ESPN NBA top 100 for 2022

[GameChannel]

My boy Keldon Johnson didn't even make the top 100 but the corpse of Westbrick did? The ****?

[WarriorGM]

Since salaries are objective.. The Cavs top 6 players in minutes played outside of Lebron in those finals made $21 million. The Warriors top 6 outside of Curry made $36 million. The Warriors on this 2022 run outspent everysingle team they played by a big margin.

Something tells me you don't think salary is objective anymore

I don't know what your point is. Furthermore you'd be comparing apples with oranges since there was a rather infamous new broadcasting deal that led to a salary spike in 2016.

If you think you can use salary as an objective measure of quality of a player, Curry had a way better supporting cast in the 2015 finals then Lebron did. Bucks and Sun's in 2021 were basically equal. Therefore Curry had an easier finals then Giannis

Huh? Let's say just to humor you LeBron contributes 9 points of strength to his team and his teammates contribute 1 for a total team strength of 10. On the other hand the Suns have a well balanced distribution with the role players contributing 4 points of strength and its stars contributing 4 as well. Curry would still have faced a team with a strength of 10 and Giannis a team with a strength of 8. Your attempt to segregate supporting cast contributions are meaningless.

[Bob8]

'How good a player is now and what his quality may be prospectively are 2 different questions as I see it.

Curry will eventually retire and will likely decline before doing so. I don't see how that is relevant to his quality as a player just now given his most recent game was the game his team won to clinch a finals series with him as FMVP.

Curry is still a top 5 player in the league hence if put in a series against the Celtics where he is obviously the best player on the floor he has a chance to win FMVP. With that being said, I don't know how you put Curry, while still good is not the same player he was years ago, over for 4 guys who have been better then him arguably the last 4 years and are treading upward. Giannis has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Joker has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Embiid has been top 3 in MVP voting the last two years. Doncic is the only player you may say Curry can beat out; however, given his projection, his recent play, and the fact he even finished over Curry in MVP voting last would you really chose Curry over him? Curry is a great player but I really do believe since Curry won the title and the other 4 guys weren't playing people have forgotten how great the others guys have been.

Giannis, Joker, Embiid, and Doncic got more MVP votes? Which one of them led his team to more wins than Curry this year? Oh right, none of them. Who won a championship this year? Curry. Some things matter more than others. MVP votes these days don't. Indeed the last time an MVP award seemed to signal something notable was when Curry went unanimous. He broke the award by doing so. The voters have ever since tried to avoid selecting him and have been producing choices that can start looking really inane years from now.

You have Finals MVP for the best player of the winning team. And Curry has deservedly won that. I'm sure that even you agree that Curry was not the best player of RS. And it's very likely he won't be this year either.

Nobody is winning the title with the team Jokic or Luka had last year. If only the winning is important, than we should always give the MVP award to the best player of the best team in RS, especially if they win RS with a big margin. It would have been hilarious, if Booker had won MVP last year.

[Rainwater]

'How good a player is now and what his quality may be prospectively are 2 different questions as I see it.

Curry will eventually retire and will likely decline before doing so. I don't see how that is relevant to his quality as a player just now given his most recent game was the game his team won to clinch a finals series with him as FMVP.

Curry is still a top 5 player in the league hence if put in a series against the Celtics where he is obviously the best player on the floor he has a chance to win FMVP. With that being said, I don't know how you put Curry, while still good is not the same player he was years ago, over for 4 guys who have been better then him arguably the last 4 years and are treading upward. Giannis has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Joker has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Embiid has been top 3 in MVP voting the last two years. Doncic is the only player you may say Curry can beat out; however, given his projection, his recent play, and the fact he even finished over Curry in MVP voting last would you really chose Curry over him? Curry is a great player but I really do believe since Curry won the title and the other 4 guys weren't playing people have forgotten how great the others guys have been.

Giannis, Joker, Embiid, and Doncic got more MVP votes? Which one of them led his team to more wins than Curry this year? Oh right, none of them. Who won a championship this year? Curry. Some things matter more than others. MVP votes these days don't. Indeed the last time an MVP award seemed to signal something notable was when Curry went unanimous. He broke the award by doing so. The voters have ever since tried to avoid selecting him and have been producing choices that can start looking really inane years from now.

