Steph Curry and the Gaslighting Campaign Against Him

[WarriorGM]

All right so I hear there is an MVP for Olympics Basketball that was dormant but that the media revived. Predictably it goes to LeBron James. Unfortunately by predictably I don't mean that it was because he was the clearcut choice from the actual performances but more in the sense that ahead of time you know that certain movies that fit the Oscar bait mold will likely win the Oscar whatever the merits of the other movies nominated.

Look I get the argument for LeBron's selection and because I do I understand it can come off as petty to criticize it. My initial inclination therefore after rolling my eyes is to quietly move on.

But then I remember something.

This isn't an isolated incident.

Far from it. It is part of what appears to be a consistent pattern.

And the one who is being targeted and disadvantaged is Steph Curry.

I recognized Curry as a special player around 2016. Even after the loss in the finals I projected that he could be a top 5 player all-time. To me it was obvious that the signs were there. That's why I've been mystified ever since that there have been so many expressions of doubt or what I perceived to be low assessments of Steph's impact.

Why is it taking people so long to recognize just how incredible Steph Curry is?

I cannot help but escape the feeling that part of the reason is that the media has been manipulating and perverting opinions about him. Whenever he falls short, they are quick to write him off. Whenever he succeeds, they damn him with faint praise treating him like a precocious child who won a high school science project. And whenever a comparison is to be made they make the most underwhelming one they can get away with.

Case I
The Iguodala FMVP
Probably the most prominent early incident was the 2015 FMVP selection. There was an earlier notable media snub when Curry wasn't selected for an All-NBA team in 2013 but that was perhaps understandable with Curry just emerging as a force on the biggest stage but by the 2015 Finals Curry had just led his team to 67 wins and was named MVP.

Still when his team won, the FMVP was given to Iguodala. Curry looked lackluster and stymied for a lot of the series and a narrative built up that a change in the starting lineup suggested by a video guy to wide-eyed newbie coach Steve Kerr was the key to victory. The feel good story of a democratic team combined with Iguodala being the one guarding LeBron was enough to override the gaping scoring difference between Steph and Andre and the fact Steph exploding in the 4th quarters of the critical games is what sealed the championship win in 6 games. The media was clearly wed to the idea that LeBron was the reason for everything and reasoned that stopping him was all that mattered. Iguodala it is. Steph Curry? Good player but his success this year was probably a blip and he'll fade away and become just another passing season rival for LeBron like Paul George. Oh how wrong they were. But the end result in this case was still Curry's reputation being sacrificed to uphold the narrative that LeBron was unfairly overmatched by a great team effort.

Case II
The Durant FMVPs
After the thrilling but ultimately disappointing 2016 Durant comes to town. Media automatically starts treating KD like he's the best player on the team. Despite Curry having already led his team to a championship. Despite Curry having already led his team to two historic seasons. Despite Curry being the one and only unanimous MVP in NBA history. Despite Curry and the Warriors facing KD and the Thunder the previous year and emerging victorious. For some reason KD's the guy. I like KD. I think he's great. But the way the media was completely ignoring Curry was absolutely bizarre.

KD and the Warriors click. KD and Curry are brilliant together. When it's time to acknowledge them, however, the media instead of acting like journalists when they sold the Iguodala FMVP as a nod to the democratic nature of the team chooses to act like a drama instigator by awarding two FMVPs to KD despite lots and lots of room to take in the big picture that the lopsided finals victories provided. So instead of the story being two great players teaming up to dominate the league, the media story is KD takes over and is the best player. End result is Curry's now being portrayed as some secondary support player in a KD show. Meanwhile LeBron is still sitting pretty because the previous unfairly overmatched narrative is actually reasonable and with the media spotlight on KD the player with the actual best argument against LeBron's supremacy is being obscured.

Case III
MVPs 2017-2022
Curry in 2017 leads what is arguably the greatest NBA team of all-time to a 67-win record. Curry is 6th in MVP voting. What? Okay there are some understandable factors chiefly KD on the same team. But KD missed something like 14 games. Doesn't matter. As long as Curry and KD are together they're pretty much ruled out from MVP consideration. Mind you playing with Wade didn't stop LeBron from becoming MVP in 2012 or 2013 or being top 3 in MVP voting in their inaugural year.

