'17-'18 POY discussion

[Outside]

Drawing a blank on who was asking lebron the last question of that presser, but what an ****. Lebron actually answered the question multiple times and he was trying to get a better "headline quote" from lebron. Totally justifiable to walk off after that.

Mark Schwartz, ESPN.

He was trying to do the dogged reporter thing but should've let it go. LeBron was surly during the entire postgame session and not in the mood to be forthright. Schwartz was getting at the point that it looked like JR thought they were ahead, it looked like the Cavs players thought JR didn't know the score, and it looked like JR might have said so to LeBron. But after losing a game they played so well and were ahead in the last minute, plus after having the charge/block call reversed, LeBron wasn't going to throw JR under the bus in the postgame. He wasn't having it, he'd made it clear he wasn't having it, yet Schwartz kept asking over and over. I don't blame him for leaving.

[TheSkeptic]

I am new to this site (though I have lurked at times over the past several years), so I don't expect to be granted a spot in this ranking endeavor. I do have a couple of questions I would like to have answered from participants:

1. How much does defense matter to you? LeBron James seems to be at the core of this. He is objectively having one of his worst defensive years in his career. His team ranked 29th on defense during the year, and he was a big part of that (it seems the individual tracking statistics support this). In the playoffs, this has not changed, he has consistently been a negative on defense. This is out of character, since he was one of the best defensive players in the league for much of his prime seasons.

However, his primary competition to be named player of the year, James Harden, was only a positive because he was guarding post players, and he was exploited on switches on the perimeter. The same thing has happened to Stephen Curry, the player who seems most likely to win Finals MVP if Golden State wins the title (though he has been better on the perimeter than Harden). Is James's offense not only greater than Harden's, but enough to make up for his defensive foibles? It seems that how somebody views Michael Jordan during his first three years, or Kobe Bryant during the 06, 07, 13 seasons, or Charles Barkley in Phoenix would be instructive.

Anthony Davis and Kevin Durant seem to be the only players who are in the conversation who played defense this year, but they don't seem to have the same presence on the offensive end.

2. Game 1 of the Finals was closer than most people expected. If the series concludes in four or five games in blowout fashion, how does one then view the Cavaliers, and the Eastern Conference at large? A blowout Finals to me would mean the margin for the series is something like double digits over the course of the entire series. This would call into play the difference between not only the top teams in the Western Conference (Houston and Golden State) and their Eastern counterparts, but would likely suggest that the Western Semi-Finals teams could contend for the Eastern Conference title (aside from a healthy Celtics team). How would you reconcile this?

[therealbig3]

I am new to this site (though I have lurked at times over the past several years), so I don't expect to be granted a spot in this ranking endeavor. I do have a couple of questions I would like to have answered from participants:

1. How much does defense matter to you? LeBron James seems to be at the core of this. He is objectively having one of his worst defensive years in his career. His team ranked 29th on defense during the year, and he was a big part of that (it seems the individual tracking statistics support this). In the playoffs, this has not changed, he has consistently been a negative on defense. This is out of character, since he was one of the best defensive players in the league for much of his prime seasons.

However, his primary competition to be named player of the year, James Harden, was only a positive because he was guarding post players, and he was exploited on switches on the perimeter. The same thing has happened to Stephen Curry, the player who seems most likely to win Finals MVP if Golden State wins the title (though he has been better on the perimeter than Harden). Is James's offense not only greater than Harden's, but enough to make up for his defensive foibles? It seems that how somebody views Michael Jordan during his first three years, or Kobe Bryant during the 06, 07, 13 seasons, or Charles Barkley in Phoenix would be instructive.

Anthony Davis and Kevin Durant seem to be the only players who are in the conversation who played defense this year, but they don't seem to have the same presence on the offensive end.