A championship is a TEAM accomplishment not an individual accomplishment. A win is a TEAM accomplishment not a individual accomplishment. Just because Curry won a championship doesn't mean he is the best player in the NBA it just means he has the best team. I hate win people conflate the two.

The Warriors had 3 all stars not including one who was coming off injury and a 6th man candidate in Poole. Of course they were title contenders and leaders in wins.

[WarriorGM]

Curry is still a top 5 player in the league hence if put in a series against the Celtics where he is obviously the best player on the floor he has a chance to win FMVP. With that being said, I don't know how you put Curry, while still good is not the same player he was years ago, over for 4 guys who have been better then him arguably the last 4 years and are treading upward. Giannis has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Joker has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Embiid has been top 3 in MVP voting the last two years. Doncic is the only player you may say Curry can beat out; however, given his projection, his recent play, and the fact he even finished over Curry in MVP voting last would you really chose Curry over him? Curry is a great player but I really do believe since Curry won the title and the other 4 guys weren't playing people have forgotten how great the others guys have been.

Giannis, Joker, Embiid, and Doncic got more MVP votes? Which one of them led his team to more wins than Curry this year? Oh right, none of them. Who won a championship this year? Curry. Some things matter more than others. MVP votes these days don't. Indeed the last time an MVP award seemed to signal something notable was when Curry went unanimous. He broke the award by doing so. The voters have ever since tried to avoid selecting him and have been producing choices that can start looking really inane years from now.

A championship is a TEAM accomplishment not an individual accomplishment. A win is a TEAM accomplishment not a individual accomplishment. Just because Curry won a championship doesn't mean he is the best player in the NBA it just means he has the best team. I hate win people conflate the two.

The Warriors had 3 all stars not including one who was coming off injury and a 6th man candidate in Poole. Of course they were title contenders and leaders in wins.

The Warriors set the regular season wins record. Repeat record. Do you appreciate what a record is? That means no other group or combination of players has done what the Warriors have done. You can select any other great team of the past and they didn't match what the Warriors did. Now do you understand the implications of that? It suggests there is an extreme outlier present. The form of that outlier initially may have been open to question (e.g. one-time fluke?—but two other 67-win seasons and multiple championships and finals appearances put the kabosh on that) but I think there is enough evidence and has been for some time to settle that question definitively: the outlier is Curry.

If you cannot deduce that given the evidence present then that is your problem. So no just saying it's his team is an illogical and dumb take. It is perfectly rational to attribute individual honors to Curry. Indeed the records make him the safest bet to receive them out of all current candidates.

[Rainwater]

Giannis, Joker, Embiid, and Doncic got more MVP votes? Which one of them led his team to more wins than Curry this year? Oh right, none of them. Who won a championship this year? Curry. Some things matter more than others. MVP votes these days don't. Indeed the last time an MVP award seemed to signal something notable was when Curry went unanimous. He broke the award by doing so. The voters have ever since tried to avoid selecting him and have been producing choices that can start looking really inane years from now.

A championship is a TEAM accomplishment not an individual accomplishment. A win is a TEAM accomplishment not a individual accomplishment. Just because Curry won a championship doesn't mean he is the best player in the NBA it just means he has the best team. I hate win people conflate the two.

The Warriors had 3 all stars not including one who was coming off injury and a 6th man candidate in Poole. Of course they were title contenders and leaders in wins.

The Warriors set the regular season wins record. Repeat record. Do you appreciate what a record is? That means no other group or combination of players has done what the Warriors have done. You can select any other great team of the past and they didn't match what the Warriors did. Now do you understand the implications of that? It suggests there is an extreme outlier present. The form of that outlier initially may have been open to question (e.g. one-time fluke?—but two other 67-win seasons and multiple championships and finals appearances put the kabosh on that) but I think there is enough evidence and has been for some time to settle that question definitively: the outlier is Curry.

If you cannot deduce that given the evidence present then that is your problem. So no just saying it's his team is an illogical and dumb take. It is perfectly rational to attribute individual honors to Curry. Indeed the records make him the safest bet to receive them.

You are literally talking about something that happened years ago, when we are talking about the best players TODAY. Yes, back in the day Curry was arguably considered the best player in the game but that is not the case today.

