Kemba Walker v. Steph Curry v. James Harden v. Who Cares

I think it means they have a losing record without Curry and have won 21 in a row without Durant.

 

Ok. This doesn't make Curry and Kemba equals. Would just mean the team is loaded. Which it is.

 

No one has said Kemba and Curry are equals. It’s like your main strategy in arguing is to quote your opponents as having said things they’ve never said.

 

Strategy? There is no strategy here. Who needs a strategy when you are debating Curry vs Kemba? Or whoever. This is a layup. Watching you run in circles while convincing absolutely no one is fun however.

 

Reading this exchange is the 8th equivalent of watching competitive midget tossing. I'm not proud of it, but it's such a spectacle.

 

Not really. He said something dumb and has doubled down. Kemba is a fine player but he is not in the same league as Curry.

 

Go back and read the conversation. No one is debating Curry vs. Kemba, and the only person going in circles is you.

Here was my original statement about Steph:

I then added this a short while later:

Then, I brought up other players (including Kemba) in this fashion:

My arguments all along have been:

1. I think Curry falls more into the caregory of Giannis, Davis, and Kawhi than he does with Bron and Durant.
2. Curry benefits greatly from having an awesome team around him and
3. If you replaced him with another great PG, Golden State would not see a significant drop off in their success, not because Curry isn't great, but because the team around him is superb.

Since then, you have made arguments about how horrible GS would be if you just removed Curry, and you're now talking about Curry vs. Kemba, as if I'm saying Kemba Walker is a better player than Curry. I have never once said that.

 

Come on in, the water is fine.

 

Too tall.

 

There's an NYY joke here somewhere. I'm just too lazy to find it.

Either join the debate or let the outcasts of the 8th argue in peace. We don't need your color commentary.

 

Curry's success is predicated on the team around him. Got it.

You'd take a number of lesser players over Curry, despite the fact that none of them have accomplished what he has. Got it.

Take away an all-time great and a guy that has been the foundation for all of their success and replace him with a good PG and there will not be a significant drop off. Got it.

I think that wraps up your take on Curry.

Meanwhile, this loaded super team is getting handled on a nightly basis by teams they would run by 15 if Curry were in the lineup. I'm sure it is just a coincidence.

21 in a row without Durant (24-3 overall) But he is the best player, right? So take the best player off of any team in the NBA for 27 games. See what happens. Probably looks like the current GS slide.

 

He can't talk NBA.

 

I would just like to add that MJ > Leborn

 

Very few players, in the history of the NBA, can say they've accomplished what Curry has accomplished on paper. I'm merely stating that some of his accomplishments aren't as impressive when you look at the additional details. I've even provided examples:

1. Best regular season in history - lost in the finals
2. Two of his 3 titles - came with the 2nd best player in the world as his teammate
3. No NBA Finals MVP's
4. All accomplishments have come with one of the best 3 point shooters in history at his side.

Additionally, while Davis and Giannis haven't accomplished as much as Curry (largely due to not having all-time great teammates), Kawhi has something Curry doesn't in a Finals MVP.

And here you are, missing the mark AGAIN. Yes, the Golden State Warriors are not as good without Curry in the lineup. I have never once said anything to the contrary. The statements you are making don't refute what I am saying at all.

I agree with you. If GS has Curry, they probably win those games. I'd also add that if they had someone like Lillard or Kemba instead of Curry, they probably win those games as well.

But you're also not looking at the whole story. GS has won their last 3 games without both Green and Curry. And while they lost the 4 games prior to that, they were missing Green for 3 of those 4 as well, not just Curry. Plus the whole locker room divide fiasco with Durant and Green.

And in the end, you are still just talking about regular season games, which should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Bottom line, I think you're putting far too much stock into that 4 game slide.

 

1. Back-to-back MVP's. 67/73 wins. 2 Finals appearances, 1 win. You somehow found the negatives in that.
2. And what of the success before Durant? And what of the success against Durant? What about Golden State's record with Durant out?
3. No Finals MVP's? Who is going to tell the 2-time league MVP, 3 -time NBA champion and best shooter who ever lived to kick rocks because of this?
4. Great spot up shooter, thankfully he plays with a guy that keeps the opposing defense occupied while he stands in the corner waiting to shoot open jumpers.

Additionally, here are a few names of uber-talented guys that haven't even won a playoff series, let's call them the Kemba All-Stars. Oh and Curry has some things Leonard doesn't, pretty long list, I will elect to go with unwavering support from his organization. Curry wouldn't be traded for the moon.

Wonder how many games the 2015 and 2016 Warriors win with Kemba instead of Curry. Certainly not 67 and 73. And you can forget making a Finals appearance, let alone winning one.

Oh the locker room is divided because one of the guys who was part of the team that was wiping the NBA before Durant, called out Durant? Saying exactly the same thing I am saying, they don't need him to be better than everyone else.

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelp...aberstroh/steph-curry-warriors-breaking-point

 

I hope you read that article Indy. I was wrong about Curry too. It's ok.

 

Every time I propose legitimate problems with his achievements, all you do is read them back to me. I know what his achievements are. I’m questioning the significance of some based on the details surrounding them, and you’re doing nothing to refute them.

A MASSIVE portion of your argument (and that argument) is based on regular season stuff and obscure stats. I don’t want to get into a huge debate over the validity of these sorts of stats, so I’ll just say I think there are a number of variables the article doesn’t consider, and leave it at that.

As for the second part, why don’t you show me an article that outlines how great Curry is when it matters - in the playoffs, or, more specifically, in the finals? What do his numbers look like compared to his regular season output? How do they compare to Durant’s numbers? Do the same numbers presented in your article shine through in the playoffs and finals?

 

Since we are putting so much weight on regular season performances, I guess I should point out how Toronto needed OT to beat a Warriors team missing both Curry AND Green.

You think adding Green back and a PG currently averaging 27, 4, and 6 on a different team only pushes them to a “narrow” favorite? And they’re still losing to Houston if Houston gets its shit together?

 

Second question is still a simple yes from me, as Houston has 2 of the top 7 or 8 players in the league and the Warriors would not. They took the Warriors to 7 at full strength, and were leading for much of Game 7 too even without CP3.

For the first I'd say they'd be favorites, not narrowly, because I don't trust any of the challengers yet. But to me the 2016 Spurs and Cavs, 2017 Spurs and Cavs, and 2018 Rockets were all at least as good as that Kemba version of the Warriors. If this year plays out like the last three and a team like that emerges, I don't think they are easy favorites.

 

Yes. He scores more in the playoffs than he does in the regular season. This reminds a lot of the period where people said LeBron was "not clutch," because they remembered one or two games where he disappeared, and forgot about all the times where he singlehandedly carried his team to victory in playoff games and Finals games. The same is true for Curry.