2. Game 1 of the Finals was closer than most people expected. If the series concludes in four or five games in blowout fashion, how does one then view the Cavaliers, and the Eastern Conference at large? A blowout Finals to me would mean the margin for the series is something like double digits over the course of the entire series. This would call into play the difference between not only the top teams in the Western Conference (Houston and Golden State) and their Eastern counterparts, but would likely suggest that the Western Semi-Finals teams could contend for the Eastern Conference title (aside from a healthy Celtics team). How would you reconcile this?

1. I strongly disagree with you on his playoff defense. I agree, he was a weak defender during the RS, but I really feel like his effort has been ramped up since the start of the playoffs, and he's actually been a positive on that end of the floor. Not as good as he was in previous years, but solid. For example, I think his playoff defense is clearly superior to Harden's and Curry's. I also feel that his offense is superior to theirs as well. So yeah, overall, I think it's clear that James is just a better player than either.

2. This has been a recent topic of discussion on here, but my view is basically: GS and Houston blew out everyone except each other. Yes, I'd agree that they are clearly a level above anyone in the East. But to me, the rest of the West certainly isn't better than the East just because they're in the West, because they didn't fare all that great against GS and Houston either. I also feel that even an injured Celtics team is just hard to take advantage of in various matchups, which is what's most important in playoff situations imo. So even without Kyrie, I feel that they match up favorably against any of the "other" West teams, and would also give GS and Houston a surprisingly tough series.

[therealbig3]

Even if Iguodala returns...with his knee injury, do you think he'll still be an effective defender on James?

[TheSkeptic]

1. I strongly disagree with you on his playoff defense. I agree, he was a weak defender during the RS, but I really feel like his effort has been ramped up since the start of the playoffs, and he's actually been a positive on that end of the floor. Not as good as he was in previous years, but solid. For example, I think his playoff defense is clearly superior to Harden's and Curry's. I also feel that his offense is superior to theirs as well. So yeah, overall, I think it's clear that James is just a better player than either.

2. This has been a recent topic of discussion on here, but my view is basically: GS and Houston blew out everyone except each other. Yes, I'd agree that they are clearly a level above anyone in the East. But to me, the rest of the West certainly isn't better than the East just because they're in the West, because they didn't fare all that great against GS and Houston either. I also feel that even an injured Celtics team is just hard to take advantage of in various matchups, which is what's most important in playoff situations imo. So even without Kyrie, I feel that they match up favorably against any of the "other" West teams, and would also give GS and Houston a surprisingly tough series.

1. Is there any data to support your position on James's playoff defense? I don't mean to single you out, but since the standard position here seems to be that he is the best contender for the number one spot, maybe someone has some numbers showing he has been a positive, or less negative in the playoffs defensively.

2. Is this based on how the Celtics sans Irving fared during the season? Or based solely on the playoffs? If it's the latter, I think this is where my confusion arises, since they didn't play any West teams in the postseason. I can't say for sure they were able to succeed as much as they did without Irving in the playoffs because they played in the East.

[therealbig3]

1. I strongly disagree with you on his playoff defense. I agree, he was a weak defender during the RS, but I really feel like his effort has been ramped up since the start of the playoffs, and he's actually been a positive on that end of the floor. Not as good as he was in previous years, but solid. For example, I think his playoff defense is clearly superior to Harden's and Curry's. I also feel that his offense is superior to theirs as well. So yeah, overall, I think it's clear that James is just a better player than either.

2. This has been a recent topic of discussion on here, but my view is basically: GS and Houston blew out everyone except each other. Yes, I'd agree that they are clearly a level above anyone in the East. But to me, the rest of the West certainly isn't better than the East just because they're in the West, because they didn't fare all that great against GS and Houston either. I also feel that even an injured Celtics team is just hard to take advantage of in various matchups, which is what's most important in playoff situations imo. So even without Kyrie, I feel that they match up favorably against any of the "other" West teams, and would also give GS and Houston a surprisingly tough series.