And the most wins in NBA history would not have been accomplished without the help of Klay and Green. I really don't understand the point of your argument in terms of top 10 players today when you are using an event that happened years ago. Additionally, add the fact they had a few losing seasons.

[WarriorGM]

A championship is a TEAM accomplishment not an individual accomplishment. A win is a TEAM accomplishment not a individual accomplishment. Just because Curry won a championship doesn't mean he is the best player in the NBA it just means he has the best team. I hate win people conflate the two.

The Warriors had 3 all stars not including one who was coming off injury and a 6th man candidate in Poole. Of course they were title contenders and leaders in wins.

The Warriors set the regular season wins record. Repeat record. Do you appreciate what a record is? That means no other group or combination of players has done what the Warriors have done. You can select any other great team of the past and they didn't match what the Warriors did. Now do you understand the implications of that? It suggests there is an extreme outlier present. The form of that outlier initially may have been open to question (e.g. one-time fluke?—but two other 67-win seasons and multiple championships and finals appearances put the kabosh on that) but I think there is enough evidence and has been for some time to settle that question definitively: the outlier is Curry.

If you cannot deduce that given the evidence present then that is your problem. So no just saying it's his team is an illogical and dumb take. It is perfectly rational to attribute individual honors to Curry. Indeed the records make him the safest bet to receive them.

You are literally talking about something that happened years ago, when we are talking about the best players TODAY. Yes, back in the day Curry was arguably considered the best player in the game but that is not the case today.

And the most wins in NBA history would not have been accomplished without the help of Klay and Green. I really don't understand the point of your argument in terms of top 10 players today when you are using an event that happened years ago. Additionally, add the fact they had a few losing seasons.

What happened a few years ago establishes you are dealing with something very rare in Curry. The only question then really is is he still that? But for those observant and who are looking for the signs we just saw Curry take a last place team and lead it to a championship in the span of two years. Now ask: Who has done that? What kind of player can do that?

MVP voters select MVPs. History selects record holders. Guess what I trust more to get things right.

[Rainwater]

The Warriors set the regular season wins record. Repeat record. Do you appreciate what a record is? That means no other group or combination of players has done what the Warriors have done. You can select any other great team of the past and they didn't match what the Warriors did. Now do you understand the implications of that? It suggests there is an extreme outlier present. The form of that outlier initially may have been open to question (e.g. one-time fluke?—but two other 67-win seasons and multiple championships and finals appearances put the kabosh on that) but I think there is enough evidence and has been for some time to settle that question definitively: the outlier is Curry.

If you cannot deduce that given the evidence present then that is your problem. So no just saying it's his team is an illogical and dumb take. It is perfectly rational to attribute individual honors to Curry. Indeed the records make him the safest bet to receive them.

You are literally talking about something that happened years ago, when we are talking about the best players TODAY. Yes, back in the day Curry was arguably considered the best player in the game but that is not the case today.

And the most wins in NBA history would not have been accomplished without the help of Klay and Green. I really don't understand the point of your argument in terms of top 10 players today when you are using an event that happened years ago. Additionally, add the fact they had a few losing seasons.

What happened a few years ago establishes you are dealing with something very rare in Curry. The only question then really is is he still that? But for those observant and who are looking for the signs we just saw Curry take a last place team and lead it to a championship in the span of two years. Now ask: Who has done that? What kind of player can do that?

MVP voters select MVPs. History selects record holders. Guess what I trust more to get things right.

The thing is that the reason why Warriors were so successful last year was because people other than Curry showed up when compared to their losing seasons when it was Curry alone. Despite still being good, If you look at Curry's numbers they were down compared to his prime years. But guys like Wiggins, Poole and Green playing well made them a championship caliber team.

[Packbuckman]

You are literally talking about something that happened years ago, when we are talking about the best players TODAY. Yes, back in the day Curry was arguably considered the best player in the game but that is not the case today.

And the most wins in NBA history would not have been accomplished without the help of Klay and Green. I really don't understand the point of your argument in terms of top 10 players today when you are using an event that happened years ago. Additionally, add the fact they had a few losing seasons.

What happened a few years ago establishes you are dealing with something very rare in Curry. The only question then really is is he still that? But for those observant and who are looking for the signs we just saw Curry take a last place team and lead it to a championship in the span of two years. Now ask: Who has done that? What kind of player can do that?

