The Stephen Curry Thread (2015-16 Pt. 2)

[bleeds_purple]

Man, I just have such a hard time taking criticisms of Curry seriously when they occur while his team is winning in blowouts. The argument people use is straight forward "GOAT supporting cast!", but it just doesn't make basketball sense. The greatness of the team is considerably more than just Curry of course, but it's not about the role players on the team being secret stars, its about the Warriors playing in a way that is both optimized for the current league and is great for teammate confidence...and of course the ideal alpha star for such a team is someone like Steph.

I think the question I'd ask of skeptics is, who would be do a better job than Curry on this Warrior team? To me the only candidates are guys from the past.

I don't even know if there is a PG in the past or present that could do a better job. I suppose that's also because this entire team and its playstyle is predicated on Curry's unique skillset.

People like to compare Nash to Curry but as far as Curry's role in the offense its not that similar to Nash. Nash was far more ball dominant and more of a facilitator as compared to Curry who spends a lot of time off the ball. Curry "facilitates" just by drawing the defense to him with his movement and shooting capability which causes his teammates to be open. He doesn't even need to touch the ball for this to happen.

Other historically great PGs aren't even in the same stratosphere as Curry when it comes to shooting. Which leads me to think you'd rather have a guy like Ray Allen replacing Curry in the offense over even guys like Stockton or Thomas who would change the dynamics of the floor spacing and ball handling. But obviously Allen has more limitations to his game than Curry so he's a lesser option.

This team is at its zenith when Iggy/Dray/Livingston are holding the ball with a live dribble at the wing while Curry and Klay run around off-ball screens while the screeners cut off the pockets of space those guys create. We've seen time and time again that a split-second slip up by the defense ends in an open three or a dunk/layup in these circumstances. A guy like Allen "fits" into that system much better than a traditional PG.

Along those same lines, as for current players I'd probably rather plug Lillard into this offense even if Paul and Westbrook are "better" players overall because they probably don't fit as well into this system whereas Dame has more-or-less the same skillset as Steph and could be plugged into that position without disrupting the team's style.

All things considered, it may actually be the case that without exaggeration and within the context of this team, offense, and meta-game, the Curry/Klay/Green trio is actually the ideal trio to play together in the sense that you'd be hard pressed to come up with a historical replacement for any of those guys that would improve this team. Was there ever a PF in this history of the sport who could perform all of the tasks that this team requires Green to perform? Is Klay the best shooting SG of all time? Curry is probably the best shoot ever.

At a certain point you have to just appreciate how perfectly this team fits together top to bottom. It makes you jealous of Warriors fans who get to root for this...

[Doctor MJ]

Man, I just have such a hard time taking criticisms of Curry seriously when they occur while his team is winning in blowouts. The argument people use is straight forward "GOAT supporting cast!", but it just doesn't make basketball sense. The greatness of the team is considerably more than just Curry of course, but it's not about the role players on the team being secret stars, its about the Warriors playing in a way that is both optimized for the current league and is great for teammate confidence...and of course the ideal alpha star for such a team is someone like Steph.

I think the question I'd ask of skeptics is, who would be do a better job than Curry on this Warrior team? To me the only candidates are guys from the past.

I don't even know if there is a PG in the past or present that could do a better job. I suppose that's also because this entire team and its playstyle is predicated on Curry's unique skillset.

People like to compare Nash to Curry but as far as Curry's role in the offense its not that similar to Nash. Nash was far more ball dominant and more of a facilitator as compared to Curry who spends a lot of time off the ball. Curry "facilitates" just by drawing the defense to him with his movement and shooting capability which causes his teammates to be open. He doesn't even need to touch the ball for this to happen.

Other historically great PGs aren't even in the same stratosphere as Curry when it comes to shooting. Which leads me to think you'd rather have a guy like Ray Allen replacing Curry in the offense over even guys like Stockton or Thomas who would change the dynamics of the floor spacing and ball handling. But obviously Allen has more limitations to his game than Curry so he's a lesser option.

This team is at its zenith when Iggy/Dray/Livingston are holding the ball with a live dribble at the wing while Curry and Klay run around off-ball screens while the screeners cut off the pockets of space those guys create. We've seen time and time again that a split-second slip up by the defense ends in an open three or a dunk/layup in these circumstances. A guy like Allen "fits" into that system much better than a traditional PG.