1. Is there any data to support your position on James's playoff defense? I don't mean to single you out, but since the standard position here seems to be that he is the best contender for the number one spot, maybe someone has some numbers showing he has been a positive, or less negative in the playoffs defensively.

2. Is this based on how the Celtics sans Irving fared during the season? Or based solely on the playoffs? If it's the latter, I think this is where my confusion arises, since they didn't play any West teams in the postseason. I can't say for sure they were able to succeed as much as they did without Irving in the playoffs because they played in the East.

I'd say most of my feelings are not numbers-based, but eye-test based. I can visibly see much better effort from LeBron in these playoffs, he's not missing as many rotations, he's not resting as much, he's contesting more shots at the rim...he's definitely not where he was even last year, but he's become a positive impact defender from what I can tell in these playoffs.

As for the Celtics, their performance without Irving and their annihilation of a red-hot Sixers team impressed me. The fact they pushed the Cavs to 7 also impressed me. And I am also using my own scouting of their team and feel that they can reasonably match up with whoever they face, and even if they lose, they're a tough out. That makes them a more resilient playoff opponent than a lot of West teams, imo. But this is also an eye test thing.

[Missing Rings]

1. Is there any data to support your position on James's playoff defense? I don't mean to single you out, but since the standard position here seems to be that he is the best contender for the number one spot, maybe someone has some numbers showing he has been a positive, or less negative in the playoffs defensively.

There is, but one needs to be objective and look beyond his statistics and realize the surroundings. This isn't like early-2000's Kevin Garnett where LeBron is the best defensive player in the league and able to take a defense from worst in the league to respectable. Instead, we have a situation where the players surrounding LeBron are by and large bad defensive players. Kevin Love, Jordan Clarkson, Larry Nance Jr, and Kyle Korver are all in the rotation for Cleveland and range from poor to bad on the defensive end. On the other hand, LeBron James isn't the defensive player he once was, in part due to his mileage but also given the offensive burden the team has thrust on him (and to what degree has he forced this?).

As for statistics, LeBron leads his team in Steals, Blocks, and Defensive Rebounds. Players shoot 2.9% worse when LeBron is the closest defender within 6 feet of the rim and when shots are from 15+ feet (think jump shots), players are shooting just 38.2% against LeBron (10% worse than their averages). I don't know how accurate these are, but they certainly support my eye test of LeBron being average to above average for a majority of minutes on the defensive end while having the ability to turn into a gear not many can reach.

I don't think there is any argument that someone like Curry or Harden have been more impactful on the defensive side of the ball. There isn't a player in the running for Player of the Year who is as complete as LeBron James is currently. Really, looking at regular season, he was still likely the 2nd best player through the majority of it behind only James Harden. In the post-season he has reached tiers...multiple levels of tiers higher than James Harden could possibly reach.

The way I see it is LeBron James is so far ahead of everyone else at playing basketball that the difference Between LeBron and #2 is likely as large as #2 and say...#50.

[therealbig3]

Also, wasn't this game a perfect example of how flawed winning bias is? I can't imagine anyone possibly criticizing LeBron in this game. He basically played a perfect game, and put his team in position to win against a much more talented squad. Even his biggest haters can't criticize him after that, and everyone can admit that he was easily the best player on the court.

Now extend that to over the course of the series. Even if you can't play perfectly every game (and no human can), if you're putting up superstar performances, but your team is still losing because of things out of your control (teammates not coming through, the other team just being flat out better than yours, etc), how in the world can you be knocked down a peg compared to someone else who was luckier with regards to those things? That other player literally didn't do anything differently than you (brought their A game), but their teammates were more reliable and/or the teams they faced weren't as dominant.

In fact, in a lot of situations, another player didn't even bring their A game and their team was still good enough to win. How does that deserve more credit than a player that lost but DID bring their A game (when comparing superstars obviously)?

[Senior]

isn't it crazy to think that this title might end up doing nothing for Curry/Durant in an all-time sense? their expectations have been so high with significant underperformance, their flaws have gotten the spotlight, they're getting outshone by a guy on the other team, and they're turning more and more people off with each passing game. what if they lose an FMVP to Lebron?