MVP voters select MVPs. History selects record holders. Guess what I trust more to get things right.

The thing is that the reason why Warriors were so successful last year was because people other than Curry showed up when compared to their losing seasons when it was Curry alone. Despite still being good, If you look at Curry's numbers they were down compared to his prime years. But guys like Wiggins, Poole and Green playing well made them a championship caliber team.

This right here with Klay coming back from injury and Wiggins stepping up big in playoffs is what won them a championship it’s a team sport you need all your good players to win a championship that’s why the loss of Middleton was huge with him the bucks don’t lose to the Celtics just be happy your team won and your team was mostly healthy. I expect Giannis and the bucks to be better this year. But you got to be healthy to win it all plain and simple.

[PierceFan4ever]

Only Lebron can be a first round exit one season and then win 30 games the next season while having poor body language, being injury prone, and playing awful defense to still be voted as the 6th best player in the league

[WiggOuts]

Siakam forever underrated. Booker ain't no top 10 player, stop smoking crack, most overrated player in the L

[Hello Brooklyn]

Giannis is not close to the offensive force Curry is. Curry destroyed the same Celtics defense that Giannis at times struggled with.

Look at their numbers in those series. It wasn't close.

Curry has carried plenty of bad teams to the playoffs. So what?

Wiggins is not really much better than Brunson or Jrue Holiday. Give me a break. Nuggets yes.

How is he not close? You can argue Giannis 2021 run is offensively better then any run of Curry's, with the Finals being more impressive then Curry's.

As for the numbers against the Celtics , Curry was more efficient but Giannis had 3 more points, 2 more assists and pulled in an extra 2 possessions per game with offensive rebounds. Curry's statistically better but it's certainly close.

More important is how the Celtics defended the stars. Celtics played drop coverage on Curry for the first 4 games to focus on his teammates. Predictably Curry tore up that D. As soon as they switched their coverage in game 5 Curry was slowed but Wiggins was freed up and had a big game. Imagine how Giannis would do if Celtics didn't try to wall him off of the paint with help D.

I wouldn't call 2013 a Carry job so Curry has at most carried one bad team to the playoffs (if you consider that 2014 team bad)

There's this story that Giannis's 2021 was somehow much more impressive than Curry's 2015. I passed it off as recency bias right afterward and I didn't want to spoil the party so I deferred comment but enough time has elapsed that the record needs to be set straight: no it wasn't—not even close. Giannis did not lead a team with a better record. Giannis did not face more impressive teams on his way to the championship. Giannis did not lead a less experienced team to victory. The Bucks beat an even less experienced Suns team in the finals than the one Doncic and the Mavericks sent home this year. There is no argument for any of the new guys aside from bigger personal stats which have nebulous correlation with winning.

Giannis had an all time easy path in 2021. Definitely easier than Curry did in '15.

The Suns were the only decent team they faced.

Heat were a mess. Nets missing Harden/Kyrie. Hawks missing Trae.

They honestly had an easier cakewalk to the Finals than LeBron ever did.

[Hello Brooklyn]

His third best teammate made the All-Star team. Meanwhile Jokic's second-best player was Aaron Gordon. Don't know what this dude is smoking.

Calling Klay an All Star based on the season he just had is pretty laughable. This isn't 2018.

What happened when Jokic had Jamal Murray putting up 50 a night?

Literally got sonned by Anthony Davis.

He hasn't proven **** yet.

LOL Curry got sonned by Ja last year without Klay I guess.

You're going to scoff at Klay being an All-Star, then talk about zero-time All-Star and All-NBAer Jamaal Murray? Laughable.

Wow one game vs Ja.

Jokic got sonned by Curry this year in case you forgot.

Only good ever playoff run was literally as the 2nd best performer on the team.

[nikster]

How is he not close? You can argue Giannis 2021 run is offensively better then any run of Curry's, with the Finals being more impressive then Curry's.

As for the numbers against the Celtics , Curry was more efficient but Giannis had 3 more points, 2 more assists and pulled in an extra 2 possessions per game with offensive rebounds. Curry's statistically better but it's certainly close.

