I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. You earlier stated that without Curry, GSW would still be an elite team. You further said that a GSW team w/o Curry had a "near zero" chance of winning the title. And despite this obvious contradiction, you've continually maintained that both statements are correct.
It's a contradiction only due to your made-up definition of elite. You still didn't answer how there can be several elite players in the league like Lebron or Durant, when it's clear Curry has been the best player this season and others have "nero zero" chance at being the best player.
The definition I gave you came from dictionary.com... If we're creating tiers with "elite" being the top tier, then for 2016, the only elite player was Curry. As you stated earlier, Curry was overwhelmingly the best player in 2016. As such, Lebron/Durant would be in a tier below Curry.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Shaquille O'Neal came the closest to being a unanimous MVP winner in 2001 with 120 of 121 possible votes.</p>— Arash Markazi (@ArashMarkazi) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/730066470462328833">May 10, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So glad I didn't accidentally vote for Seth Curry on the drop-down menu.</p>— Zach Lowe (@ZachLowe_NBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ZachLowe_NBA/status/730065622521024512">May 10, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
no, that does not support your definition at all. and if you think the "only" elite player has been curry, then fine but you are in the minority so don't force your definition onto others, because majority of people disagree, and that's why your definition of elite team is also problematic.
is it a joke that curry is the first unanimous mvp or that there haven't been other unanimous mvp's? because it has to be one of them.
It does. Look it up. I think that in 2016, Curry was in a tier by himself, and I think the majority of people would agree. And once again, my definition of "elite" comes from dictionary.com. You're the one misusing it by saying that a team that has a "near zero" chance of winning a title is an elite team.
his team doesn't even need him in the playoffs? GWs could be 1-3 against Portland without him. Yes those Trailblazers are playing well, but still they are not a elite team. Had CP3 and Griffin not gone down, they could've been swept by the Clippers.
i already did, and it didn't support your definition. and saying "curry has been on a different tier" and "hence, other guys are not considered elite" is totally different thing. ask other ppl whether they agree with the second statement.
If the "elite" tier is the best possible tier, and 2016 Curry was so overwhelmingly good that he was in a tier by himself, then logically, he would be the only player in the "elite" tier for the 2016 season.
