RealGM

Most people believe that steph is a top five player in the game.

GSW has Draymond—whom this board ranked as a top 15 player—and D'Angelo Russell, sort of considered a fringe all-star, good starter type of player, and some bad players but also some decent ones.

They're terrible.

Why is this? And is this an indictment on Steph? Do we think 2014-2017 Russ would do better in the same situation? What is the difference between 2016-2017 OKC and 2019-2020 GSW?

In a word no. I don't think anything Curry or the Warriors do this year should have any effect on how we view peak Curry. Sure he had good teammates but they weren't that great in comparison to any team that wins 60+ games and he took them to 73 and had an atg level season while doing it. WB's biggest downfall was always his innate need to be the hero. This year's Steph is coming off of 5 straight finals and I think they have just lost their hunger plus are worn down. On top of missing Klay and having a horrible bench.

Players thrive in different situations and systems. Westbrook wouldn't be as successful in the Warriors system and Curry likewise in a system that needs him to be ball dominant.

All it really means is that Curry isn't better in all circumstances. Likewise Westbrook. But then we already knew that.

picko wrote:Players thrive in different situations and systems. Westbrook wouldn't be as successful in the Warriors system and Curry likewise in a system that needs him to be ball dominant.

All it really means is that Curry isn't better in all circumstances. Likewise Westbrook. But then we already knew that.

Which is to say maybe people severely underestimate Russ at his peak, then. Because the ability to drag a team devoid of offensive firepower to 48 wins or so is very impressive.

They're terrible because the roster is terrible. Only three guys who should be starting NBA games (one of whom plays the same position as Steph) and many of the others haven't even proven they deserve rotation minutes. Dray's current rep is based largely on the levels he can reach in the playoffs, but his regular season performance hasn't been top 15 worthy over the last couple of years. Throw in the fact that this isn't peak Steph anyway, and this connection feels like a stretch.

I think Draymond is a player some need to reevaluate on this board, specially offensively. Hes a damn great player but offensively hes mad overrated in here. U need to be able to discern a player's game away from their ideal situation. Draymond on the 15-19 Warriors was literally the most optimal fit possibly ever for him offensively and on defense he had all-world defensive talent on the wings too with Klay/Kd/Iggy

But yes Steph was getting very overrated mainly on defense. There are some who STILL think of him as a good defender. Hes not bad at all but hes average AT BEST. Any Pg can "look" good when they have Klay/Iggy and the best help defender of their generation behind them

Warriors brought 10 new players. 9 out of 10 players' average NBA experiences are less than 2 years and most of them are either minimum or late 1st/2nd rounders. So those players are just trying to identify themselves in the league, and judging from their background, they would be lucky to get few rotation players out of them. If Warriors were serious about winning, they would trade picks for vets and sign as many experienced vets as possible. Instead, they chose to stack as many young players as possible. This year was meant to be a rebuilding year, and with Curry's injury, they are going hard for very good lottery pick this season.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-players-of-the-last-6-seasons/

Curry's case has closed, he has enough prime seasons to justify his impact on the court.

GSP wrote:I think Draymond is a player some need to reevaluate on this board, specially defensively. Hes a damn great player but offensively hes mad overrated in here. U need to be able to discern a player's game away from their ideal situation.

No we don't need to revealutate a player's best seasons because of what happens after. That's called revisionism.

Pelly24 wrote:

picko wrote:Players thrive in different situations and systems. Westbrook wouldn't be as successful in the Warriors system and Curry likewise in a system that needs him to be ball dominant.

All it really means is that Curry isn't better in all circumstances. Likewise Westbrook. But then we already knew that.

Which is to say maybe people severely underestimate Russ at his peak, then. Because the ability to drag a team devoid of offensive firepower to 48 wins or so is very impressive.

Peak westbrook was rated to have had the 25th best peak ever on the PC board. Curry is not at his peak currently. We do not need to revealuate curry's various atg regular seasons and playoffs, because one atg season might have an argument against one of curry's down years

cpower wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-players-of-the-last-6-seasons/

Curry's case has closed, he has enough prime seasons to justify his impact on the court.

0 fmvp...case closed

D'Angelo Russell is close to the worst player in the NBA right now.

nzahir wrote:

cpower wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-players-of-the-last-6-seasons/

Curry's case has closed, he has enough prime seasons to justify his impact on the court.

0 fmvp...case closed

wait...i forgot...remind me again how many FMVPs Russ has...

Peak Russ wasn't even as good as 2013 Curry that's how ridiculous this thread is.

He just got his get out of jail free card.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Re-evaluate 2016 then.

Even Curry was greater than Kevin freaking Durant

Pelly24 wrote:

picko wrote:Players thrive in different situations and systems. Westbrook wouldn't be as successful in the Warriors system and Curry likewise in a system that needs him to be ball dominant.

All it really means is that Curry isn't better in all circumstances. Likewise Westbrook. But then we already knew that.

Which is to say maybe people severely underestimate Russ at his peak, then. Because the ability to drag a team devoid of offensive firepower to 48 wins or so is very impressive.

It depends on what you want from your team playoffs appearances or championships. Russ is a great floor raiser no doubt

Why would it change anything when we’ve already seen their peaks and Curry was better? Their 2 best seasons happened at the same time.

Sure, you can argue Westbrook as the better floor raiser or whatever, but that doesn’t necessarily make him better overall.

freethedevil wrote:

Pelly24 wrote:

picko wrote:Players thrive in different situations and systems. Westbrook wouldn't be as successful in the Warriors system and Curry likewise in a system that needs him to be ball dominant.

All it really means is that Curry isn't better in all circumstances. Likewise Westbrook. But then we already knew that.

Which is to say maybe people severely underestimate Russ at his peak, then. Because the ability to drag a team devoid of offensive firepower to 48 wins or so is very impressive.

Peak westbrook was rated to have had the 25th best peak ever on the PC board. Curry is not at his peak currently. We do not need to revealuate curry's various atg regular seasons and playoffs, because one atg season might have an argument against one of curry's down years

That result is skewed by the paucity of voters. While his peak is underrated, 25 definitely is high...

It's always funny for me how people expect players each season of their career to prove they're valuable, by at least playing in a finals and winning a ring. No matter how much lineup changed or no matter of 10 other factors, even if you won 10 rings, but now you're out of playoffs, you're poor and overrated/system player only. Curry could be the worst player in NBA right now, and GSW the worst team and it still changes nothing where he's all-time and how high his peak historically was. What's so hard with it?