ShotCreator wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:eminence wrote:
I'm sure Doc or fpliii or Chuck or BG or drza or ElGee or etc could have plenty of good discussion involving both individual players and their team success.
Nobody in this thread has pushed for any Suns players to be serious MVP candidates.
And it's not a method. But yet another discussion point. Calling it a method is bordering on insulting too.
So, been meaning to chime in here.
I'm seeing a wave of people who are really, really bothered by Jokic not getting more respect as an MVP candidate, and I largely have no interest in arguing the other side. I'll state unequivocally that Jokic's missed time is hurting him in my assessment so far, but that he's rising quickly when he plays and I could see him taking the lead for me quite quickly. Beyond that, I have had a massive crush on Jokic's game the entire time he's been in the league and I'm cheering him on like crazy.
On the other hand, while it doesn't bother me if people put Jokic above Curry on their list - because I find Jokic to be so damn amazing - it continues to just plain exasperate me the way people consistently a) underestimate how well his team is going to do and then b) try to use the rest of the team - that they dismissed before the season - as a cudgel for tearing Curry down.
More broadly it drives me nuts the way people don't seem to have the foggiest idea how the Warriors' actually achieve such success, but manage to seemingly attack each of the main drivers of the team's success on the grounds of "If I get grasp tangibly how that player/coach is leading to success, it must be because they are getting carried by everyone else around them."
I love that Gary Payton II is having success, but the fact that I'm literally seeing people say that Curry is lucky to be playing with Payton is just infuriating.
So all this to say, I don't mind Curry not being #1 on anyone's list, but I can't participate in more discussions with folks who still don't get how to evaluate Curry all these years later without quickly losing my cool. As with many things in society, those that don't want to see something new will find a way to stay blind.
The Warriors were a +1 team last year.
They’re up to +12 now. What could Curry possibly do to be responsible for that kind of shift?
If Draymond got hurt and his minutes were taken up by Wiseman, who was probably the worst player in the NBA last year, Curry would have no more NVP hype than last year. Curry is a on a historically good defensive team, what credit does he deserve that I’m not seeing?
The majority of why the team is good is because of a side of the ball he has relatively no impact on. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
Focus less on individual impact assessment, it's leading you astray.
What's happening this year is a team that's fully in sync with how they are supposed to play on both sides of the ball based on a) Kerr's philosophy, b) Curry's shooting, and c) Green's defense. The result is the team that's been the best in the league this year despite not adding any players who anyone considered to be massive value-adders by any franchise in the league prior to - perhaps - right now.
Re: Wiseman probably the worst player in the NBA last year. He didn't fit effectively with the Warriors' way of playing as a rookie and was only getting major minutes and primacy because they were prioritizing his development over winning.
Re: If Draymond gets hurt. I have no interest in knocking Draymond. What I'd urge folks to recognize is that the Curry-Draymond duo is the backbone of what's produced the best team basketball we've seen in this millennium, and so using one to talk as if the other isn't that special to me misses the point. Doesn't mean Curry needs to be everyone's MVP in this or any other year, but you don't get the best team by having one guy out there by himself.
And yes, traditionally that means guys who have bad luck with their teammates don't do so well in the MVP voting. I applaud you and others for looking to buck that trend, but would also urge caution when minimizing what it takes to be the top player on an incredible team.
Re: Team's strength is not Curry's strength. This is a thing I tend to examine pretty closely because if deeper reads follow the superficial, I consider it quite damning. The implication of the superficial argument though is that if you look closer at the +/-, the star in question won't look that impressive compared to his teammates.
At present, here are the Warriors' leaders in +/-:
Curry +327
Green +174
Wiggins +172
To say that Curry is standing out on a drastic degree is an understatement - folks please don't come back with Jokic or others standing out similarly as if that rebuts my point. My point is not that Curry has to be #1 on people's list, but that it's very, very, very clear that Curry is standing out from his teammates on a level that is not just up to norms for stars on teams with great records, but well ahead of them.
You can be more impressed by other guys, but if you're not gasping over Curry's impact, you're not looking closely enough.
I also can't emphasize enough:
1. GS is choosing to surround Curry with defense-oriented guys, because of what Curry can do on offense. That doesn't make Curry better as a defender, but it does mean that his presence is part of what enables this defense to exist as it does.
2. Defense is not offense. On offense your #5 guy collects dust. On defense, he's the target. That makes him far more critical to the overall success of the side. The league is full of bucket-getters who impersonating sieves on defense, what all of those guys have in common is that they aren't #1 minutes guys on historically dominant defenses. Curry should be getting some (if only a modest) amount of credit here, and instead it's actually being held against him that he's a successful part of a great defense.
). Both defensive rebounding and limiting turnovers helps to limit quality offensive possessions for the opposing team.