Along those same lines, as for current players I'd probably rather plug Lillard into this offense even if Paul and Westbrook are "better" players overall because they probably don't fit as well into this system whereas Dame has more-or-less the same skillset as Steph and could be plugged into that position without disrupting the team's style.

All things considered, it may actually be the case that without exaggeration and within the context of this team, offense, and meta-game, the Curry/Klay/Green trio is actually the ideal trio to play together in the sense that you'd be hard pressed to come up with a historical replacement for any of those guys that would improve this team. Was there ever a PF in this history of the sport who could perform all of the tasks that this team requires Green to perform? Is Klay the best shooting SG of all time? Curry is probably the best shoot ever.

At a certain point you have to just appreciate how perfectly this team fits together top to bottom. It makes you jealous of Warriors fans who get to root for this...

I'm inclined to agree in general that if a superstar really, really works on a given team, you probably can't replace him with someone else and have it be equally good.

The two guys who come to mind that I'd be curious about though are Nash, as you mentioned - but also as you mentioned the analogy is far from perfect and Curry has important edges - but also Larry Bird. With Bird you got a guy who was a scary shooter, who probably would have been a lot scarier on that front today with the greenlight to shoot more 3's. He's also someone accustomed to playing both on & off ball, had a great motor, a nose for the ball, and eyes in the back of his head. Obviously with Bird being a different size you couldn't just plug him into for Curry just from a man defense perspective and I"m not going to claim Bird or anyone else was Curry's equal as a shooter, but I think you could build a GOAT-ish team around him in this vein.

[picc]

Curry was great in the last 3 games of the okc series through.

Not great. A good game 5, then a very strong finish to game 6 after being carried and mostly invisible during most of the game. A very good game 7 that wasn't as strong as his stats finished. But that's missing my point.

where were you when his teammates got slammed during okc series?
28/6/6 on 61%TS, that's some good numbers against a tough defensive team which holds/hugs him on every play. Curry had no problem closing out games on 84%TS scoring.

This is also missing my point, which means I didn't do a good enough job clarifying myself.

I wasn't criticizing Steph for his teammates at all. Why on earth would having good players around you be a bad thing? What I was alluding to is that his struggles during the last couple rounds - and I get the defense has been tough, but if you don't think he's performed under the expectations, you're lying to yourself - have mostly been due to his smaller size, lack of physicality, and a lack of aggression that's resulted from it. Teams are physically taking him out of the games entirely for large chunks of time, which is something we don't see as often from larger positions because size and athleticism are very helpful to navigating court space.

With point guards, a team with this kind of defensive game plan can more easily force teammates to manufacture the offense. And many times, teams built around point guards aren't loaded with those kinds of players on the roster. Golden State, however, is. Its an anomaly to the trend.

That's a luxury Steph is fortunate to have. I know on this board, saying a player is fortunate in any way is taken as a slight of their abilities, but that's not how I meant it at all. It doesn't make him any less of a player. Its just a statement of fact. Rest assured, I like Golden State and want them to win, so I'm happy they have such a great complement of autonomous players.

Further, I think you misinterpreted my criticism of Steph a bit, which I'll also take blame for not making clear. He is definitely struggling, but my comment about point guards being more vulnerable to aggressive defenses keyed on them specifically doesn't apply to Steph quite as much, because he himself is an anomaly to this trend. He can shoot reliably against a contesting defender, off the dribble, from anywhere on the court. No other point guard in history can make that claim, aside from maybe Damian Lillard or a peak Arenas. And they can't do it nearly as well. Steph's scoring tools are not limited to what point guards' traditionally have been.

Part of my frustration with Steph is that he can - and should - be doing this more often, but he allows the defense to bully him away from the ball. Toward the end of the OKC series he basically said "screw it" and did it anyway, because their backs were against the wall. He's had success with it against Cleveland as well in these first two games (almost every time he isolates and shoots over his man from 3, it goes in, prompting me to throw my hands up and and go "Duh!!".... and recall game 5 last year, when his real breakout moment against CLE was just chucking threes over Dellavadova), but has been able to get away with not doing much because the rest of the Warriors are clicking independently.