I'll also make a quick note regarding Giannis' and Jokic's two MVPs each during this time. I've heard it argued based mainly on their MVPs that they are close to Steph in terms of career achievements. Sorry but they are still both faaar away. Even Jokic with his three MVPs doesn't yet come close to defining an era the way Steph has impacted his prime years. Steph in 2021 and 2022 presented two contrasting arguments for MVP, Jokic presented the same one. Steph did not get a benefit of the doubt that someone like Magic did.
End result is that even though Steph probably would have clearly overtaken LeBron for most people, media hid that behind Giannis and Jokic talk.

Case IV
The Obvious Debate
There are media talk shows that seem to do nothing but debate basketball. This forum is geared to debating nothing but basketball. So why is it that everyone avoids the most obvious comparison of the last decade in basketball? Namely LeBron vs. Steph.
Part of the reason I think some people are so resistant to accepting Steph as a top 10 player all-time is because it makes the comparison unavoidable. But with Steph entrenching himself ever more firmly in the public imagination as not just the greatest shooter of all-time but a top 10 greatest player of all-time it becomes ever more absurd the way the topic is avoided.

Media is clearly part of the reason this debate really hasn't come to pass. They've kept comparing LeBron to Jordan while comparing Curry to Lillard for as long as they could. How ridiculous is that? It's like comparing LeBron to DeMar DeRozan. But media has popularized such a comparison.

From the above one can see that there has been a pattern of gaslighting people into thinking less of Curry. Now I'm sure there are those who would object. They may accuse me of just being a crazy Curry fan. If only the implications were limited to Curry fandom. But think on it a little more and the implications might start getting wild. If media is gaslighting people about this, what else might they be gaslighting people about?—but that might be too scary to think about.

[mademan]

It was a debatable MVP, but it was for the entire tourney. Ya Curry showed up when it mattered most, but does that matter in the eyes of the voters? If youre giving it out for the entire tournament, its kinda difficult not to give it to the guy who led the team in every major category.

[cdubbz]

Yeah we all see it especially us Warrior fans, but the media juggernaut knows how to work.

Things would be 100% different if Nike didn't drop the ball and spell his name wrong. Curry is the perfect marketable athlete with charisma & showmanship. Also the Klutch boys on ESPN constantly undervaluing Steph during the Championship years.

[WarriorGM]

It was a debatable MVP, but it was for the entire tourney. Ya Curry showed up when it mattered most, but does that matter in the eyes of the voters? If youre giving it out for the entire tournament, its kinda difficult not to give it to the guy who led in the team in every major category.

It's debatable sure. Each and every case given above except the last can be explained away. But the accumulation of it all is not. The dominoes keep falling one way and one way only. That is suspicious and ridiculous. And I'm going to call it as the b******t it is.

By the way who are these voters? Can you name them? Or are they somewhere in the ether?

[jowglenn]

Post-Jordan, there have only been a handful of players to ascend to the ultimate height of all-time legend. They are Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron and Curry.

[Texas Chuck]

yes everything is always about the player on your favorite team. And any time they don;t get every single flower its a coordinated gaslighting hit job.

I mean imagine coming through that dynasty and still being this insecure. I can imagine the OP being a fan of the Russell Celtics and writing diatribes about the 2 titles they didn't win and how it was a giant conspiracy.

Steph is amazing. So is Lebron. Sometimes the guy on your team shares an era with another great player. My boy Dirk had to come through with Timmy and Kobe and Shaq and Lebron and KD and..... Doesn't make Dirk any less great that some other guys got their shine too.

[HotelVitale]

First thought is stop talking about 'the media.' There is no 'the media' anymore, there are a million different sources of content and info now, many of the biggest ones owned by the usual corporate oligarchy but many not. The biggest ones tend to be the dumbest and most lowest common denominator, they just look for the easiest argument or controversy to repeat and there's even less effort to talk about a real question or do some real analysis than there is with the biggest news media. But those ones also tend to be the ones that the people keeping track and writing the histories aren't paying any attention to, and there are plenty of others. (Including many housed in the biggest media conglomerates).

If you're criticizing the media as a whole, start with this much larger set of different parts of it, who serve different audiences and purposes in the media-consumption landscape. It'll probably help you to figure out how much of this matters, and who needs to actually be convinced of what to make this situation better (or if the people who matter and/or are reachable actually already agree with you).

[Tor_Raps]

Post-Jordan, there have only been a handful of players to ascend to the ultimate height of all-time legend. They are Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron and Curry.

I believe Jokic and Giannis will enter that realm by the end of their playing careers, health permitting.

