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

[Onus]

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.

But this is a completely different distinction. Winning an individual award vs winning the championship and the FMVP. How many would turn over their MVPs for losing in the finals and getting FMVP?

[Texas Chuck]

I feel sure Dirk and KG would trade an MVP for a FMVP in any year even after winning a title. Granted not all star players are as team/winning driven as those two guys, but I feel very very few guys win MVP's who don't value winning a great deal. Rose is the only recent winner I would suggest would rather have teh MVP, but he's an especially notable selfish guy.

[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.

But this is a completely different distinction. Winning an individual award vs winning the championship and the FMVP. How many would turn over their MVPs for losing in the finals and getting FMVP?

That never happens so I don't honestly see the distinction. Jerry West was an aberration we likely won't ever see again.


edit: another one of my opinions that I am surprised is remotely controversial. Oh well that's okay. Maybe I give MVP-level players too much credit in terms of valuing team success over individual glory?

[bondom34]

Yeah I see where Chuck is, in real time you'd take a ring and FMVP, but after the fact a regular season MVP looks better on your resume.

[therealbig3]

There's too much emphasis on the FMVP...at the end of the day, it's ONE series. You had to win 3 other playoff series too.

And to further that point, even if Curry won, it would be misleading, because he hasn't been their best player in these playoffs. Green and Klay led them through the first 2 rounds, Curry led them past OKC, and in the Finals it's been Draymond Green again, but it's also been very 2014 Spurs-like, in that, a different guy seems to step up at different times.

But, in 2015, who really cares that Curry didn't win FMVP? He turned it on later in that series, he only had 1 bad game, and he was easily their best player for the rest of the playoffs anyway. Overall, he was their MVP. It's like Bird not winning in 1981, or Duncan not winning in 2007, etc.

[Onus]

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.

But this is a completely different distinction. Winning an individual award vs winning the championship and the FMVP. How many would turn over their MVPs for losing in the finals and getting FMVP?

That never happens so I don't honestly see the distinction. Jerry West was an aberration we likely won't ever see again.


edit: another one of my opinions that I am surprised is remotely controversial. Oh well that's okay. Maybe I give MVP-level players too much credit in terms of valuing team success over individual glory?

But that's the thing you're giving them 2 awards vs 1. I think a lot of players would give up MVP trophies for an NBA title, however individual award vs team award and the thing most players dream about winning. Which is slightly different than:

I think most players would trade their MVP for the FMVP in that same year.

Legacy wise though I'd rather have the MVP and the title than a FMVP and a title. FMVP is purely matchup specific on such a small sample size.

[therealbig3]

Obviously the players probably care a lot about FMVP...I think when evaluating these players though, FMVP shouldn't really matter too much, because it's really just an award for one series. It doesn't say much about how a player contributed for the entire playoff run.

I wish they would change it to playoffs MVP. I feel like there would still be recency bias and overvaluing a player's Finals performance, and so it would almost be a de facto FMVP, but at least you're trying to reward the player that was most important throughout the playoffs.

You'd get less 2015 Iguodalas, 2007 Parkers, 2008 Pierces, and 1981 Maxwells...and in a case like this year, Curry wouldn't be in the conversation even if he went off for the rest of the series, because he missed too much time. That's the way it should be imo.

[Texas Chuck]

But that's the thing you're giving them 2 awards vs 1. I think a lot of players would give up MVP trophies for an NBA title, however individual award vs team award and the thing most players dream about winning. Which is slightly different than:

I think most players would trade their MVP for the FMVP in that same year.

Legacy wise though I'd rather have the MVP and the title than a FMVP and a title. FMVP is purely matchup specific on such a small sample size.

I think we mostly agree. I'm not really thinking of it separately tho. The key thing for me is the title as well. I specifically mentioned the FMVP because I was responding to a guy who was scoffing at its value. But the FMVP goes hand in hand with the title so again I feel safe in saying most players starting a season would rather end that season with a FMVP than an MVP.

And sure they'd rather win an MVP and a title, but choosing one or the other I'd take the title(and thus generally speaking the FMVP)

[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'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.

I'm inclined to agree.