I mean it'd be one thing if it was GP on the 06 Heat but it's two superstars in the middle of their prime and yet...I couldn't see them vaulting up an all-time list.

[therealbig3]

isn't it crazy to think that this title might end up doing nothing for Curry/Durant in an all-time sense? their expectations have been so high with significant underperformance, their flaws have gotten the spotlight, they're getting outshone by a guy on the other team, and they're turning more and more people off with each passing game. what if they lose an FMVP to Lebron?

I mean it'd be one thing if it was GP on the 06 Heat but it's two superstars in the middle of their prime and yet...I couldn't see them vaulting up an all-time list.

I'm glad I moved away from using championships to evaluate players a long time ago, because I don't envy the mental gymnastics people that like Curry and Durant are going to go through to try and act like these last couple championships should be treated the same as the championships other ATGs have won, and I don't envy the constant need to explain why these championships just aren't as impressive from the people that don't like Curry and Durant...it's just a super tiring back and forth.

I can just sit back and objectively say: Durant is an ISO king that has poor awareness overall, and Curry is arguably the GOAT offensive player in the RS, but clearly can't sustain that level of performance in the PS and thus falls short of the true GOAT offensive players. Both great players, but are definitely not close to a GOAT-level player like LeBron. The fact that they're winning multiple championships means nothing to me, because it doesn't say anything about them as individuals and it's clear that they're winning because they have an unprecedented level of talent on their team, not because there's something uniquely special about them...and like you said, even in the way they've won, it's been with some significant underperformance.

Honestly, in a way, this playoff run has hurt them in a sense. The narrative for Durant went from being a superstar that could seamlessly fit into a great team and make them even better to a guy that breaks their offense and has demonstrated that he clearly doesn't understand what great offense is. The narrative for Curry has clearly transitioned into the fact that he's just not a great PS performer and becomes very mortal compared to his godly RS self. And winning the title doesn't really give them any points due to how stacked they are, while their flaws and the resulting underperformance en route to the title have become pretty obvious.

[Senior]

isn't it crazy to think that this title might end up doing nothing for Curry/Durant in an all-time sense? their expectations have been so high with significant underperformance, their flaws have gotten the spotlight, they're getting outshone by a guy on the other team, and they're turning more and more people off with each passing game. what if they lose an FMVP to Lebron?

I mean it'd be one thing if it was GP on the 06 Heat but it's two superstars in the middle of their prime and yet...I couldn't see them vaulting up an all-time list.

I'm glad I moved away from using championships to evaluate players a long time ago, because I don't envy the mental gymnastics people that like Curry and Durant are going to go through to try and act like these last couple championships should be treated the same as the championships other ATGs have won, and I don't envy the constant need to explain why these championships just aren't as impressive from the people that don't like Curry and Durant...it's just a super tiring back and forth.

I can just sit back and objectively say: Durant is an ISO king that has poor awareness overall, and Curry is arguably the GOAT offensive player in the RS, but clearly can't sustain that level of performance in the PS and thus falls short of the true GOAT offensive players. Both great players, but are definitely not close to a GOAT-level player like LeBron. The fact that they're winning multiple championships means nothing to me, because it doesn't say anything about them as individuals and it's clear that they're winning because they have an unprecedented level of talent on their team, not because there's something uniquely special about them...and like you said, even in the way they've won, it's been with some significant underperformance.

Honestly, in a way, this playoff run has hurt them in a sense. The narrative for Durant went from being a superstar that could seamlessly fit into a great team and make them even better to a guy that breaks their offense and has demonstrated that he clearly doesn't understand what great offense is. The narrative for Curry has clearly transitioned into the fact that he's just not a great PS performer and becomes very mortal compared to his godly RS self. And winning the title doesn't really give them any points due to how stacked they are, while their flaws and the resulting underperformance en route to the title have become pretty obvious.