[Message Boar]

The propaganda machine for LeBron has been working overtime before and during these Olympics, that's for sure

He's been surprisingly good and effective for his age, though. But then again he got to have the ball and play lebronball an extraordinate amount of time, considering he has a bunch of teammates that are objectively better players in an nba setting in 2024. I'm not sure how big the effect of LeBron having more experience at (and/or being more suited for) fiba ball is, to be honest.

[mademan]

It was a debatable MVP, but it was for the entire tourney. Ya Curry showed up when it mattered most, but does that matter in the eyes of the voters? If youre giving it out for the entire tournament, its kinda difficult not to give it to the guy who led in the team in every major category.

It's debatable sure. Each and every case given above except the last can be explained away. But the accumulation of it all is not. The dominoes keep falling one way and one way only. That is suspicious and ridiculous. And I'm going to call it as the b******t it is.

By the way who are these voters? Can you name them? Or are they somewhere in the ether?

I dunno. But your indignation here is based on an assumption that the final games of the tournament matter more than the group stage games or the initial knock out game. That assumption is based on the way the NBA is awarded( "this guy finished strong and that matters more" type logic).

There's no reason to believe the voters care more about what Curry did against France vs what Lebron did against Sudan in a group game.

[Rainwater]

yes everything is always about the player on your favorite team. And any time they don;t get every single flower its a coordinated gaslighting hit job.

I mean imagine coming through that dynasty and still being this insecure. I can imagine the OP being a fan of the Russell Celtics and writing diatribes about the 2 titles they didn't win and how it was a giant conspiracy.

Steph is amazing. So is Lebron. Sometimes the guy on your team shares an era with another great player. My boy Dirk had to come through with Timmy and Kobe and Shaq and Lebron and KD and..... Doesn't make Dirk any less great that some other guys got their shine too.

Pretty much.

[cdubbz]

Can't beat Lebron Propaganda. Can't beat Nike. Can't beat ESPN.

All are true. Even Kyrie got swept under the rug by Nike and ESPN

[WarriorGM]

It was a debatable MVP, but it was for the entire tourney. Ya Curry showed up when it mattered most, but does that matter in the eyes of the voters? If youre giving it out for the entire tournament, its kinda difficult not to give it to the guy who led in the team in every major category.

It's debatable sure. Each and every case given above except the last can be explained away. But the accumulation of it all is not. The dominoes keep falling one way and one way only. That is suspicious and ridiculous. And I'm going to call it as the b******t it is.

By the way who are these voters? Can you name them? Or are they somewhere in the ether?

I dunno. But your indignation here is based on an assumption that the final games of the tournament matter more than the group stage games or the initial knock out game. That assumption is based on the way the NBA is awarded( "this guy finished strong and that matters more" type logic).

There's no reason to believe the voters care more about what Curry did against France vs what Lebron did against Sudan in a group game.

This is Team USA we're talking about. There is a baseline level of competence in that group. What is valuable? Something that is scarce and needed. There is a bit of redundancy in that group. What Steph provided though was needed and in scarcer supply.

Did a group game loss eliminate the team from gold contention? My understanding is no. A medal game loss though does. Performances in each are therefore not of the same value.

[Rainwater]

I feel like this is a Warrior Complaint thread

[whatisacenter]

Steph is my favorite player on my favorite team.

If others appreciate him, cool. If they don’t, that’s on them.

[mademan]

It's debatable sure. Each and every case given above except the last can be explained away. But the accumulation of it all is not. The dominoes keep falling one way and one way only. That is suspicious and ridiculous. And I'm going to call it as the b******t it is.

By the way who are these voters? Can you name them? Or are they somewhere in the ether?

I dunno. But your indignation here is based on an assumption that the final games of the tournament matter more than the group stage games or the initial knock out game. That assumption is based on the way the NBA is awarded( "this guy finished strong and that matters more" type logic).

There's no reason to believe the voters care more about what Curry did against France vs what Lebron did against Sudan in a group game.

This is Team USA we're talking about. There is a baseline level of competence in that group. What is valuable? Something that is scarce and needed. There is a bit of redundancy in that group. What Steph provided though was needed and in scarcer supply.

Did a group game loss eliminate the team from gold contention? My understanding is no. A medal game loss though does. Performances in each are therefore not of the same value.

Is that assumption based on anything real? Why would the olympic voters weigh different parts of the olympic differently? This is the olympics; everything is supposed to matter. The NBA does create a sort of hierarchy in the games they play and so you think they would too. I think its far more likely they weigh ALL olympic basketball the same, whether its garbage time in a group stage or clutch time in a gold medal game

[NyKnicks1714]

All right so I hear there is an MVP for Olympics Basketball that was dormant but that the media revived. Predictably it goes to LeBron James. Unfortunately by predictably I don't mean that it was because he was the clearcut choice from the actual performances but more in the sense that ahead of time you know that certain movies that fit the Oscar bait mold will likely win the Oscar whatever the merits of the other movies nominated.