More important is how the Celtics defended the stars. Celtics played drop coverage on Curry for the first 4 games to focus on his teammates. Predictably Curry tore up that D. As soon as they switched their coverage in game 5 Curry was slowed but Wiggins was freed up and had a big game. Imagine how Giannis would do if Celtics didn't try to wall him off of the paint with help D.

I wouldn't call 2013 a Carry job so Curry has at most carried one bad team to the playoffs (if you consider that 2014 team bad)

There's this story that Giannis's 2021 was somehow much more impressive than Curry's 2015. I passed it off as recency bias right afterward and I didn't want to spoil the party so I deferred comment but enough time has elapsed that the record needs to be set straight: no it wasn't—not even close. Giannis did not lead a team with a better record. Giannis did not face more impressive teams on his way to the championship. Giannis did not lead a less experienced team to victory. The Bucks beat an even less experienced Suns team in the finals than the one Doncic and the Mavericks sent home this year. There is no argument for any of the new guys aside from bigger personal stats which have nebulous correlation with winning.

Giannis had an all time easy path in 2021. Definitely easier than Curry did in '15.

The Suns were the only decent team they faced.

Heat were a mess. Nets missing Harden/Kyrie. Hawks missing Trae.

They honestly had an easier cakewalk to the Finals than LeBron ever did.

Rockets were a mess. Memphis missing Conley and Allen. Pelicans just another first round team. Cavs all stars missing more time then the Nets.

Easier cakewalk to the finals then Lebron ever did

[Hobo4President]

Funny how Curry's team mates keep being better than those of other players.

Are you suggesting they're not? As a warriors fan would you swap supporting casts for the ones that Joker or Doncic have? I think most Mavs and Nuggets fans would love to do that and most Warriors fans would not.

No, I am saying Curry elevates his team mates.

Of course Curry wouldn't have won without his team-mates and I give full credit to them for their play but their excellence is being proclaimed post hoc. Wiggins was derided, literally no other team wanted GPII, there were strong contributions from 2 other vet minimum guys, Kevon Looney was unwanted by other teams when he signed his previous contract with GSW, Thompson was coming off two and a half years away from the game with 2 career threatening injuries, Green missed a third of the season with a back injury and was widely considered well past it, etc, etc. Imo the GSW system which as Kerr himself says is Curry based allows many players to realise their talent/play at their best; not all players of course, cf Kelly Oubre. If this board had acclaimed the elite stature of his team-mates, particularly Andrew Wiggins who was so good in the finals, before the season I might have been less inclined to make the comment you quoted.

Everyone agrees he elevates his teammates. He can both elavate his teammates and have a better supporting cast than another player.

[WarriorGM]

There's this story that Giannis's 2021 was somehow much more impressive than Curry's 2015. I passed it off as recency bias right afterward and I didn't want to spoil the party so I deferred comment but enough time has elapsed that the record needs to be set straight: no it wasn't—not even close. Giannis did not lead a team with a better record. Giannis did not face more impressive teams on his way to the championship. Giannis did not lead a less experienced team to victory. The Bucks beat an even less experienced Suns team in the finals than the one Doncic and the Mavericks sent home this year. There is no argument for any of the new guys aside from bigger personal stats which have nebulous correlation with winning.

Giannis had an all time easy path in 2021. Definitely easier than Curry did in '15.

The Suns were the only decent team they faced.

Heat were a mess. Nets missing Harden/Kyrie. Hawks missing Trae.

They honestly had an easier cakewalk to the Finals than LeBron ever did.

Rockets were a mess. Memphis missing Conley and Allen. Pelicans just another first round team. Cavs all stars missing more time then the Nets.

Easier cakewalk to the finals then Lebron ever did

No the Rockets weren't a mess in 2015; they were a mess the following year. The Warriors' highest paid player played less minutes in the entire playoffs than either Conley or Allen did in that one series. The Pelicans had a 45-37 record with a 54.9% win rate, a win rate that would be the 3rd highest of any 8th seed in either conference in the years since 2015. The Cavaliers swept their conference finals with the lineup they had regardless while the Nets lost in the round their injuries struck.

Your attempts at parallelism could use work.