It's unprecedented. You'd think that if a superstar's flaws were exploited so badly they'd have lost...but here we are. You can't even say that KD/Curry did anything extraordinary in overcoming those flaws because their opponents keep screwing up on their own or getting taken out of the series for unrelated reasons. Even with Iggy gone there's no team that could come close to the Curry/Draymond/Klay/KD core. There's never been a team in NBA history whose superstar core was so much better than everyone else's.

Just try to think of a year where winning the title did or might do nothing for the superstars involved. Shaqobe Lakers weren't as stacked. Neither were the big 3 Heat or even the Bulls. 80s LA and Celtics always had to tangle with each other. Russell's Celtics always clutched out Game 7s.

[therealbig3]

isn't it crazy to think that this title might end up doing nothing for Curry/Durant in an all-time sense? their expectations have been so high with significant underperformance, their flaws have gotten the spotlight, they're getting outshone by a guy on the other team, and they're turning more and more people off with each passing game. what if they lose an FMVP to Lebron?

I mean it'd be one thing if it was GP on the 06 Heat but it's two superstars in the middle of their prime and yet...I couldn't see them vaulting up an all-time list.

I'm glad I moved away from using championships to evaluate players a long time ago, because I don't envy the mental gymnastics people that like Curry and Durant are going to go through to try and act like these last couple championships should be treated the same as the championships other ATGs have won, and I don't envy the constant need to explain why these championships just aren't as impressive from the people that don't like Curry and Durant...it's just a super tiring back and forth.

I can just sit back and objectively say: Durant is an ISO king that has poor awareness overall, and Curry is arguably the GOAT offensive player in the RS, but clearly can't sustain that level of performance in the PS and thus falls short of the true GOAT offensive players. Both great players, but are definitely not close to a GOAT-level player like LeBron. The fact that they're winning multiple championships means nothing to me, because it doesn't say anything about them as individuals and it's clear that they're winning because they have an unprecedented level of talent on their team, not because there's something uniquely special about them...and like you said, even in the way they've won, it's been with some significant underperformance.

Honestly, in a way, this playoff run has hurt them in a sense. The narrative for Durant went from being a superstar that could seamlessly fit into a great team and make them even better to a guy that breaks their offense and has demonstrated that he clearly doesn't understand what great offense is. The narrative for Curry has clearly transitioned into the fact that he's just not a great PS performer and becomes very mortal compared to his godly RS self. And winning the title doesn't really give them any points due to how stacked they are, while their flaws and the resulting underperformance en route to the title have become pretty obvious.

It's unprecedented. You'd think that if a superstar's flaws were exploited so badly they'd have lost...but here we are. You can't even say that KD/Curry did anything extraordinary in overcoming those flaws because their opponents keep screwing up on their own or getting taken out of the series for unrelated reasons. Even with Iggy gone there's no team that could come close to the Curry/Draymond/Klay/KD core. There's never been a team in NBA history whose superstar core was so much better than everyone else's.

Just try to think of a year where winning the title did or might do nothing for the superstars involved. Shaqobe Lakers weren't as stacked. Neither were the big 3 Heat or even the Bulls. 80s LA and Celtics always had to tangle with each other. Russell's Celtics always clutched out Game 7s.

I would say people wouldn't really give much credit to the 2011 Heat if they pulled it off. Especially with LeBron struggling the way he did. Wade's legacy would have received a boost though.

But even the 2011 Heat weren't close to as stacked as this Warriors team.

[RCM88x]

Unless something completely out of body happen in this series (and I don't even think that would make a difference) this race is over.

[Pillendreher]

Unless something completely out of body happen in this series (and I don't even think that would make a difference) this race is over.

It's time for Perkins to lead the Cavs to the promised land. Start him.

[inDe_eD]

Let me first extend this all the way:

Performance of conference champs in the final do influence assessment of teams in both conferences who aren’t in the finals.