However, these games in Cleveland might not afford him that luxury. And in that case, I would really like to see him call his own number and take over the games using that very specific skill that only he has.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh also in terms of cheering:

I"m in this weird boat right now where I'm cheering for the Warriors like I'm a fan of their team. It's kinda like what I went through with the Suns with Nash, but the Warriors have a secret weapon: They didn't call themselves Oakland, they called themselves Golden State, and now they have a logo that screams California. As a Californian, it makes it feel like they're our team.

I can't imagine I'll ever feel as emotionally connected to the franchise as I do to the Lakers (for good and for ill), but, well, it didn't take much for them to pass up the Clippers in my heart.

[bleeds_purple]

Obviously with Bird being a different size you couldn't just plug him into for Curry just from a man defense perspective and I"m not going to claim Bird or anyone else was Curry's equal as a shooter, but I think you could build a GOAT-ish team around him in this vein.

Bird pretty much personifies the Warriors play style.

Swap Barnes and Curry for Bird and George Hill. New death lineup: Hill/Thompson/Iggy/Bird/Green *shudder* Is that a better team than the current iteration?

[cpower]

Curry was great in the last 3 games of the okc series through.

Not great. A good game 5, then a very strong finish to game 6 after being carried and mostly invisible during most of the game. A very good game 7 that wasn't as strong as his stats finished. But that's missing my point.

where were you when his teammates got slammed during okc series?
28/6/6 on 61%TS, that's some good numbers against a tough defensive team which holds/hugs him on every play. Curry had no problem closing out games on 84%TS scoring.

This is also missing my point, which means I didn't do a good enough job clarifying myself.

I wasn't criticizing Steph for his teammates at all. Why on earth would having good players around you be a bad thing? What I was alluding to is that his struggles during the last couple rounds - and I get the defense has been tough, but if you don't think he's performed under the expectations, you're lying to yourself - have mostly been due to his smaller size, lack of physicality, and a lack of aggression that's resulted from it. Teams are physically taking him out of the games entirely for large chunks of time, which is something we don't see as often from larger positions because size and athleticism are very helpful to navigating court space.

With point guards, a team with this kind of defensive game plan can more easily force teammates to manufacture the offense. And many times, teams built around point guards aren't loaded with those kinds of players on the roster. Golden State, however, is. Its an anomaly to the trend.

That's a luxury Steph is fortunate to have. I know on this board, saying a player is fortunate in any way is taken as a slight of their abilities, but that's not how I meant it at all. It doesn't make him any less of a player. Its just a statement of fact. Rest assured, I like Golden State and want them to win, so I'm happy they have such a great complement of autonomous players.

Further, I think you misinterpreted my criticism of Steph a bit, which I'll also take blame for not making clear. He is definitely struggling, but my comment about point guards being more vulnerable to aggressive defenses keyed on them specifically doesn't apply to Steph quite as much, because he himself is an anomaly to this trend. He can shoot reliably against a contesting defender, off the dribble, from anywhere on the court. No other point guard in history can make that claim, aside from maybe Damian Lillard or a peak Arenas. And they can't do it nearly as well. Steph's scoring tools are not limited to what point guards' traditionally have been.

Part of my frustration with Steph is that he can - and should - be doing this more often, but he allows the defense to bully him away from the ball. Toward the end of the OKC series he basically said "screw it" and did it anyway, because their backs were against the wall. He's had success with it against Cleveland as well in these first two games (almost every time he isolates and shoots over his man from 3, it goes in, prompting me to throw my hands up and and go "Duh!!".... and recall game 5 last year, when his real breakout moment against CLE was just chucking threes over Dellavadova), but has been able to get away with not doing much because the rest of the Warriors are clicking independently.

However, these games in Cleveland might not afford him that luxury. And in that case, I would really like to see him call his own number and take over the games using that very specific skill that only he has.

