Do you Agree? - Bomani Jones implies Steph Curry no superstar, 'best system player' ever

Is he really that fortunate? As you said, Curry’s specific skill set lends itself to fit in smoothly with just about any other group of great players. In other words, it's easier to build around him than other superstars.

IMO, the way to answer this question is to evaluate his teammates individually. Klay Thompson would be a stud anywhere. No question. But would Draymond Green? Defensively, Green was a beast, but offensively, his skillset is lacking. An undersized defensive-elite PF who can handle the ball and pass but is an underwhelming scorer wouldn't be highly valued on most teams (unless that team was stacked). He was able to flourish in GSW because of Curry/Thompson's off-ball abilities and the fact that defenses were forced to double team Curry when Curry/Green ran pick and rolls.

I would argue that Draymond Green landed in the perfect situation, not Curry.

 

Meh.

Curry is a below to average defender who landed on a team with multiple all defensive caliber players. He plays alongside the player with the 2nd most off ball gravity in the league. For most of that dynastic run he was surrounded by skilled players who could actually do more than sit in the corner.

Draymond was damn lucky to find that team, no doubt, but it’s insanity to not recognize Curry hit the jackpot. And that’s not to say Curry wouldn’t be a top 40-50 player all time had he not been so fortunate.

I think Curry, if health didn’t sideline him, could have also put up some monster numbers in a more Harden like role. I don’t think he would have won any chips with that type of supporting cast. And ranking him in the teens would be laughed at on any all time rankings list.

 

Curry didn't "land" on a good team. When he was a rookie, the Warriors won 26 games. GSW's front office was able to build a good team around him because of his flexible skillset.

Other than the Warriors, how many teams do you think Draymond Green could've joined and been named to an all-nba team?

 

Do you have a time device?

Players never know if theirs is a perfect situation until they have won.....

It is all hindsight.

So when the Worriers weren't playing great, he did not leave.

 

Who ever calls him a system player and not a all-star is a hater. As much i hate golden state, Curry is a absolute monster. Once he sinks couple threes he catches fire so quick and so hard to guard and goes absolute bonkers.

 

I could escape the bubble to taste it

 

Come on dude....

Who was more fortunate with teammates.

Curry or Lillard
Curry or Harden
Curry or Paul
Curry or anyone....maybe ever....

It’s a reality. Just like it’s a reality that he is the best shooter ever.

Green can be exceptionally fortunate in where he was drafted and at the same time be someone that Curry is extremely fortunate to have.

Curry had an exceptional team built around him. Not every star has that opportunity. That exceptional team was then gifted an MVP top 20 all time player in Durant. No one gets that. Ever.

Curry is hands down the most fortunate NBA player of the last 20 years. Really only some of the 80s Lakers or Celtics players have any claim to be more fortunate.

And again. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a great, great player. He was just afforded just about the most ideal situation conceivable.

 

When Lillard was a rookie in 2013, Portland already had LaMarcus Aldridge, Nicolas Batum, and Wesley Matthews. In 2014, they drafted CJ McCollum and added Robin Lopez.

I would argue that Lillard was more fortunate with teammates.

When Harden was a rookie in 2010, the Thunder also had Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka (rookie), and Jeff Green.

I would argue that Harden was more fortunate with teammates.

There's a difference between being the cornerstone of a rebuilding franchise (like Curry was) and being added to a team already full of talent.

If Draymond Green can only flourish with Curry, then it's hard to argue that Curry is "extremely fortunate" to have him.

You're acting as if these things just coincidentally happened to Curry. They happened because of Curry.

Not Lebron? He formed a super-team with Wade and Bosh. And then a lesser super-team with Irving and Love. Not Kobe? The Lakers toiled in mediocrity and were gifted Pau Gasol which immediately elevated them into contender status. Not Durant? He joined a championship caliber Warriors team who just had the best regular season of all-time, and they immediately started winning titles.

 

I don't disagree with what you say. But to say that Curry was extremely luck and to say that he is "the greatest system player ever" are not the same. One can say that guys like Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were extremely lucky to have landed on the Lakers and the Celtics in the late 70s. Were they the greatest system players then? Nobody in the right mind would argue that they were not great players who led talented teams into greatness.

What bothers me about this kind of thing, especially among Rockets fans is this:

1. It inevitably involves comparing this player with Harden. And because of that, it inevitably become unfair dismissal of the player's greatness. It seems that if any players are said to be great, Harden somehow becomes not great. Look at how this forum dismiss Curry, Giannis, Leonard, and yes, Westbrook (before last summer). I get it that the media seem to hate Harden and love all these other players. What's funny is that people keep saying how dumb and ignorant these media personalities are yet continue to care so much about what they say.

2. Focusing on whether a player could carry a crappy team to the playoffs is pretty meaningless. Who cares whether a guy could drag a bad team into the fringe of the playoffs? No player could carry a crappy team to a championship. Not Harden, not LeBron, not MJ, and not Hakeem. To say that these guys could do that is an insult to their teammates. They had GOOD teams and they needed those teammates to win it all. It is much more meaningful to ask, could this guy lead a talented team to championship? Curry has proven that he could.