[tsherkin]

edit: another one of my opinions that I am surprised is remotely controversial. Oh well that's okay. Maybe I give MVP-level players too much credit in terms of valuing team success over individual glory?

I don't see it often really hurting Magic or Bird that Worthy/Maxwell won FMVPs. That's a more recent development in terms of basketball discussion, really more the post-Jordan era, where people are consciously or unconsciously comparing everyone to what MJ did (and without really acknowledging pro-offensive bias in such awards). I think it harms Duncan none that the media are tools are gave Parker the award in 2007, because we all knew that his defense and rebounding and everything were the foundation on which that team was built. Maybe for Duncan, because he won an MVP and a title and a Finals MVP all in the same year in 2003, it's a little different. In the actual year where it happened, I agree with Chuck that there are at least a couple of MVPs (Dirk, Malone and Nash come to mind without hesitation) who might've preferred to win the title that year, because they either hadn't yet or never would actually win a title, but for someone like Dirk, I wonder if you asked him the same question now if he'd have the same answer. I think it's possible that Kobe might've felt that way in 2008, particularly since he was still trying to prove he could title without Shaq, but I wonder about any time after 2009 he'd have agreed.

I don't think it's that you give them too much credit, I think it's that you would call it credit in the first place which makes this a mildly contentious proposition (though an interesting one to discuss), personally. Very much IMHO, of course.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Finals MVP.

I don't think there's any doubt that MVP & a title counts WAY more than Finals MVP & a title.

What I think is a shame though right now is that Curry's likely going to end up missing out on the Finals MVP both years and I'm already hearing people talking about him getting worse in the playoffs, which I think is ridiculous. His clutch performance in both these two playoffs has been outstanding.

Watching Curry what I see is that for him is basically the essence of streak shooting:

If you want the best chance for him to catch fire you need to have him looking to shoot every possession, as otherwise he takes some time to "tare" his shooting form most of the time. This means that if you're a defense you really can keep him from catching fire...if you make it easy enough for the Warriors to score by other means.

Ever since college teams have been doing extreme things to claim they "stopped" Curry even if it meant losing. I just think it's really important to note that if Golden State wins in a blow out, then Curry wasn't actually stopped.

This is a parallel to urging people to not get too excited when a guy scores a lot in a blowout loss. You didn't own the defense if that team approach led to your team getting dispatched with relative ease. What the opponent was doing worked fine, so why would they change?

(I know I"m largely preaching to the choir here, but I just gotta vent.)

[cpower]

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.

soon people will start to realize Andre Iguodala, Paul Pierce, Tony Parker are not really the MVP of the team...the award will lose its value in the long run.

[Texas Chuck]

soon people will start to realize Andre Iguodala, Paul Pierce, Tony Parker are not really the MVP of the team...

do you think I don't realize this?

I feel like my original point has gotten lost with many of the responses I am getting.

My entire point was that I think star player would prefer winning a title to winning an MVP in real-time. Like if you went to Steph or Lebron or Durant and said you have your choice: I can grant you a title or an MVP, but not both. I think almost every single star player chooses the title without hesitation. Even ones without previous MVP's or with previous titles.

The FMVP portion of this was mostly as a placeholder for the title--as in you can't win the FMVP without winning the title.

I'm not trying to claim it a more prestigious award, a higher reflection of player quality.

Anyway sorry for this rabbit hole I sent us all down. Did not expect this at all.

[mtron929]

Re: Finals MVP.

I don't think there's any doubt that MVP & a title counts WAY more than Finals MVP & a title.

What I think is a shame though right now is that Curry's likely going to end up missing out on the Finals MVP both years and I'm already hearing people talking about him getting worse in the playoffs, which I think is ridiculous. His clutch performance in both these two playoffs has been outstanding.

Watching Curry what I see is that for him is basically the essence of streak shooting:

If you want the best chance for him to catch fire you need to have him looking to shoot every possession, as otherwise he takes some time to "tare" his shooting form most of the time. This means that if you're a defense you really can keep him from catching fire...if you make it easy enough for the Warriors to score by other means.

Ever since college teams have been doing extreme things to claim they "stopped" Curry even if it meant losing. I just think it's really important to note that if Golden State wins in a blow out, then Curry wasn't actually stopped.