Your definition of struggling is a bit harsh. If Curry went for full chuck mode, lets say, putting up 33/6/6 on 57%TS. Does it mean he no longer struggles? You have to look at how the team is structured. If we ever had the length and hustle of OKC players, Curry would probably go for Durant/Kobe approach by firing a lot of bad shots because he knew his team would get a lot of O-rebounds and loose balls. But like you said, we have a few smart offensive players who is willing to get the ball moving, and Curry is a big part of that. I hated to see him passing the ball inside to Bogut/Ezeli for some inefficient hook shots, and I hated to see him deferring to Green for some ugly long 3s..but it is how this offense works for the dubs. Sometimes it may not be the best offense (as vs more physical teams) but you saw Curry responded with good games when his back was on the wall (comeback game vs portland, g6/7 against OKC).

Too bad we couldn't see what Curry would have done against the spurs but i think it would have been the similar story. He would start the game with team ball, putting up 3/4 threes for the half and trying to get Klay going. He would have stronger 2nd and 4th quarters to close out games (unless we got blown out) He will never have the optimal shots every game (25 fga would be good)

Maybe not winning the final MVP is a good thing for him, he will come back being a better player just like what happened last year

[picc]

Your definition of struggling is a bit harsh. If Curry went for full chuck mode, lets say, putting up 33/6/6 on 57%TS. Does it mean he no longer struggles?

I don't know what stats would be required to say Curry had a good game. I've seen him dominate a game with an unremarkable statline, and I've seen him be ghost for most of a contest but somehow end up with a great one.

All I know with him is what I see. And what I see right now, and against OKC (for most of the series), is Curry struggling to assert himself against aggressive defenses somewhat because of his lack of size and athleticism. Which I'm just noting is more of a problem for point guards historically when they need to score, and don't have a team stacked with scorers and facilitators to take over the load like Steph does.

To boot, aggressive teams have been able to keep him away from the ball because he has a tendency to give up trying to get it, which is also partly due to his size/lack of athleticism. And that's not something that started this year. I've noticed that about Steph for a few seasons now.

I'll add that, because I know what the auto-response of anyone reading that will be, I don't mean to say its unusual for a great player to struggle against aggressive defense. I'm just saying that his size presents additional issues when attempting to solve it. Issues that are softened by his ability to shoot accurately in any situation, but that exist nonetheless.

I agree with you that the GS offense is good enough to work with others taking the load. And I'm not even saying that Steph has to shoot all the time. But the best case scenario for any Warriors possession always involves Steph handling the ball, whether he's going to shoot it or not. I'd like to see him do a better job of enforcing his presence on the game and not allowing the other team to erase him from plays. They may or may not need it in Cleveland, but they'll definitely need it going forward through the years as teams catch up.

You have to look at how the team is structured. If we ever had the length and hustle of OKC players, Curry would probably go for Durant/Kobe approach by firing a lot of bad shots because he knew his team would get a lot of O-rebounds and loose balls. But like you said, we have a few smart offensive players who is willing to get the ball moving, and Curry is a big part of that. I hated to see him passing the ball inside to Bogut/Ezeli for some inefficient hook shots, and I hated to see him deferring to Green for some ugly long 3s..but it is how this offense works for the dubs. Sometimes it may not be the best offense (as vs more physical teams) but you saw Curry responded with good games when his back was on the wall (comeback game vs portland, g6/7 against OKC).

Too bad we couldn't see what Curry would have done against the spurs but i think it would have been the similar story. He would start the game with team ball, putting up 3/4 threes for the half and trying to get Klay going. He would have stronger 2nd and 4th quarters to close out games (unless we got blown out) He will never have the optimal shots every game (25 fga would be good)

Maybe not winning the final MVP is a good thing for him, he will come back being a better player just like what happened last year

A lot of the reporters were asking him about his struggles during the press conference after game 2, and asking who he thought the MVP was so far since it obviously wasn't him.

It was annoying. But its also possible it will motivate him to be more aggressive going forward.

[Johnny Firpo]

Curry's team is likely too good for him to put up a legendary performance in this finals series. I would have given him the finals MVP last year, but after two games it's clearly Green so far. Not that this should matter, and Curry still has time to do something about this, though it will likely come down the to the Cavs. Can they play well enough to "chase" Curry into a performance like that? I realize this may sound a bit disrespecting to Cavs fans, but that's not my intention. I am actually very high on that team, though for various reasons they played well below their potential in the first two games.