3. To argue whether a player is a "superstar" is also meaningless. There is no universally agreed definition of superstar. So the debate is doomed from the outset. Everybody simply make up their own definition and then proceed to attack other people's definitions with no objective standard to judge why this definition is better than that definition. This is similar to the MVP debate. I don't even understand why people still care about the MVP award anymore. The definition changes every year.

 

preferably honey nut cheerios

 

Well, they lost two games so they didn't win by 10 each game...

This is too simplistic of an analysis. Iggy's impact on that series couldn't be overstated. The entire series changed when he was inserted into the starting lineup. It's not just about stats.

 

Check out this article:

https://ca.nba.com/news/five-years-...e-iguodala-in-2015/14uqeugs68kg01a8c2zft6803k

 

Looks like some valid points on both sides. But to your point, there was no media conspiracy against Curry, that's just ridiculous.

If Harden averaged those numbers for a series, he would get destroyed.

 

I don't want to go back-n-forth arguing the same points, but I couldn't let this new point slide. You do realize the Warriors PG defense is the reason they lost the series? The Cavs game-plan was to slow the game down and get Curry in isolation because he's a weak defender. When he isn't able to be hidden defensively and actually has to play it, it impacts his jumpshot.

I mean, considering this is how the Finals ended how could one ever make a statement like this?

 

Curry isn't a weak defender. Rather, Irving is one of the best one-on-one players in the league.

Great offense trumps great defense. Is it really so hard to believe that great offense trumps average-to-above-average defense?

 

Again, if Curry were a media favorite, then shouldn't he have received at least 1 vote for a media based award? Especially if they could make a case for it (i.e. outscoring the next highest scorer by 10 ppg)?

I didn't say there was a media conspiracy against him....just that he wasn't a media favorite like you said.

And another thing you may not have considered is that Iggy didn't shut down Lebron by himself. The Warriors play high IQ team defense. If the Cavs only offensive threat was Lebron, do you really think the Warriors would send Iguodala out on an island? There's always going to be help defenders nearby.

 

You're too focused on the numbers man. Iggy changed that entire series. Curry's play, while "fine" statistically, was underwhelming. Everyone saw it in real time, which is why he didn't get a vote. The media loved him in that breakout year, I can't believe you're trying to deny that.

I'm not going to keep replying after this because we're getting nowhere lol.

 

That's fine, don't reply. Your argument makes no sense.

"The media loved Curry so much that he didn't receive a single vote for a media-based award."

And Curry wasn't statistically underwhelming. He had one bad game (game 2) that brought down his overall stats. If you ignore that game, his stats for the other 5 games were great. 27ppg (49% FG, 46% 3pt), 6.6 apg, 5 rpg, and 2 spg.

And you aren't even making a case for Iguodala. Platitudes like "he changed the entire series" are meaningless because they're too vague. You're essentially saying "he deserved it because he won it" which is an intellectually dishonest argument.

 

Yes I’m sure curry would take that Portland team over Thompson, green and Durant.... what?

Green is an all nba defensive player with elite passing skills and can actually dribble. He would be great on any non scrub team.

Yes Harden and his group of baby thunder that didn’t stay together very long is better than group of prime Thompson, Green and Durant? What in the holy hell?

Jesus Christ Curry made all that success happen? What? Thompson is the 2nd best shooter ever and it has nothing to do with curry. Durant is a top 20player all time and it has nothing to do with curry. The cap spike that allowed Durant to join had zero to do with curry.

Absolutely fantastic luck of the draw.

Lebron is fortunate he is the 2nd best player ever. But he didn’t just get drafted to a team and then HOF teammates just showed up. He had to leave his terrible franchise and make a team somewhere else. Because unlucky for him Cleveland was a **** show franchise. Unlike GS.

Curry was/is blessed more than any player ever teammate wise. Doesn’t take away from how good he is. But it does overrate people’s perceptions of him. He could slump and they would still win. Not every player has that luxury.

 

Do you know what the term "landed" means? Curry didn't "land" on a team with Thompson, Green, and Durant.

But Green isn't an offensive threat. So he needs teammates who ARE offensive threats, and most of those guys are ball-dominant. That means, the ball wouldn't be in Green's hands.

Defensively, he'd be great anywhere. Offensively, he's struggle with most places.

Harden landed on a team full of talent in OKC. Curry didn't.

Do you think Klay would get so many open looks if he didn't have the GOAT shooter on his team? Do you think Durant would've joined the Warriors if they didn't have Curry?

The way the Warriors have evolved has EVERYTHING to do with Curry.

Do you think Klay Thompson would be on the HOF trajectory if he were on another team? and Draymond Green? You really underestimate how much Curry makes life easier for Thompson and Green.

He has the most flexible skillset of any superstar in the league which means he's the easiest star to build around. As I said before, you're acting as if these things just coincidentally happened to Curry. They happened because of Curry.