E-Balla wrote:I only focused on the scoring because that's what makes him great. When Curry is scoring like an average PG he's playing like an average PG. He killed it down the stretch but in all 3 losses he didn't show up. They did win of course but dont think he outplayed Westbrook (who I thought was great even if he wasn't the most efficient scorer). I also don't care about the down the stretch narrative because every game in the playoffs counts. Not saying Curry did this but playing terribly in games 1-4 only to show up in games 5-7 to win doesn't get you any props IMO because you could've showed up earlier and it wouldn't have gotten to 7 games anyway (I still don't think Lebron had a good series in the 2013 Finals despite his late game performance in game 6 and his game 7).
Also I don't think he was exposed I but I do think his postseason was disastrous. The worst thing that can happen to a player in the postseason is to get injured and not be there for your team when they get bounced. Steph wasn't bounced but he wasn't there and it's given him a chance to recover if anything. If GS lost against Portland he wouldn't even be in my top 5 or close to it (like CP3 got no consideration from me).
Also about the passivity part explain the first half last night. To me it looked like Curry wasn't contributing anything offensively and defensively he was actively destroying their chances of success.
I would just urge everyone to remember that the goal is to win the series, not win it in a sweep.
I go back to tennis a lot and I'll do it again here:
Pete Sampras was renown for losing sets 6-0 & 6-1 in the middle of matches he won. This meant that if you judged how good he was based on the fraction of games or points one, he looked worse than he did if you went by actual match victory success. If someone had said that that meant he was overrated - that his point/game winning represented the true accomplishment - the tennis world, well, they would all disagree with that.
This is another way of saying that the allocation of a player's impact matters. Two games of an impact of +5 are not the same as one game of 0 and another of +10. Which is better depends on context, but there should be no skepticism to the idea that of the two sets of performances one will be preferable to the other.
I feel like those of a more traditional basketball mindset will prefer the more consistent of the two approaches, but again it depends on context. If, against the opponent in question, the player typically needs a +8 in order to guide his team to victory, then the player who gave you +5 both games only makes lose by a bit less.
So then, this is not to say that we should just ignore Curry's lesser performances, but in a sport that is all about beating your opponent 4 times before they beat you 4 times, getting overly bothered by uneven performances to me only makes sense if you've got a guy who seems to disappear when you need him most. Meanwhile Curry quite clearly is a player who goes into a certain takeover mode when he feels his team needs him, and while that doesn't make him catch fire every game, to me it seems pretty much the norm that if you give him a bunch of shots in a row he tends to get properly calibrated and odds are good he'll hit a streak.
Re: outplayed by Westbrook. Maybe you already broke this down. I'll try to, but it's tough to do so without talking generally because the teams play so differently...because Curry & Westbrook are so different.
Scoring? Curry. Comparable volume, considerably more efficient. Even bigger edge against crunch defense. Plus with all the style benefits that have allowed the Warriors to develop the rhythm & flow method they use.
Playmaking? Curry's transitioned to more of an off-ball role so Westbrook gets a lot more assists, but c'mon, only one of these teams devolves into self-destructive iso ball, and Westbrook is the reason why.
Defense? I'm still not impressed with Westbrook's defense. He makes some great plays, but he's got a lot of flaws. Curry's at least comparable to him there.
I'll definitely give Westbrook the rebounding edge though.
I say all this, but to be clear, I'm actually quite HIGH on Westbrook right now. In spite of whatever issues I'm pointing out, he is the heart & soul of this OKC team that could have easily won. I don't actually mind the choice of Westbrook over Curry that much here in principle, I just think the "disaster" talk for Curry is crazy when when it was all on the line, Curry looked like he was clearly on another level just like he had all year. Had the ball bounced differently and the series already been over by then I'd see it differently sure, but I can't just ignore that final stretch on that basis.
Re: If GS lost to Portland... As I've said, I"m fine with you factoring in injuries how you want. My issue comes from you call his post-season a disaster while talking a lot on his actual play given that his actual play just created a post-season heroic comeback that Westbrook has never been anything close to in his entire career.
That said, while Curry missed many games, the Warriors also clearly were looking to rest him as much as they could. In both of his returns, he came back after his team lost a game. That's not a coincidence.
I'd also ask people to consider the perspective that missing 6 games in the RS wouldn't have mattered at all here, so, while I think we all agree that in principle missing playoff time matters more, we have to ask ourselves why exactly that is so. It is so because missing 6 games at the exact right time can end a season...but obviously, this wasn't 6 games at the exact right time because the Warriors not only got through those series, they weren't even stressed. As such, penalizing Curry like crazy is essentially saying:
"I penalize a ton anyone who gets unlucky and gets injured in the playoffs, and that could conceivably ruin his team's entire season, and I do this even if he gets lucky and his injury has basically no effect at all on his team's season."
I personally try to stay pragmatic. It's always my hope that I can basically ignore the injuries. If a guy gets unlucky and it keeps him from achieving what he needs to to outrank other superstars, that sucks, but it is what it is. But I'm not going to do a mock funeral for his candidacy when it didn't really end up changing anything.
Re: last night. I would just say that if, say, Curry comes back and destroys the Cavs in Game 4 and the Warriors go on to win the series, then him having one bad game won't actually have any effect on the outcome of the series and that judging a player harshly because he's prone to having one or two bad games in a series to me doesn't make a lot of sense. When it's a broader issue, then that will change things.
.