Nobody is winning the title with the team Jokic or Luka had last year. If only the winning is important, than we should always give the MVP award to the best player of the best team in RS, especially if they win RS with a big margin. It would have been hilarious, if Booker had won MVP last year.

The Mavericks won more games without Luka than the Warriors did without Curry.

[michaelm]

Are you suggesting they're not? As a warriors fan would you swap supporting casts for the ones that Joker or Doncic have? I think most Mavs and Nuggets fans would love to do that and most Warriors fans would not.

No, I am saying Curry elevates his team mates.

Of course Curry wouldn't have won without his team-mates and I give full credit to them for their play but their excellence is being proclaimed post hoc. Wiggins was derided, literally no other team wanted GPII, there were strong contributions from 2 other vet minimum guys, Kevon Looney was unwanted by other teams when he signed his previous contract with GSW, Thompson was coming off two and a half years away from the game with 2 career threatening injuries, Green missed a third of the season with a back injury and was widely considered well past it, etc, etc. Imo the GSW system which as Kerr himself says is Curry based allows many players to realise their talent/play at their best; not all players of course, cf Kelly Oubre. If this board had acclaimed the elite stature of his team-mates, particularly Andrew Wiggins who was so good in the finals, before the season I might have been less inclined to make the comment you quoted.

Everyone agrees he elevates his teammates. He can both elavate his teammates and have a better supporting cast than another player.

As I said this was a post hoc judgement. No one considered GSW to have the best team before the season started, and there wasn’t even much in the way of a consensus about them having more talent than the Celtics before the finals.

Playing with Curry and/or developing next to Curry his team-mates were better. My point was that this is not unrelated to Curry, including his team ethic, unselfishness as a player and leadership. It is actually true imo that Wiggins of whom I am a big fan is a significantly talented player who advantaged GSW. He also was derided as a bust/the worst contract in the NBA before he got next to Curry and realised his talent.

[michaelm]

Curry is still a top 5 player in the league hence if put in a series against the Celtics where he is obviously the best player on the floor he has a chance to win FMVP. With that being said, I don't know how you put Curry, while still good is not the same player he was years ago, over for 4 guys who have been better then him arguably the last 4 years and are treading upward. Giannis has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Joker has won 2 MVPs in 4 years. Embiid has been top 3 in MVP voting the last two years. Doncic is the only player you may say Curry can beat out; however, given his projection, his recent play, and the fact he even finished over Curry in MVP voting last would you really chose Curry over him? Curry is a great player but I really do believe since Curry won the title and the other 4 guys weren't playing people have forgotten how great the others guys have been.

Giannis, Joker, Embiid, and Doncic got more MVP votes? Which one of them led his team to more wins than Curry this year? Oh right, none of them. Who won a championship this year? Curry. Some things matter more than others. MVP votes these days don't. Indeed the last time an MVP award seemed to signal something notable was when Curry went unanimous. He broke the award by doing so. The voters have ever since tried to avoid selecting him and have been producing choices that can start looking really inane years from now.

A championship is a TEAM accomplishment not an individual accomplishment. A win is a TEAM accomplishment not a individual accomplishment. Just because Curry won a championship doesn't mean he is the best player in the NBA it just means he has the best team. I hate win people conflate the two.

The Warriors had 3 all stars not including one who was coming off injury and a 6th man candidate in Poole. Of course they were title contenders and leaders in wins.

Exactly. Basketball is a team sport, I am a fan of team play, and Curry is one of the most team focused superstars in the history of the the NBA, probably the biggest reason for my fandom.

I don't consider individual player statistics in the regular season to weigh more heavily than being the best player in the play-offs and leading a team to a title, the actual object of the sport, as you appear to be arguing, however. No doubt at all Jokic was the best player in the regular season and that his team was affected by injuries, and that some players are in situations/with franchises that will never give them a chance to win because they are not free agent destinations etc. What I don't know is whether his playing style which works so well in the regular season translates to ultimate success in the play-offs and in particular whether you can have a strong enough defense including perimeter defense with him as the lynch pin of your team putting in tremendous effort on the offensive side. I have doubts about Doncic defensively deep in the play-offs as well, and Embiid has had a number of chances in the play-offs without really delivering.