Look I get the argument for LeBron's selection and because I do I understand it can come off as petty to criticize it. My initial inclination therefore after rolling my eyes is to quietly move on.

But then I remember something.

This isn't an isolated incident.

Far from it. It is part of what appears to be a consistent pattern.

And the one who is being targeted and disadvantaged is Steph Curry.

I recognized Curry as a special player around 2016. Even after the loss in the finals I projected that he could be a top 5 player all-time. To me it was obvious that the signs were there. That's why I've been mystified ever since that there have been so many expressions of doubt or what I perceived to be low assessments of Steph's impact.

Why is it taking people so long to recognize just how incredible Steph Curry is?

I cannot help but escape the feeling that part of the reason is that the media has been manipulating and perverting opinions about him. Whenever he falls short, they are quick to write him off. Whenever he succeeds, they damn him with faint praise treating him like a precocious child who won a high school science project. And whenever a comparison is to be made they make the most underwhelming one they can get away with.

Case I
The Iguodala FMVP
Probably the most prominent early incident was the 2015 FMVP selection. There was an earlier notable media snub when Curry wasn't selected for an All-NBA team in 2013 but that was perhaps understandable with Curry just emerging as a force on the biggest stage but by the 2015 Finals Curry had just led his team to 67 wins and was named MVP.

Still when his team won, the FMVP was given to Iguodala. Curry looked lackluster and stymied for a lot of the series and a narrative built up that a change in the starting lineup suggested by a video guy to wide-eyed newbie coach Steve Kerr was the key to victory. The feel good story of a democratic team combined with Iguodala being the one guarding LeBron was enough to override the gaping scoring difference between Steph and Andre and the fact Steph exploding in the 4th quarters of the critical games is what sealed the championship win in 6 games. The media was clearly wed to the idea that LeBron was the reason for everything and reasoned that stopping him was all that mattered. Iguodala it is. Steph Curry? Good player but his success this year was probably a blip and he'll fade away and become just another passing season rival for LeBron like Paul George. Oh how wrong they were. But the end result in this case was still Curry's reputation being sacrificed to uphold the narrative that LeBron was unfairly overmatched by a great team effort.

Case II
The Durant FMVPs
After the thrilling but ultimately disappointing 2016 Durant comes to town. Media automatically starts treating KD like he's the best player on the team. Despite Curry having already led his team to a championship. Despite Curry having already led his team to two historic seasons. Despite Curry being the one and only unanimous MVP in NBA history. Despite Curry and the Warriors facing KD and the Thunder the previous year and emerging victorious. For some reason KD's the guy. I like KD. I think he's great. But the way the media was completely ignoring Curry was absolutely bizarre.

KD and the Warriors click. KD and Curry are brilliant together. When it's time to acknowledge them, however, the media instead of acting like journalists when they sold the Iguodala FMVP as a nod to the democratic nature of the team chooses to act like a drama instigator by awarding two FMVPs to KD despite lots and lots of room to take in the big picture that the lopsided finals victories provided. So instead of the story being two great players teaming up to dominate the league, the media story is KD takes over and is the best player. End result is Curry's now being portrayed as some secondary support player in a KD show. Meanwhile LeBron is still sitting pretty because the previous unfairly overmatched narrative is actually reasonable and with the media spotlight on KD the player with the actual best argument against LeBron's supremacy is being obscured.

Case III
MVPs 2017-2022
Curry in 2017 leads what is arguably the greatest NBA team of all-time to a 67-win record. Curry is 6th in MVP voting. What? Okay there are some understandable factors chiefly KD on the same team. But KD missed something like 14 games. Doesn't matter. As long as Curry and KD are together they're pretty much ruled out from MVP consideration. Mind you playing with Wade didn't stop LeBron from becoming MVP in 2012 or 2013 or being top 3 in MVP voting in their inaugural year.

I'll also make a quick note regarding Giannis' and Jokic's two MVPs each during this time. I've heard it argued based mainly on their MVPs that they are close to Steph in terms of career achievements. Sorry but they are still both faaar away. Even Jokic with his three MVPs doesn't yet come close to defining an era the way Steph has impacted his prime years. Steph in 2021 and 2022 presented two contrasting arguments for MVP, Jokic presented the same one. Steph did not get a benefit of the doubt that someone like Magic did.
End result is that even though Steph probably would have clearly overtaken LeBron for most people, media hid that behind Giannis and Jokic talk.

