Offense: 16 Curry v. 18 Harden

[thekdog34]

Harden's TS% is only .555 this playoffs so far.

[clyde21]

Harden's TS% is only .555 this playoffs so far.

So far these POs:

Curry - 65.0%
James - 62.5%
Durant - 59.5%
Paul - 58.8%
Davis - 58.4%
Harden - 55.5%
Thompson - 54.9%
Embiid - 51.9%

[yoyoboy]

Here's a question: which team was more talented, '18 Houston or '16 Golden State?

I know what you're getting at but Golden State's big 3 of Steph, Draymond, and Klay missed 5 combined games during the season. On the other hand, Houston's big 3 of Harden, Paul, and Capela missed 42 combined games. When Harden, Capela, and Paul were all healthy, the Rockets went 42-3 during the regular season, which is 76.5 win pace. Additionally, this year's Rockets actually put up a higher ORTG at 114.7 than the 16 Warriors put up at 114.5, so the defense is really the difference.

Talent wise, I would say Paul and Draymond are very comparable, especially considering Draymond was the clear cut best defensive player in the league that season and he shot 39% from three while still being the phenomenal playmaker that he's always been. Draymond was legitimately a top 6 player on the year (as Paul is now). Bogut was pretty even with Capela, as Capela is clearly a better finisher and scorer but Bogut was a much better passer and the better defender, as well. Capela can handle more minutes so maybe I'd give him the edge because of that, but I think that Klay, Iguodola, Barnes, Livingston, Ezeli, and Speights is every bit as good as Gordon, Ariza, Tucker, Mbah a Moute, Nene, and Anderson, with the former being more top heavy and the latter supporting cast being more consistent throughout.

I would probably take Curry, but this really isn't as big of a gap as some people seem to think. Harden was the most dangerous isolation scorer in NBA history this season. His on-ball playmaking was clearly better. His defense was roughly equal to Curry's. But I think once you factor in Curry's off ball gravity I'd give him the advantage here.

Also just wanted to put this out there, can we stop with this notion that creating for others is a bad thing? It's absurd to see people docking Harden for spending more time on the ball. His ability to take on such an huge creation load and set up far more limited offensive players for uber efficient shots while engineering a historically good offense is a GOOD thing. Not to mention he accommodated a high usage ball dominant playmaker in Chris Paul and has played perfectly with him. If Curry could've provided more lift to the Golden State offense by playing more on the ball then he should've done that. You don't get bonus points for needlessly hurting your team's offense by playing off the ball instead of scoring/creating for others. Note: for the record I don't believe a bigger on ball role for Curry would've resulted in a more efficient offense, but I'm just saying that the argument that essentially boils down to "he could've scored 40 ppg on 70% TS but didn't feel like it" is extremely faulty. Not only that, but referencing his on ball efficiency and extrapolating it for greater volume while maintaining that same efficiency and increasing his overall scoring efficiency is ridiculous, as well.

[CodeBreaker]

Regular Season Curry was out of this world.

[CeraVe]

Here's a question: which team was more talented, '18 Houston or '16 Golden State?

Talent wise, I would say Paul and Draymond are very comparable, especially considering Draymond was the clear cut best defensive player in the league that season and he shot 39% from three while still being the phenomenal playmaker that he's always been. Draymond was legitimately a top 6 player on the year (as Paul is now). Bogut was pretty even with Capela, as Capela is clearly a better finisher and scorer but Bogut was a much better passer and the better defender, as well. Capela can handle more minutes so maybe I'd give him the edge because of that, but I think that Klay, Iguodola, Barnes, Livingston, Ezeli, and Speights is every bit as good as Gordon, Ariza, Tucker, Mbah a Moute, Nene, and Anderson, with the former being more top heavy and the latter supporting cast being more consistent throughout.

I can't tell if people are serious anymore.
That's like saying Rajon Rondo is better than CP3 in 2010. Draymond and Rondo are nearly identical players and have had the same roles on the Warriors and C's respectively. Neither guys are the main, secondary and sometimes third offensive cogs of their teams and do not even guard the best offensive guys. Historically, CP3 ranks the highest among PGs in terms of PER and win shares. Above Magic obviously and behind Jordan if considering all guards. Paul is better than Curry. Cp3 does not have the supporting cast he had in the past 4 years.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-chris-paul-conundrum/

Bogut was unplayable because he was foul prone, couldn't guard the perimeter (K Love, PnR's) and couldn't defend T.T.

[Young_Star11]

16 Curry was all-time level good.