Now, is GS suspect the way Cleveland is? No, obviously not. They have the same core as last year when they won the title in GOAT fashion, their slacker performance in the regular season was still elite, they played in the conference that did better all season, they defeated the team with the best record in the league. Their historical legacy is on the line, but everyone already knows they are really really good.

The Cavs on the other hand lost their #2 player this year, they have been mediocre all year, they almost lost to a mediocre team in the first round, and they haven’t played any roster taken seriously as a contender. If they were to beat a healthy GS team this would almost certainly mean Cleveland was just playing a lot better than they did for the bulk of they at.

I’m not saying any future possibility is impossible, but I’m not saying anything weird here. The team who has to this point been far less impressive has more to prove, which is how things normally work.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

In a summary/general sense, you're right. If you bow out early, and you think the team that made the dance wasn't better than you, then why didn't you make it past them? I just can't get behind comparing quality of opponents from that premise though.

Lebron's culpable for his team being as poor as it is, I get it. They're in the tax, and somehow still starting Jeff Green. I don't put quite as much as you do into that stuff for POY evaluations, because circumstance and history have lead him here. Not to be insensitive, but he's like a survivor of a 1-sided abusive relationship, who can't go on to have normal relationships ever again. So for Lebron particularly, I leave it as a wash. I take what he's done, with the players he's had, who he's played against, and evaluate against his peers. For this year, no one else is even in his stratosphere (performance-wise). There's no significant difference in the quality of the 3rd and 16th best teams to knock him down a peg for who he's played. Houston giving Golden State a much better series than Lebron's Cavs has very little to do with James Harden and Lebron James.

The survivor of the 1-sided abusive relationship tends to be the abuser.

More earnestly, I think at this point a lot of the perspective sharing that could happen has happened. It's fine for us to disagree, and frankly I think the reality is we probably won't end up in disagreement. If we do end up in disagreement I'll be specifying then more precisely what led me to what I thought.

To try to sum up my thoughts most pithily though:
I am uncomfortable championing someone from the East at #1 if their team gets embarrassed in the finals.

I'm not predicting that to happen, but if it happens...

Fair enough Doc. I don't entirely disagree =P

And just to clear up my position, I don't take it as a referendum against the east that Lebron's underdog Cavs beat them all. I think he'd be an underdog against most of the teams in the west and do the same thing to them as well.

[Krodis]

Can you quote anyone here using the word rigged? That isn't what has been said so unless you have someone saying it here and more importantly multiple people, please don't put those words into people's mouths. People feel bad calls changed the outcome of a game, that is NOTHING like being rigged.

Whatever. These quotes go well beyond Cleveland fans being unhappy a call went against them.

MartinToVaught- "This game proves that even if nothing else is working for the Warriors, the refs will step in to make sure they still win."

IG2- "Probably because LeBron didn't actually get beat. He got screwed."

WinisKing- "still get c*ckblocked from a win because JR and the refs are higher than mount everest. "

Bled- "What a sham of a game."

MyUniBroDavis- "Trying to get over the fact that lebron was single handedly beating the refs"

MisterHibachi- "Refs definitely tried to cover the spread"

Peregrine01- "Vegas stood to lose a lot of money had Cavs won game 1"

GSP= "It was blatant"- referring to refs cheating.

therealbig3- "You won because the refs handed you the game. "

bondom34- "I'm for the first time now questioning the integrity of it."

HeartBreakKid- "these refs just love sucking gsw's d*ck"

Krodis- "The Warriors get favorable whistles three games in a row"

toodles23- "the officiating was absolutely horrific and massively favored the Warriors. "

NinjaSheppard- "I turned the TV off. No need to watch fixed sports."

There would have been a whole lot more if I had used multiple posts per user or bothered to go back to the Houston series.

Also, no one has even begun to offer an explanation of why the league would rig thing for the Warriors.