[nikomCH]

I really don't put much stock into FMVP anyway, who cares about such a small sample size (especially against an inferior team)

[picc]

Also add I think currys knee is bothering him more than we can tell. That may be contributing to his struggles getting going. Possibly. Cant be sure either way but i wouldnt be surprised. The Olympics thing suggests it is.

Also quick note, he's been solid on defense even if struggling on O. Competing on switches and staying in front of Kyrie even on his dribbling exhibitions. Im impressed.

The dumb fouls and turnovers are unacceptable though. He's smarter than this.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Man, I just have such a hard time taking criticisms of Curry seriously when they occur while his team is winning in blowouts. The argument people use is straight forward "GOAT supporting cast!", but it just doesn't make basketball sense. The greatness of the team is considerably more than just Curry of course, but it's not about the role players on the team being secret stars, its about the Warriors playing in a way that is both optimized for the current league and is great for teammate confidence...and of course the ideal alpha star for such a team is someone like Steph.

I think the question I'd ask of skeptics is, who would be do a better job than Curry on this Warrior team? To me the only candidates are guys from the past.

Honestly imo, what makes curry fit into this so well is that he is fine with being a non ball-dominant pg. I mean, he has his isolations and he is phenomenal at them, leading the league out of superstars in PPP I think, or really close, but even Kerr said one of the main things he changed was getting the ball out of curry's hands, now, curry massively improved in every area from 13-14 to 14-15, and again in 14-15 to 15-16, but there's a VERY big difference between being okay to take less shots, and being okay to have the ball less.

I mean, he is 10th in the league in touches a game (10th for PGs) and 0.1 touches more than griffin. But what's surprising is that for guards, his time per touch is 4.22 seconds, which, organized by 40+ touches, is 65th in the league. In the playoffs, draymond, while having low time per possession for obvious reasons (only guards have high ones, playmaking bigs have low time per possession as well) he actually averages 10.6 more touches a game than curry. He is 26th in the league in time of possession overall.

He plays more minutes than all but 8 of the people in front of him. To put it in perspective Michael carter Williams has more minutes than he does.

And there are reasons for this, As this helps use curry's "gravity" more (offball). And the touches keep the defenses honest/remembering him. But beyond the fact that there aren't a lot of players that could play his role, I'm just not sure how many would be willing to play his role, at the pg position (obviously we can't transition touches for a pg for touches for a sg or a sf).

I just think the Warriors have found something (their offense is GOAT considering 4th quarter drop offs since they go to the bench) and curry's, umm, agreement to do what he is called to do has a lot to do with it.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Obviously with Bird being a different size you couldn't just plug him into for Curry just from a man defense perspective and I"m not going to claim Bird or anyone else was Curry's equal as a shooter, but I think you could build a GOAT-ish team around him in this vein.

Bird pretty much personifies the Warriors play style.

Swap Barnes and Curry for Bird and George Hill. New death lineup: Hill/Thompson/Iggy/Bird/Green *shudder* Is that a better team than the current iteration?

I doubt the overall team would be better, but the death lineup would certainly be. Curry's role in the death lineup isn't really magnified compared to his role overall, a lot of the plays just rely on his and klays gravity to let green and the others do a p and r or something or force mismatches/3 on 2s. It seems to me like a lot of these lineups, whether it be golden states or some other teams, mostly focus on the PF and the C being good 3 point threats/shooters. Curry is there for the occasional bailout, but bird would have colossal impact on that lineup.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Also add I think currys knee is bothering him more than we can tell. That may be contributing to his struggles getting going. Possibly. Cant be sure either way but i wouldnt be surprised. The Olympics thing suggests it is.

Also quick note, he's been solid on defense even if struggling on O. Competing on switches and staying in front of Kyrie even on his dribbling exhibitions. Im impressed.

The dumb fouls and turnovers are unacceptable though. He's smarter than this.

From my experience with leg injuries, the pain lingers way after it supposedly heals. Not after as in like to next season but maybe half a month after the playoffs.

[prech]

Your definition of struggling is a bit harsh. If Curry went for full chuck mode, lets say, putting up 33/6/6 on 57%TS. Does it mean he no longer struggles?

I don't know what stats would be required to say Curry had a good game. I've seen him dominate a game with an unremarkable statline, and I've seen him be ghost for most of a contest but somehow end up with a great one.

