You're contradicting yourself. If GSW can't win a championship without Curry, then they are not an elite team without him.
you expected them to fall apart vs a 41 win team and a 44 win team? No chance they beat the Spurs, thunder or cavs without curry.
It depends on what you mean by elite. I regard OKC as an elite team, although I give close to zero chance for them to win the championship this year. If you are one of top 5~6 teams in the league, by my standard that's an elite team.
I said close to zero, not zero. And unless you can prove your definition is objectively true, you're just playing semantics here.
No salt here, i had some last year but Curry turned me and shut me up! But lbj has more of an impact on teams he is on...look at the teams he leaves everytime. Granted these things cant be accurately measured because each season is different, teammate talent, teams they play ect. The thing with gs is sure they are beating on much weaker teams, however they had no time to adjust to it (which shows how much talent they have being able to carry on) and were winning by margins even greater. Same thing happened with Rose when he went down, but that was because of Thibs keeping them up....if that same scenario happened with Fred they would of fallen off... Curry is mvp no doubt, but his team has the best everything that the armour is barely scratched and can still nearly give anyteam a run and possibly stay contending without him, idk what other team can sustain a blow to there star player and move the way they do.
What you are explaining is basically the concept of win shares, and Curry's WS this season in 17.9 according to basketball-reference.com. That means GSW won 55 games without his help which is 5th best in the league and on par with OKC.
They had plenty of time and yet didn't acquire a good substitute. They replaced Jordan with Pete Myers. That's basically the equivalent of replacing an injured Jordan with a backup.
Not really. When you say that the GSW is an elite team without Curry, then you're downplaying Curry's importance. Generally, "elite" is an adjective used to describe teams that have a realistic shot at winning the championship. It doesn't apply to teams that have a "close to zero" chance of winning the title.
Yeah and that makes my point perfectly well...18 wins is gigantic and led the league. The difference between Curry and #2 (Durant) was the difference between #2 and #10 (Draymond Green). Curry was pretty clearly the most valuable player, even if the team is excellent without him. Excellent team + most valuable player = arguably greatest team ever.
yes, but 93-94 Bulls also newly acquired Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, who, in sum, averaged 27.1 points altogether. Add to that Meyer's 7.9 points and then you can see how the Bulls were able to fill MJ's absence to certain extent. But GSW is basically letting Shaun Livingston to fill Curry's void just by himself. That's crazy, and even more so that their team is kicking ass in the playoffs.
yes, but 93-94 Bulls also newly acquired Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, who, in sum, averaged 27.1 points altogether. Add to that Meyer's 7.9 points and then you can see how the Bulls were able to fill MJ's absence to certain extent. But GSW is basically letting Shaun Livingston to fill Curry's void just by himself. That's crazy, and even more so that their team is kicking ass in the playoffs.
Mostly I see people repeating that the Warriors are fine without Curry... which seems..... TRUE. So you can call it salt, if you want. It's not a criticism of Curry as a player, but rather the award not being what it's named to be.
Regardless of how the team is doing without him, Curry as the MVP this year is as no brainer as it gets. Congrats to him.
If you thought Jim Harden was good, you should've seen what his brother Jeff Harden accomplished. Dude was robbed!
The award is named to be for the most valuable player. The most valuable player can be on a team that has a lot of other talent. Even if they're a 50-55 win team without him, they won 73 games with him. That's gigantic value.
again, prove why your definition is objectively true, or else this is going no where. For instance, if a player is one of top 5 players in the league, but has no shot at becoming the MVP like this year's Durant of Lebron, aren't those guys not considered MVP anymore? that's absurd. If you fall into the upper echelon of any group, you are generally referred to as an elite. I'm just going by common sense here.