Not only did I not say it was rigged, you took my quote out of context as part of a post where I merely accused the Warriors of being lucky.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[MartinToVaught]

explain?

Kyrie was taking more FGA and had a higher usage rate than LeBron last year, so he clearly wasn't being marginalized on the court.

LeBron used to tell reporters all the time that Kyrie was the best point guard in the league, so you can't say he was ever trying to discredit him or diminish his contributions to the team.

LeBron reportedly begged the Cavs' front office not to trade Kyrie, so he obviously wasn't trying to get Kyrie traded.

As far as I can tell, this narrative that LeBron ran Kyrie off only exists because his haters think everything is his fault. It's definitely not based in any facts.

Irving wanted to leave lebron....not the other way around.

Yes, because of Kyrie's own ego. He clearly felt entitled to be The Man in Cleveland even though he wasn't the best player on the team. That's on him, not LeBron.

[Peregrine01]

isn't it crazy to think that this title might end up doing nothing for Curry/Durant in an all-time sense? their expectations have been so high with significant underperformance, their flaws have gotten the spotlight, they're getting outshone by a guy on the other team, and they're turning more and more people off with each passing game. what if they lose an FMVP to Lebron?

I mean it'd be one thing if it was GP on the 06 Heat but it's two superstars in the middle of their prime and yet...I couldn't see them vaulting up an all-time list.

I'm glad I moved away from using championships to evaluate players a long time ago, because I don't envy the mental gymnastics people that like Curry and Durant are going to go through to try and act like these last couple championships should be treated the same as the championships other ATGs have won, and I don't envy the constant need to explain why these championships just aren't as impressive from the people that don't like Curry and Durant...it's just a super tiring back and forth.

I can just sit back and objectively say: Durant is an ISO king that has poor awareness overall, and Curry is arguably the GOAT offensive player in the RS, but clearly can't sustain that level of performance in the PS and thus falls short of the true GOAT offensive players. Both great players, but are definitely not close to a GOAT-level player like LeBron. The fact that they're winning multiple championships means nothing to me, because it doesn't say anything about them as individuals and it's clear that they're winning because they have an unprecedented level of talent on their team, not because there's something uniquely special about them...and like you said, even in the way they've won, it's been with some significant underperformance.

Honestly, in a way, this playoff run has hurt them in a sense. The narrative for Durant went from being a superstar that could seamlessly fit into a great team and make them even better to a guy that breaks their offense and has demonstrated that he clearly doesn't understand what great offense is. The narrative for Curry has clearly transitioned into the fact that he's just not a great PS performer and becomes very mortal compared to his godly RS self. And winning the title doesn't really give them any points due to how stacked they are, while their flaws and the resulting underperformance en route to the title have become pretty obvious.

Largely agreed. Though I think the issues with KD are a lot more glaring. And our valuations of him have been far more off the mark.

Curry is not close to Lebron but IMO is the clear #2 best player in the league. I don’t think that should be a slight to him...Lebron will likely end up as the GOAT following this season and I’m not sure it’ll even be all that close either.

[inDe_eD]

Is it possible for Lebron to win Finals MVP? I don't see any way he doesn't end up averaging a near 40+ points triple double. I could see both Curry and Durant averaging 25. He almost did it in 2015, and the media push this year has been all about Lebron's one man show. IIRC, it's only a small panel of media voters, so he'd just need a slight split in the pro-GS voters, and ~40% of the votes.

[bondom34]

Is it possible for Lebron to win Finals MVP? I don't see any way he doesn't end up averaging a near 40+ points triple double. I could see both Curry and Durant averaging 25. He almost did it in 2015, and the media push this year has been all about Lebron's one man show. IIRC, it's only a small panel of media voters, so he'd just need a slight split in the pro-GS voters, and ~40% of the votes.

I think he does it this year. Durant doesn't have the narrative and played really pooy an Curry wasn't nearly as good either. They can't even give it to the guy defending him if he's putting up 50.