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

Nash hasn't been arguing the Warriors were not the best team right now.

 

Good God Almighty.

 

He stated he would take last year’s Rockets over this Warriors team “comfortably” with Curry swapped for Kemba. He also said if you swapped Curry with Kemba, he’d only take the Warriors narrowly over Toronto and Philly, and that he’d take Houston over the Warriors if Houston “got their shit together.”

Maybe we have different definitions of “far and away,” but I struggle to see how you can state that the Warriors are “far and away” the best team in the NBA, and then turn around and state the above about a 1:1 swap to a guy who’s a better defender, averaging the same number of rebounds and assists, and averaging only 4 less points per game. It doesn’t add up.

Again, this is not me saying that Kemba is better than Curry, or that he’s even as good as Curry. It’s not about that. My point is that he wouldn’t have to be, and the Warriors would still win because they are that good.

If the current Warriors are a 100 on a scale of 1-100, and everyone else is an 85 or below, then a swap that drops the Warriors to a 90 yields the same outcome. They still win.

 

There. There's the disconnect.

 

There’s no disconnect.

So let me get this straight.

1. This year’s Warriors team is “far and away” the best team in the league,

2. but, if you replaced Steph with Kemba, they would be “comfortably” worse than last year’s Rockets......

3. who lost to a very similar Warriors team in last year’s playoffs.

Should I take that to mean last year’s Rockets squad was also “far and away” better than any present year NBA team?

And even if you subscribe to that belief, am I really to believe that the swap from Curry to Kemba is not only enough to close the gap between last year’s Warriors and Rockets, but also enough to make the Rockets “comfortably” better? I don’t see that at all.

And this specification doesn’t respond to the Philly and Toronto comments, nor to the comment about this year’s Rockets.

 

He stated he would take last year’s Rockets over this Warriors team “comfortably” with Curry swapped for Kemba.
As would most people.
He also said if you swapped Curry with Kemba, he’d only take the Warriors narrowly over Toronto and Philly, and that he’d take Houston over the Warriors if Houston “got their shit together.”
As would most people.
Maybe we have different definitions of “far and away,” but I struggle to see how you can state that the Warriors are “far and away” the best team in the NBA, and then turn around and state the above about a 1:1 swap to a guy who’s a better defender, averaging the same number of rebounds and assists, and averaging only 4 less points per game. It doesn’t add up.
Kemba Walker has been a good player for an awful franchise. If you are just split-screening stats between them, sure, you will some equality among them. If you have spent more than 5 minutes watching them play and do not see the very clear and distinct differences between what they provide for their team and the impact they have on opposing defenses then I have no idea what to tell you.
Again, this is not me saying that Kemba is better than Curry, or that he’s even as good as Curry. It’s not about that. My point is that he wouldn’t have to be, and the Warriors would still win because they are that good.
You've certainly established the idea that Kemba is, at the very worst, comparable to Curry. It's non-sense.
If the current Warriors are a 100 on a scale of 1-100, and everyone else is an 85 or below, then a swap that drops the Warriors to a 90 yields the same outcome. They still win.
The article I linked for you at the beginning of all this lays out almost perfectly what I and Nash have been saying all along. Maybe revisit it. Their greatness was and still is predicated on Steph Curry being the greatest shooter who ever lived and stretching a defense out to 30 feet. His impact goes well beyond a stat line.

 

You seem to have it stuck in your head that Kemba, or any other PG, would have to come in and fill Curry’s shoes in the same exact way/role. If you swapped Kemba for Curry, they would change their offense to focus more on Durant and to utilize Kemba’s strengths, rather than trying to make him be Curry. And they would still be really good.

This idea that the Warriors offense falls apart if Curry is gone is ludicrous. Durant has always been able to score. Klay can drop 20, 30, 40 on any given night. What other 3rd scoring option in the league can put up 30 a night with some regularity? What other 3rd scoring option in the league can put up 40+ efficiently? 50+? And you want to talk about articles - I can link you to an article from today that talks about Draymond Geeen being the soul of this dynasty. And again, Kemba is no slouch from a scoring perspective either, even if he isn’t as good as Curry, which he isn’t.

The point is that the team is loaded EVERYWHERE. They have the second best player in the world in Durant, the best 3rd scoring option in the world (by a lot) in Klay, and a number of other key players that contribute significantly to the team’s success.

