JulesWinnfield wrote:therealbig3 wrote:JulesWinnfield wrote:
Steph was very good in game 2, the only reason the stat line wasn't larger is because he was only needed for 24 minutes. TS% of 82% on 18 points in half a games work, led the team in rebounding and led all starters in +\- as well.
Draymonds impact can't always be seen in raw stats, (by the way, neither can Stephs), but outside of game 2 we are talking about a guy shooting 9 for 28 from the floor. He's coming off a 2 for 8 and a 2 for 9 back to back and we are talking about him as a clear cut finals MvP? This is Stephs award. If it's even close, tie goes to the guy who has been their best player all year and got screwed a year ago
Let's not overthink this for a 2nd year in a row
I'm with you on last year, I think he got robbed last year.
But I'm really not so sure this year. Game 2's stat line looked nice, but he also only played 24 minutes not because it was a blowout, but because he got himself into foul trouble. And by the time he came back, the game was already over. His presence really didn't make a difference in that game. The only time I've watched this series and thought, "yep, that's the MVP, that's the best player on the court right now"...was tonight.
I'm with you on Steph obviously not having a big series by any stretch of the imagination prior to tonight. I thought he was good in game 2, certainly not amazing and certainly not as good as Draymond that night. I just don't believe anyone has stood out enough though for us to deny him at this point. It's like we are grading on a curve against him if we are going to argue any Warrior has clearly had greater impact. And while it shouldn't matter whatsoever, I do factor in the fact that he got kinda screwed last year and if it's even close he should get this makeup call
For me it's Steph, pretty clearly, just like last year. The Finals MVP is by definition, the most valuable player. There is no reason to have to resort to giving the award to the "X-Factor" of the series, which could be Iguodala for the past two series (clutch defense on LeBron/Durant/Westbrook) or Draymond/Klay for most of the playoffs. Would the Warriors have won if you took out either Draymond, Klay, or Iggy, who all stepped up in crucial moments of the playoffs? Probably not. But would the Warriors have won if you took out Curry? Certainly not.
For the second straight year, I still believe that it was the Warriors' defensive identity in getting key stops that allowed them to win this championship, much more than their offense which has been inconsistent. Draymond and Iguodala played a big part in that, leading to their high +/- (noting that in the past three years of the regular season, either Draymond or Iguodala have been on par or outpaced Curry's +/-), while Klay certainly carried the load at times on offense (along with his defense) too. But just as Draymond/Iggy's defense don't necessarily show up on the stat sheet, neither do much of Curry's offensive impact in facilitating ball movement and spacing, which leads to easy buckets on offense. So in terms of most irreplaceable, Curry's impact allows their offense to continue humming, while it takes more of a collective effort on Igudoala and Draymond's part to establish their all-time defense.
Curry did not perform up to his high standards this series or most of the playoffs, but there's no denying that he has been the most valuable and most irreplaceable player on the team. This playoffs was a knock on his GOAT peak status, but I still believe this season was the GOAT offensive peak, while to other people it has a serious argument for it at the least. What's missing in the Finals MVP award is that what makes the Warriors a large threat is due the sum of their key components, which make them dangerous on both ends and requires much attention for opposing teams. It's like trying to plug holes in a leaking wall - you shut down one end and there's water bursting out of the other. This is how the Warriors and Spurs have evolved from a more centralized "star player" system, which has become less successful in recent years due to effective small-ball lineups that cause switching and help defense, the rise of "pseudo-zone defenses" after the 2008 Celtics, as well as increased technology and advanced statistics which allow players to study their opponents to higher degrees.