Case IV
The Obvious Debate
There are media talk shows that seem to do nothing but debate basketball. This forum is geared to debating nothing but basketball. So why is it that everyone avoids the most obvious comparison of the last decade in basketball? Namely LeBron vs. Steph.
Part of the reason I think some people are so resistant to accepting Steph as a top 10 player all-time is because it makes the comparison unavoidable. But with Steph entrenching himself ever more firmly in the public imagination as not just the greatest shooter of all-time but a top 10 greatest player of all-time it becomes ever more absurd the way the topic is avoided.

Media is clearly part of the reason this debate really hasn't come to pass. They've kept comparing LeBron to Jordan while comparing Curry to Lillard for as long as they could. How ridiculous is that? It's like comparing LeBron to DeMar DeRozan. But media has popularized such a comparison.

From the above one can see that there has been a pattern of gaslighting people into thinking less of Curry. Now I'm sure there are those who would object. They may accuse me of just being a crazy Curry fan. If only the implications were limited to Curry fandom. But think on it a little more and the implications might start getting wild. If media is gaslighting people about this, what else might they be gaslighting people about?—but that might be too scary to think about.

This isn't healthy

[WarriorGM]

I feel like this is a Warrior Complaint thread

No this is my complaint thread. You'll find many Warriors fans around here who find my observations embarrassing for some reason and who aren't willing to stick up for Curry even when his own organization is trivializing him even to the consternation of neutral fans.

[NBA4Lyfe]

All right so I hear there is an MVP for Olympics Basketball that was dormant but that the media revived. Predictably it goes to LeBron James. Unfortunately by predictably I don't mean that it was because he was the clearcut choice from the actual performances but more in the sense that ahead of time you know that certain movies that fit the Oscar bait mold will likely win the Oscar whatever the merits of the other movies nominated.

Look I get the argument for LeBron's selection and because I do I understand it can come off as petty to criticize it. My initial inclination therefore after rolling my eyes is to quietly move on.

But then I remember something.

This isn't an isolated incident.

Far from it. It is part of what appears to be a consistent pattern.

And the one who is being targeted and disadvantaged is Steph Curry.

I recognized Curry as a special player around 2016. Even after the loss in the finals I projected that he could be a top 5 player all-time. To me it was obvious that the signs were there. That's why I've been mystified ever since that there have been so many expressions of doubt or what I perceived to be low assessments of Steph's impact.

Why is it taking people so long to recognize just how incredible Steph Curry is?

I cannot help but escape the feeling that part of the reason is that the media has been manipulating and perverting opinions about him. Whenever he falls short, they are quick to write him off. Whenever he succeeds, they damn him with faint praise treating him like a precocious child who won a high school science project. And whenever a comparison is to be made they make the most underwhelming one they can get away with.

Case I
The Iguodala FMVP
Probably the most prominent early incident was the 2015 FMVP selection. There was an earlier notable media snub when Curry wasn't selected for an All-NBA team in 2013 but that was perhaps understandable with Curry just emerging as a force on the biggest stage but by the 2015 Finals Curry had just led his team to 67 wins and was named MVP.

Still when his team won, the FMVP was given to Iguodala. Curry looked lackluster and stymied for a lot of the series and a narrative built up that a change in the starting lineup suggested by a video guy to wide-eyed newbie coach Steve Kerr was the key to victory. The feel good story of a democratic team combined with Iguodala being the one guarding LeBron was enough to override the gaping scoring difference between Steph and Andre and the fact Steph exploding in the 4th quarters of the critical games is what sealed the championship win in 6 games. The media was clearly wed to the idea that LeBron was the reason for everything and reasoned that stopping him was all that mattered. Iguodala it is. Steph Curry? Good player but his success this year was probably a blip and he'll fade away and become just another passing season rival for LeBron like Paul George. Oh how wrong they were. But the end result in this case was still Curry's reputation being sacrificed to uphold the narrative that LeBron was unfairly overmatched by a great team effort.

Case II
The Durant FMVPs
After the thrilling but ultimately disappointing 2016 Durant comes to town. Media automatically starts treating KD like he's the best player on the team. Despite Curry having already led his team to a championship. Despite Curry having already led his team to two historic seasons. Despite Curry being the one and only unanimous MVP in NBA history. Despite Curry and the Warriors facing KD and the Thunder the previous year and emerging victorious. For some reason KD's the guy. I like KD. I think he's great. But the way the media was completely ignoring Curry was absolutely bizarre.

