thekdog34 wrote:
The question is whether Curry's supporting cast was that strong that they should have been so utterly dominant, or was it because he was so good.
I'd say it's pretty much a resounding yes.
A superstar + 2 all-stars+ 1 All defense big + the best bench player in the league (by a decent amount)+ a starting caliber SF + 10 players deep in the bench + no injuries = pretty stellar season. I mean to make it seem like Curry could do that but no other superstar could - then well, prove it. What other team had that make up?
Think about it - take the 1986 Boston Celtics. They have a superstar, 2 all-stars, a deep bench - they're considered one of the most stacked teams all time. They "only" won 67 games - so they were 3 games removed from the arbitrary number of 70. Yet
they don't even fit that criteria because Kevin McHale was hurt that season - if McHale played 10 games more, would his presence help them win 3 more games - ...probably. That's how cut throat that measure is, but if we just use the confirmation bias argument then the real reason why the Warriors won 73 games and the 86 Celtics "only" won 67 games is because Curry is so much more dominant than Larry Bird.
Now, you could make other arguments why Curry was better than Bird in the RS. But I have
never been convinced that superstars are that much better than other superstars - teams win, not superstars.
People downplaying Curry now have to say klay and Draymond are really, really good. Otherwise how were the pre-durant warriors so good?
Klay Thompson and Draymond Green
are really really good - how is this even a question? I know it is fashionable to beat on them because they're not the bees knees this season, but if you asked this 2 years ago people would scratch their heads.
Even with Paul healthy last year (and healthy Paul is better than either Klay or Draymond), and with one of the best defenses in the league plus a great bench, the rockets really didn't reach that level, although they came surprisingly close to beating them in the WCF.
You said they never reached that level when they pretty clearly did otherwise they wouldn't have had the success that they had. The Rockets success
are comparable to the Warriors success, not sure how people are not seeing this. Also, the Durant era Warriors would beat the Curry era Warriors in a series (this is pretty self evident by what we have seen in the post season), so the Rockets nearly beating the Durant era Rockets is even further proof that they certainly "played" up to the 16 Warriors.
You are also ignoring they lost Mbouh Moute. Everyone knows CP3 is better than Draymond Green - but the Warriors have
Draymond Green AND Klay Thompson, and also an army of good players after them. The Rockets were deep also, but not 10 people deep(and deepness is important for RS wins) - there is a reason why people thought the Rockets were not a real threat to the 2018 Warriors until deep in the playoffs even though that proved to be a gross underestimation of their abilities.
The Houston Rockets and 16 GSW have almost the same ORTG
with CP3 missing 1/3rd of the season. The main advantage the 16 Warriors have over the Rockets was defense (104 DRTG to 106 DRTG), and the defensive gap between Curry and Harden isn't enough to cause 2 points of a teams defensive DRTG. Explain that.
Again - I am not saying Harden is better than Curry. But I
am challenging this notion that Curry is better than Harden because he made the 16 Warriors better than the 18 Rockets
because it doesn't seem like to me they were better at all. The argument the 16 Warriors have over the 18 Rockets seems very surface leveled. If the 18 Rockets had comparable health to the 16 Warriors there would be basically no difference between them other than the Rockets would have higher ORTG but lower DRTG and the Rockets might have a title.
