutes both those seasons, and I'm still trying to see how you are consistent with the initial argument you made the the BPM of players in 19-20 showed that they were actually a better team than the 20-21 team.

Show us all step by step how you are coming to the conclusion because you made the statement.

Now you are pushing it to me, I wouldn't cite BPM, so I'm not going to start spending time defending a BPM based argument, I'm just following your own line of argumentation.

You are talking about Curry's presence taking lesser players out of the rotation, yea, every player who is a starter level player does that to 9th and 10th men who are starting, not to even talk of stars. That's nothing specific to do with Curry.

Okay, Curry has positive impact on teammates numbers, sure, I never said he didn't, but your argument is that he is the best floor raiser in the league, but you haven't given adequate or consistent support for your claim. You cited record from one season to another and BPM as your supports, but your BPM argument is poor, and your season to season record lacks context, especially of what the teams aim was and what players were on the court vs the next season.

I mentioned BPM in passing not as a central pillar of my argument. Paschall, Lee and Poole were still on the team the next year so I did not bother with them. I was looking at the replacements. Wiggins' lower than Russell's. Oubre's lower than Robinson III's. Bazemore's lower than Burks's.

Also the arguments in the link but maybe everything must be directed to you explicitly so I'll repeat:
The 2021 Warriors are The Worst Team in The NBA When Steph isn't On The Court. And It Gets Worse.

I think my argument is self-explanatory. You should be able to quickly understand it or not. I do not feel like or see the need into going into more detail when you are making simple mistakes in describing my argument to me like citing Bazemore rather than Burks. Reread what I stated and the citation I made and take enlightenment from it if you can.

Whatever you may think I've provided my argument. It can be cogently summed up as Curry has raised a worse team higher than others and has taken teams with lower expectations higher than others. I still haven't seen yours.

[nikster]

9

People just don't believe a player who has missed two playoffs in row combined with very streaky shooting as his main impact on the game to be able to carry a team to a championship. Is it really odd thing to have opinion on? You people are weird.

Maybe if he hasn’t been to 3 finals and won a ring as the best player on a team your argument wouldn’t be so dumb. Also love that you included a season where he played 5 games as missing the playoffs

You basically described Kobe btw. Kobe missed the playoffs and had 2 consecutive first round exits in the middle of his prime, a player who’s main impact was scoring and was also streaky (Curry has a higher career playoff fg% despite relying on so many 3s)

As the best player on a team, he won a ring when Kyrie and Love got hurt, that is an asterisk championship.

Yup all the championships in the last half decade have been meaningless, they all have asterisks

[dautjazz]

No. He has or had no chance to win a ring as a best player of his team.

Except in 2015 when he was the league MVP and won a ring.

Irving and Love were both injured all series.

[brutalitops]

No. He has or had no chance to win a ring as a best player of his team.

Except in 2015 when he was the league MVP and won a ring.

Irving and Love were both injured all series.

Oh yeah I forgot the part where the Warriors won and Silver then said it doesnt count. Kinda like how the Raptors ring doesnt count because Klay and Durant went down.