If Curry raised his game some more and performed great in the playoffs for the next 2 years and then got a career ending injury then I would be willing to think about Curry in the Top 100.penbeast0 wrote:PG: short peak guys (anyone willing to argue Stephen Curry?).
The game last night between the Warriors and the Raptors shows how a team can make or break a players stats. Last year the best way to stop the Warriors was to trap Steph Curry. Mark Jackson wanted the bull in Steph's hands and wanted to use picks to get Steph free. Sending 3 men to guard Steph and the pick setter was effective.
Curry does not have the speed to dribble out of traps.
Kerr seems to follow the Tex Winter approach that a team should not need a point guard. Last nights he Raptors were attempting to trap Curry continuously. Steph would get rid of the ball quickly and the ball moved to players for easy shots. Steph still got plenty of chances to get assists when the ball came back to him.
What the Warriors did as a team that produced great stats for many players was accomplished by hard work, lot's of practice, a good game plan and multiple players capable of making the right pass or the right cut.
Stats:
Curry 10- 18, 5 - 11, 7-7 32 points, 12 assists, no turnovers, 5 rebounds
Draymond Green 6-12, 2-6, 2-2, 16 points, 13 assists, 2 turnovers, 11 rebounds, 2 steals, 2 blocks
Mo Speights 12-19, 0-1, 2-2 26 points, 8 rebounds.
Klay 8-13, 4-6, 0-0 20 points 3 blocks
Team 53% 12 - 28 3pts ,35 assists , 9 turnovers
The Raptors played very well and had excellent shooting and scoring despite the Warriors playing great defense. the Raptors played great and lost by 20.
Now if Kerr's system did not work or if the players did not play hard or if pf Draymond Green and the other players were poor passers then the trap would have worked and Curry and the other players would not have their great stats.
The Warriors played 2 games in LA at Christmas where they were not mentally and physically sharp enough to execute Kerr's system and the result ended up being losses and poorer stats.
In a situation comparing Bernard King to Moncreif or Alex English Bernard King's teams, put Bernard King at a disadvantage. As bad as some of King's teams were those teams were better with King than without King.
Nets 22 wins without King, With King 24 and 37 wins. Wthout King 34 wins
Jazz, King only 19 games.
Warriors, with Parish, Ray, Purvis, Smith, Lucas but without Bernard 24 wins. With King 39 and 45 wins. After King 30 Wins.
Knicks, before King 33 wins. With King 44, 47 wins.
Knicks, last season King plays 55 of first 71 games. Before the season got going the team lost Cartwright, Webster, Ray Williams and Truck Robbinson from the previous year without replacing them. I respect Sparrow, Wlaker, and Tucker s decent role players but King has very little support. Knicks go 24 and 47 during the first 71 games and then lose 11 straight games at the end of the season without King.
The next year without King but with Patrick Ewing and The return of Carwright the Knicks win 23 games. So Ewing and Cartwright and more experience for the younger Knicks is worth less than 55 games of Bernard King on a team with crap for big men.
Bullets win 42 games before King, Win 38, 40, 31, 30, games with post injury King. The first year with Moses and Jeff Malone the team looks like it should no be so bad. By the last year with 34 year old King and Moses and Jeff gone the team looks like it should be bad. The Next year without King the team wins 25 games.
2 years later King plays part time minutes in 32 games for the Nets.
with my vote for Unseld. Leaning towards going with Rodman for his ATG rebounding and defense, but all are deserving candidates. I'll have to compare them a bit more before I cast an official run-off vote.