If Harden has a bad night, the Rockets ain’t winning. If LeBron has an off night, the Lakers ain’t winning. If Curry has an off night, any number of guys has can make up for his lack of production.

And I read your article. Forgive me for refusing to put a ton of stock in a bunch of regular season NBA stats. I’m pretty sure I specifically asked if you could provide the same numbers for their time in the playoffs, but I haven’t seen it come through.

 

Doesn't put a bunch of stock in regular season stats yet is using Kemba [uck fay]ing Walker, who has zero playoff experience, as his proxy for Curry. Compares them using....regular season stats.

Ok. Maybe have someone read the article to you since you are too braindead to understand simple analytics.

You are too stubborn to reason with. A stack of evidence too high for Zion Williams to jump but that isn't enough. It is fine if you think Curry is just marginally better than Kemba Walker.

Enjoy the island.

 

I've read the article and am able to understand it and take it for what it's worth.

Luckily, the island has cable. I'm pretty sure Kemba is perfectly capable of shooting 25% from the field and 20% from 3 while his teammate (the 3rd scoring option on this team) scores 44 and sets an NBA record.

How many top 10 players can shoot 25% from the field and 20% from 3 and still be leading by 30 after the end of the 3rd?

 

GahLee has a point, it’s hard for you to dismiss all regular season stats (which, wtf? Those are the only stats people pay attention to in any sport) and then repeatedly come back with “look at this ONE REGULAR SEASON GAME where they won without a big Curry night, clearly they don’t need him” as your argument.

I’m sure it’ll happen again in like March and you can bump this thread again, pretending as if the weeks and months of Curry being great in between just didn’t happen, or don’t count because regular season.

 

This again?

 

I couldn’t disagree more about your regular season stats comment (ESPECIALLY in the NBA), when it comes to talking about the best players in the world and of all time.

Nobody talks about MJ’s regular season stats. It’s always 6 titles, 3-peat.

Nobody talks about Brady’s regular season stats. It’s always Super Bowl appearances and wins.

LeBron and Durant could win the league MVP every single damn year, and no one would care. Everyone would just ask about rings.

Gahlee’s main criticism of Kemba has been his lack of playoff success, which is fair. My rebuttal is that the story might look a little different if you gave him the 2nd best player in the world and arguably the 2nd best 3 point shooter of all time to work with.

Additionally, I wouldn’t say I’m dismissing Gahlee’s stats. I’m asking if they remain true in the playoffs, which I think everyone would agree is more important. Sure, Curry has the titles, but he has struggled immensely at times during the biggest games. Luckily, when you have guys who can hit 10 3’s in a row as your sidekicks, an off night is a little more forgiving.

Oh please. Are you really going to pretend Steph’s off nights only happen once every 2 months? Or that Klay is just some replaceable role player that only shoots this well because everyone is too busy guarding Curry? The man is averaging 28 ppg in his last 7.

Do I need to go back and highlight playoff games where Curry has been bailed out? Or other games in this season?

And stop downplaying what it was. It wasn’t just “without a big Curry night.” That’s something you’d say about Westbrook’s 6-12, 17 point performance. Curry was essentially a non factor from a scoring perspective, and the opponent still never had even the slightest hope of winning because Klay, the 3rd scoring option, went off.

And the only reason I mention any of this at all is just to reiterate that Curry has a significantly better supporting cast than any other top 5 player currently has or has had in recent memory, as far as I can tell. For me, that takes away from his post season accomplishments.

 

The outrage towards us discussing Steph/the Warriors in the otherwise ghost town NBA thread doesn’t make a lot of sense.

 

More the outrage of you being an absolute retard while bumping this thread with your inane babblings.

 

You don't have to participate

 

Agreed and whoever made a new thread out of it can enjoy moving future posts about it out of the NBA thread.

 

When talk about two players overtakes the thread, it deserves it's own thread. Keep the Harden/Curry/Walker/whatever the [uck fay] you're arguing about talk in here.

 

When I come to see if there's anything new about the NBA and have to sift through 50 posts of this same stupid and tired argument that's gone nowhere in a month, it's beyond just NBA talk and deserves to have it's own thread. Keep this stupid, played-out argument out of the NBA thread

 

Things for the NBA thread:

Things for this thread:

Posts similar to the first 130 that seem to repeat themselves every 24-48 hours.