What I tire of is the diminishment of Curry on the basis of him having good team-mates, a standard not applied to other top players, the opposite standard in fact often being applied ie that it is the fault of their team-mates that they are not winning, as you are pretty much doing imo. GSW were bottom dwellers who couldn't attract a decent FA for 40 years before Curry, Sure they had a change to a superior ownership group who made good decisions including in regard to coaching, but it is all built on Curry. Even with the KD version of the team which undeniably did possess overwhelming talent Curry played a team game and facilitated KD to be the most effective he has ever been or very likely will ever be imo.

[WarriorGM]

What I tire of is the diminishment of Curry on the basis of him having good team-mates, a standard not applied to other top players, the opposite standard in fact often being applied ie that it is the fault of their team-mates that they are not winning, as you are pretty much doing imo. GSW were bottom dwellers who couldn't attract a decent FA for 40 years before Curry, Sure they had a change to a superior ownership group who made good decisions including in regard to coaching, but it is all built on Curry. Even with the KD version of the team which undeniably did possess overwhelming talent Curry played a team game and facilitated KD to be the most effective he has ever been or very likely will ever be imo.

It's also pretty ridiculous because of all multiple-time championship teams that could be said to have had a core group of players behind it, Curry's supporting cast is among the least promising at the start of their careers. Klay was an 11th pick and Draymond a second rounder. My initial impression is that on that basis only Tim Duncan had an initially less inspiring core supporting cast and that was mainly because of the lack of appreciation and difficulty in scouting foreign players.

[TheLand13]

Imagine trying to argue that it wasn't. You guys are the ones with bat **** logic. Note that you haven't given a single piece of supporting evidence for your argument. Only thing I've heard so far from others is that Giannis outscored the Suns. I guess that's why some of you think Doncic is in the conversation too?

I don't have to. The person you're arguing with has already done that for me. The problem is that you are outright disregarding it because it proves you wrong.

Prez's use of faulty parallelism ends up as nonsense and proves nothing. That you cannot see that shows poor grasp of logic. His reliance on SRS to support his point while ignoring the Warriors influence on the SRS and win % of his opponents and the consequences of the Warriors being so dominant in the regular season also leaves something to be desired as applied to the 2015 season. Reliance on SRS when applied to the 2021 and 2022 period also favors Curry since the 2022 Celtics are a higher SRS team than the 2021 Suns. So overall even using his given methodology, he still ends up suggesting Curry is a better player currently.

I also love that you are continuing this mentality of "you guys are the ones who are dumb, I'm the only one who is making any sense". It just exposes your very obvious insecurities. You want us so badly to believe that Curry is as great as you think he is but the simple fact of the matter is, none of us will because he's not. This is what happens when you let blind fandom get in the way of logic.

Why should I be insecure? My guy won as I said he probably would despite the majority of you acting as if he had no shot. No, what this exchange more likely shows is your projected insecurities. Many of you were anticipating Curry to float into irrelevance without Durant and yet here is winning another championship and now a lot of you are doubling down on anyone except Curry being the best in the league. Merely shows what happens when people are in denial and cannot accept reality.

You just outright stated why your logic doesn’t work here. If the Warriors were so dominant that season that they affected the SRS scores of other teams to the point where it wasn’t even close, that at the very least means that those teams weren’t on par with the warriors. It gets even worse when context is applied. Those same teams were missing key players due to injury. The warriors weren’t. So on top of already being much better, those teams weren’t even at full strength. The teams the Bucks faced on the other hand, just going off SRS scores, were not only better but they were closer to the Bucks. That at the very least suggests that the Bucks faced tougher competition that was closer to their level, and considering how one of those teams took the Bucks to seven games, I have good reason to believe that.

If that’s not the case, you haven’t given us a reason to suggest otherwise. How are any of those three teams that the Warriors faced better than the Nets? Hell what about the Hawks? Why shouldn’t I take the Hawks over them? And that’s still not even mentioning the fact that the Suns were undoubtedly a better team than the Cavs were. It’s not even close in that department.

In other words, his logic at the very least proves that Giannis faced better competition. And considering how he was far more dominant, I have every reason to hold his run too much higher esteem than Curry’s. If there’s data and/or an argument out there that suggests otherwise, you haven’t provided it yet. And given the crap you’ve spewed in the past ( as well as what you’re spewing now), I seriously doubt that’s going to change.