All I know with him is what I see. And what I see right now, and against OKC (for most of the series), is Curry struggling to assert himself against aggressive defenses somewhat because of his lack of size and athleticism. Which I'm just noting is more of a problem for point guards historically when they need to score, and don't have a team stacked with scorers and facilitators to take over the load like Steph does.

To boot, aggressive teams have been able to keep him away from the ball because he has a tendency to give up trying to get it, which is also partly due to his size/lack of athleticism. And that's not something that started this year. I've noticed that about Steph for a few seasons now.

I'll add that, because I know what the auto-response of anyone reading that will be, I don't mean to say its unusual for a great player to struggle against aggressive defense. I'm just saying that his size presents additional issues when attempting to solve it. Issues that are softened by his ability to shoot accurately in any situation, but that exist nonetheless.

I very much agree with the sentiment that Steph has struggled for most of the playoffs, including most of the OKC series. As ya noted, even in the games where his TS% and points totals were impressive, he had far more misses than we're used to, as compared to our lofty expectations established from over the regular season. He was nowhere near as accurate around the rim with his acrobatic floaters and push shots, and was unable to dominate the game offensively for more than short bursts of time.

I can understand the theory that it was OKC's athleticism/length and defensive aggressiveness, and, correspondingly, Steph's lack thereof, but I honestly think Steph just struggled due to internal reasons. Kevin Pelton and Tom Haberstroh have written extensively (ESPN Insider and Twitter) about the GSW shot quality (qSQ), as measured by SportVU data that take into account defenders and defender distance. It basically indicated the GSW shooting was a huge aberration from not only the regular season, but even the POR and HOU series. In effect, GSW was just missing shots, even when wide open with defenders 4-6 feet away ("open") and 6+ feet away ("wide open"). The qSQ during OKC (games 3 and 4) indicated GSW had their most open and best quality shots of the entire playoffs, but just kept missing shots.

I was just rewatching the series the other day, and just from the eye test, it was stunning the number of layups Steph and Klay Thompson were missing, even after having gotten by the likes of Adams and Roberson. I'd be glad to attribute some of it to the lengthy OKC defenders, but, surprisingly, and frankly, they were just missed open lay-ups.

So if not caused by the aggressive OKC defense, then what else? I have no idea -- only Steph knows how much the ankle/MCL have limited his explosiveness and lateral quickness, thus prompting the sub-optimal performances, or how much of it is mental and psychological, with all the heightened expectations coming off the 73 wins and plethora of awards/records, but my point is not really to speculate the causes... Just that from (my) eye test and the advanced stats, it just didn't seem to be mostly attributable to the OKC defense.

[Krodis]

Some of the missed layups for Curry I think were honestly him expecting contact and the Thunder big men backing off. Whether injuries had something to do with his failure to convert, I'm not sure.

[Texas Chuck]

I really don't put much stock into FMVP anyway, who cares about such a small sample size (especially against an inferior team)

You get the Bill Russell trophy man. I'd imagine everyone cares about it.

Just because sometimes the media gets silly and gives it to the wrong guy because of a narrative doesn't mean its not still a really significant trophy. In fact, I feel pretty confident that the majority of players would rather win that one than any other individual award. Because it means your team won the championship(sorry Jerry West) and that you played a major part in it. I'd think most guys would trade their MVP for the Russell.

[tsherkin]

I really don't put much stock into FMVP anyway, who cares about such a small sample size (especially against an inferior team)

You get the Bill Russell trophy man. I'd imagine everyone cares about it.

Just because sometimes the media gets silly and gives it to the wrong guy because of a narrative doesn't mean its not still a really significant trophy. In fact, I feel pretty confident that the majority of players would rather win that one than any other individual award. Because it means your team won the championship(sorry Jerry West) and that you played a major part in it. I'd think most guys would trade their MVP for the Russell.

I don't really care about it either, because it's so high-variance in the way the voting goes for it. A single game can determine voter outcome, and it's as offense-focused as anything else, right? The Finals MVP is a laughter sometimes. Parker's FMVP comes to mind. I hate to admit it, but Magic's 1980 FMVP comes to mind as well. Maxwell in 1981 is another example for me, though that's based on more than just one game. He was nothing remarkable at all for three games, played all right in another game and had two huge games. Should have gone to Bird, IMO, although that one is more debatable.