This is a parallel to urging people to not get too excited when a guy scores a lot in a blowout loss. You didn't own the defense if that team approach led to your team getting dispatched with relative ease. What the opponent was doing worked fine, so why would they change?

(I know I"m largely preaching to the choir here, but I just gotta vent.)

Couple of points.

1) Curry really did not play well in game 1. He had a lot of silly turnovers and did not shoot the ball particularly well. Also, it should be mentioned that the Warriors played extremely well in the 4th quarter and blew that game open when Curry was sitting on the bench. I really do not think he should take too much credit when he is not on the court.

2) In game 2, he did not play a lot and committed a lot of silly fouls. My guess is that his stamina is not too good right now and that is usually when players instinctively commit silly fouls. So in that sense, he potentially hurt the team but they played so well that they did not really miss him.

3) Curry is having a fine playoffs. But we should be judging him (fair or unfair) at the highest levels of scrutiny given the expectation that everyone had of him due to his regular season. This is the kind of conversation where people talk about when later on, they will be talking about Curry vs Olajuwon or Curry vs Shaq in the all time list. So these things do matter. And I just don't like that the fans of Curry seems to want it both ways. That is, if Curry had continued on putting his regular season numbers, they would be clamoring that this is indeed the GOAT season. But now that he isn't, there is some mental gymnastics going on to justify this and saying that it is largely irrelevant since the Warriors are going to win the championship. Again, he has some games to make up for what has been a somewhat disappointing series (and the playoffs) but these performances do matter.

[Onus]

Re: Finals MVP.

I don't think there's any doubt that MVP & a title counts WAY more than Finals MVP & a title.

What I think is a shame though right now is that Curry's likely going to end up missing out on the Finals MVP both years and I'm already hearing people talking about him getting worse in the playoffs, which I think is ridiculous. His clutch performance in both these two playoffs has been outstanding.

Watching Curry what I see is that for him is basically the essence of streak shooting:

If you want the best chance for him to catch fire you need to have him looking to shoot every possession, as otherwise he takes some time to "tare" his shooting form most of the time. This means that if you're a defense you really can keep him from catching fire...if you make it easy enough for the Warriors to score by other means.

Ever since college teams have been doing extreme things to claim they "stopped" Curry even if it meant losing. I just think it's really important to note that if Golden State wins in a blow out, then Curry wasn't actually stopped.

This is a parallel to urging people to not get too excited when a guy scores a lot in a blowout loss. You didn't own the defense if that team approach led to your team getting dispatched with relative ease. What the opponent was doing worked fine, so why would they change?

(I know I"m largely preaching to the choir here, but I just gotta vent.)

Couple of points.

1) Curry really did not play well in game 1. He had a lot of silly turnovers and did not shoot the ball particularly well. Also, it should be mentioned that the Warriors played extremely well in the 4th quarter and blew that game open when Curry was sitting on the bench. I really do not think he should take too much credit when he is not on the court.

2) In game 2, he did not play a lot and committed a lot of silly fouls. My guess is that his stamina is not too good right now and that is usually when players instinctively commit silly fouls. So in that sense, he potentially hurt the team but they played so well that they did not really miss him.

3) Curry is having a fine playoffs. But we should be judging him (fair or unfair) at the highest levels of scrutiny given the expectation that everyone had of him due to his regular season. This is the kind of conversation where people talk about when later on, they will be talking about Curry vs Olajuwon or Curry vs Shaq in the all time list. So these things do matter. And I just don't like that the fans of Curry seems to want it both ways. That is, if Curry had continued on putting his regular season numbers, they would be clamoring that this is indeed the GOAT season. But now that he isn't, there is some mental gymnastics going on to justify this and saying that it is largely irrelevant since the Warriors are going to win the championship. Again, he has some games to make up for what has been a somewhat disappointing series (and the playoffs) but these performances do matter.

Curry hasn't played up to his lofty regular season this playoffs, but considering context - spraining his ankle and spraining his mcl, missing roughly 3 weeks at the beginning of the playoffs, will miss the Olympics after the season is over (meaning he needs to heal and rest) and is doing relatively well. Yea, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for his "sub-par" playoffs, 25/6/6 on 61% TS

[Clyde Frazier]

Re: Finals MVP.