KD and the Warriors click. KD and Curry are brilliant together. When it's time to acknowledge them, however, the media instead of acting like journalists when they sold the Iguodala FMVP as a nod to the democratic nature of the team chooses to act like a drama instigator by awarding two FMVPs to KD despite lots and lots of room to take in the big picture that the lopsided finals victories provided. So instead of the story being two great players teaming up to dominate the league, the media story is KD takes over and is the best player. End result is Curry's now being portrayed as some secondary support player in a KD show. Meanwhile LeBron is still sitting pretty because the previous unfairly overmatched narrative is actually reasonable and with the media spotlight on KD the player with the actual best argument against LeBron's supremacy is being obscured.

Case III
MVPs 2017-2022
Curry in 2017 leads what is arguably the greatest NBA team of all-time to a 67-win record. Curry is 6th in MVP voting. What? Okay there are some understandable factors chiefly KD on the same team. But KD missed something like 14 games. Doesn't matter. As long as Curry and KD are together they're pretty much ruled out from MVP consideration. Mind you playing with Wade didn't stop LeBron from becoming MVP in 2012 or 2013 or being top 3 in MVP voting in their inaugural year.

I'll also make a quick note regarding Giannis' and Jokic's two MVPs each during this time. I've heard it argued based mainly on their MVPs that they are close to Steph in terms of career achievements. Sorry but they are still both faaar away. Even Jokic with his three MVPs doesn't yet come close to defining an era the way Steph has impacted his prime years. Steph in 2021 and 2022 presented two contrasting arguments for MVP, Jokic presented the same one. Steph did not get a benefit of the doubt that someone like Magic did.
End result is that even though Steph probably would have clearly overtaken LeBron for most people, media hid that behind Giannis and Jokic talk.

Case IV
The Obvious Debate
There are media talk shows that seem to do nothing but debate basketball. This forum is geared to debating nothing but basketball. So why is it that everyone avoids the most obvious comparison of the last decade in basketball? Namely LeBron vs. Steph.
Part of the reason I think some people are so resistant to accepting Steph as a top 10 player all-time is because it makes the comparison unavoidable. But with Steph entrenching himself ever more firmly in the public imagination as not just the greatest shooter of all-time but a top 10 greatest player of all-time it becomes ever more absurd the way the topic is avoided.

Media is clearly part of the reason this debate really hasn't come to pass. They've kept comparing LeBron to Jordan while comparing Curry to Lillard for as long as they could. How ridiculous is that? It's like comparing LeBron to DeMar DeRozan. But media has popularized such a comparison.

From the above one can see that there has been a pattern of gaslighting people into thinking less of Curry. Now I'm sure there are those who would object. They may accuse me of just being a crazy Curry fan. If only the implications were limited to Curry fandom. But think on it a little more and the implications might start getting wild. If media is gaslighting people about this, what else might they be gaslighting people about?—but that might be too scary to think about.

The nba voters actually live Steph tho


Harden somehow only has 7x all nba selections to his name with close to 13 years of all-nba play. The nba will still reward steph will all nba selections after he misses the plsyoffs

[WarriorGM]

I dunno. But your indignation here is based on an assumption that the final games of the tournament matter more than the group stage games or the initial knock out game. That assumption is based on the way the NBA is awarded( "this guy finished strong and that matters more" type logic).

There's no reason to believe the voters care more about what Curry did against France vs what Lebron did against Sudan in a group game.

This is Team USA we're talking about. There is a baseline level of competence in that group. What is valuable? Something that is scarce and needed. There is a bit of redundancy in that group. What Steph provided though was needed and in scarcer supply.

Did a group game loss eliminate the team from gold contention? My understanding is no. A medal game loss though does. Performances in each are therefore not of the same value.

Is that assumption based on anything real? Why would the olympic voters weigh different parts of the olympic differently? This is the olympics; everything is supposed to matter. The NBA does create a sort of hierarchy in the games they play and so you think they would too. I think its far more likely they weigh ALL olympic basketball the same, whether its garbage time in a group stage or clutch time in a gold medal game

Who are the Olympics voters again? Can you name them?

What do you mean by real? Controversies in Olympic judging? Lots of those. NBA FMVP selections have their controversies too including pressure from broadcasters on voters to select one player over another.