In general, though, I think that the FMVP is an unreliable indicator of accuracy and a stronger measure of "who looked great in the last game of the series or had the most emotional resonance."

For a second, I'd like to look at "I'd think most guys would trade their MVP for a Russell."

How many guys have an MVP and don't have a ring? Derrick Rose, Allen Iverson, Kevin Durant, Charles Barkley, Steve Nash, Karl Malone, and that's it. I don't know how substantial an argument that is with such a small pool of players who've even had the situation where they have an MVP and have never won a ring. Now, "won a ring" isn't necessarily the same as "winning a Finals MVP on a title team," to be sure, but the majority of the guys who won the MVP and a title did so as a primary player on their title team. The only guy who didn't is Bob McAdoo, really. Even Robinson had his '99 title, where he was still a 16/10 guy on the 99 title... and then a roleplayer on the 2003 title as well. Obviously not the PRIMARY player even in 99, but of course still a significant and meaningful contributor. Would he trade his MVP for a Finals MVP season? Maybe. I don't care to speculate, but most of the guys who win the MVP do go on to win a ring, and are usually primary players during the season where that happens.

Food for thought. FMVP is not a meaningless award, of course. Someone is getting recognition for performance in a Finals series, and rarely is the player named someone who didn't at least play very well, regardless of the appropriate selection.

Anyway, as you said, the fact that the media is sometimes stupid doesn't change the fact that the award has both emotional resonance and some level of significance with respect to single-series performance at the highest of levels.

[Texas Chuck]

Sorry tsherkin, let me be slightly more specific: I think most players would trade their MVP for the FMVP in that same year.

So Dirk would give up the 07 MVP for teh 67 win Mavs to have won the title that year. Or KG in 2004 would have given up that MVP for the best Wolves team ever to have gotten the championship.

Once one looks back over a career in hindsight, sure I'd agree an MVP holds more meaning as an individual accomplishment without question. But real-time, I bet the majority of stars would take the Russell.

[Onus]

Man, I just have such a hard time taking criticisms of Curry seriously when they occur while his team is winning in blowouts. The argument people use is straight forward "GOAT supporting cast!", but it just doesn't make basketball sense. The greatness of the team is considerably more than just Curry of course, but it's not about the role players on the team being secret stars, its about the Warriors playing in a way that is both optimized for the current league and is great for teammate confidence...and of course the ideal alpha star for such a team is someone like Steph.

I think the question I'd ask of skeptics is, who would be do a better job than Curry on this Warrior team? To me the only candidates are guys from the past.

I'm not sure there's another superstar in the history of the game outside of Bird who would be able to allow the playmakers on the Warriors to thrive with the ball. Most other superstars are ball dominant which would render a lot of the role players less effective. That's the beauty of Steph, he can go off ball and be just as much of a threat, but when he goes on ball and gets a pick and roll/pop he just causes havoc forcing double teams out to half court or automatic switches and mismatches that he just demolishes. Steph also doesn't spam this all game to pad his stats, but he lets his teammates get involved and when it's needed in the clutch Steph takes over.

[tsherkin]

Sorry tsherkin, let me be slightly more specific: I think most players would trade their MVP for the FMVP in that same year.

Yeah, I gotcha, which is why I put in that one line to recognize the whole "Finals MVP in a title year as a primary offensive player" bit, right? I know what you mean. I don't know that I'd necessarily agree, especially because you used the word "most."

So Dirk would give up the 07 MVP for teh 67 win Mavs to have won the title that year.

Prior to 2011? I think he might have, yeah, for sure.

Or KG in 2004 would have given up that MVP for the best Wolves team ever to have gotten the championship.

Prior to 2008, sure, though that year he might have traded his DPOY for the FMVP he did actually deserve that season too, heh.

Anyway, I'm sure Nash and Malone would at least once. Lebron and Kobe? Less so, except if you constrain the time frame to prior to them actually doing it. It all depends on the specific player, right? But in certain fairly specific situations, there are surely at least a couple of examples... again, at least prior to the given player actually doing it later on.