I don't think there's any doubt that MVP & a title counts WAY more than Finals MVP & a title.

What I think is a shame though right now is that Curry's likely going to end up missing out on the Finals MVP both years and I'm already hearing people talking about him getting worse in the playoffs, which I think is ridiculous. His clutch performance in both these two playoffs has been outstanding.

Watching Curry what I see is that for him is basically the essence of streak shooting:

If you want the best chance for him to catch fire you need to have him looking to shoot every possession, as otherwise he takes some time to "tare" his shooting form most of the time. This means that if you're a defense you really can keep him from catching fire...if you make it easy enough for the Warriors to score by other means.

Ever since college teams have been doing extreme things to claim they "stopped" Curry even if it meant losing. I just think it's really important to note that if Golden State wins in a blow out, then Curry wasn't actually stopped.

This is a parallel to urging people to not get too excited when a guy scores a lot in a blowout loss. You didn't own the defense if that team approach led to your team getting dispatched with relative ease. What the opponent was doing worked fine, so why would they change?

(I know I"m largely preaching to the choir here, but I just gotta vent.)

Couple of points.

1) Curry really did not play well in game 1. He had a lot of silly turnovers and did not shoot the ball particularly well. Also, it should be mentioned that the Warriors played extremely well in the 4th quarter and blew that game open when Curry was sitting on the bench. I really do not think he should take too much credit when he is not on the court.

2) In game 2, he did not play a lot and committed a lot of silly fouls. My guess is that his stamina is not too good right now and that is usually when players instinctively commit silly fouls. So in that sense, he potentially hurt the team but they played so well that they did not really miss him.

3) Curry is having a fine playoffs. But we should be judging him (fair or unfair) at the highest levels of scrutiny given the expectation that everyone had of him due to his regular season. This is the kind of conversation where people talk about when later on, they will be talking about Curry vs Olajuwon or Curry vs Shaq in the all time list. So these things do matter. And I just don't like that the fans of Curry seems to want it both ways. That is, if Curry had continued on putting his regular season numbers, they would be clamoring that this is indeed the GOAT season. But now that he isn't, there is some mental gymnastics going on to justify this and saying that it is largely irrelevant since the Warriors are going to win the championship. Again, he has some games to make up for what has been a somewhat disappointing series (and the playoffs) but these performances do matter.

Curry for the playoffs: 24.8 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 5.9 APG, 1.5 SPG, 61.1% TS, 111 ORTG, .188 WS/48

So no, obviously not in the same range as his historic regular season, but A) he’s having a solid playoffs overall and B) in no way are the warriors 2 wins away from the championship in spite of curry’s play. He’s been a main contributor for the overall playoff run.

You can see critics trying to poke holes in the above every chance they get, and they’re mostly exaggerated claims. However this ends for curry and the warriors, he should be truly evaluated at that point for his season overall.

[KD35Brah]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/samesfandiari/status/740662160351580161[/tweet]

[TaylorMonkey]

3) Curry is having a fine playoffs. But we should be judging him (fair or unfair) at the highest levels of scrutiny given the expectation that everyone had of him due to his regular season. This is the kind of conversation where people talk about when later on, they will be talking about Curry vs Olajuwon or Curry vs Shaq in the all time list. So these things do matter. And I just don't like that the fans of Curry seems to want it both ways. That is, if Curry had continued on putting his regular season numbers, they would be clamoring that this is indeed the GOAT season. But now that he isn't, there is some mental gymnastics going on to justify this and saying that it is largely irrelevant since the Warriors are going to win the championship. Again, he has some games to make up for what has been a somewhat disappointing series (and the playoffs) but these performances do matter.

Curry for the playoffs: 24.8 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 5.9 APG, 1.5 SPG, 61.1% TS, 111 ORTG, .188 WS/48

These numbers are close to his regular season numbers when he first won MVP.

[nikomCH]

I really don't have any issue at all with Curry's numbers or play, I think it's the missed playoff games that have hurt him more. His playoff games sample size is so small because of it.

[RSCD3_]

Curry 0-3, 0 assists 2 turnovers

Off to another usual bad start in the 1st. But looks like they'll definitely need him to be on if they intend to come back and win, especially with klay in the locker room