Curry is definitely the MVP. There's no question there. But it's also true that GSW is really good even without him and 73 wins shouldn't be always attributed to Curry's accomplishment alone.
Sure. Look up the definition of the word "elite". It's the best group or class. That definition is consistent with my use of the word (teams that have a realistic shot of winning the title). It's inconsistent with your use of the word (teams that have a near zero chance of winning the title). Happy?
You can be one of the best and 'still' could have very slim chance at becoming #1 because one or two other teams or players are that much dominant. By your own logic, there is only one 'elite' player in this league in Curry since he is projected to win the MVP unanimously. So, Lebron is not elite, Durant is not elite, Westbrook is not elite, Kawhi is not elite, Chris Paul is not elite, etc. That's your definition of elite.
Sorry, but your MVP analogy is terrible. There are simply too many variables that you're failing to consider.
Sure thing. A great individual player doesn't necessarily correlate to a great team. Look at the 2006 Lakers with Kobe Bryant. Bryant averaged 35 ppg but wasn't a legitimate contender for MVP b/c the Lakers only won 45 games. Similarly, a great team doesn't necessarily have an MVP contender on it's roster. Look at the 2015 Hawks. Or the 2004 Pistons.
Congratulations to Curry...Just an incredible player. He does things on a regular basis that you hardly see in the NBA.
that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. explain why a team that is one of the best record wise (like top 5~6) can't be called elite because there are 1 or 2 teams that are so much more dominant that no other team has realistic shot at winning the title, but at the same time there can be several elite players in the league when literally no one has a realistic shot at MVP besides Curry. what's the difference
Because "elite" is an adjective reserved for the best teams. If only 2 teams have a realistic shot at winning the title, then the league only has 2 elite teams. The difference is that the best player in the league doesn't always win the MVP whereas the best team in the league wins the championship (barring injury). That's the flaw in your MVP analogy. The MVP award considers team success before considering individual greatness.
Are you suggesting Curry has not been overwhelmingly the best player this season? It doesn't necessarily have to pertain to MVP, I'm talking about the best player in essence. Can you name few other players who realistically have been better than Curry this season? If not, you still have to explain why there are several elite players in this league, instead of just one.
You seem to have some problems with your reading comprehension. What could've possibly led you to this ridiculous question? Does the same team win the championship every year?
Stop evading my question. Was Curry overwhelmingly the best player or not? Are there other players who had realistic shot at being the best player this season over Curry? If not, why are there several elite players instead of just one?
how can anyone even put up any argument against curry for MVP this season? No one even comes close.. Best player on one of the best teams in NBA history!! Lebron had a very modest season for his standards. Westbrook and Durant had solid seasons but not better than Curry. Kawhi was awesome but the spurs have always been more about a team game and you just cant compare Kawhi's offensive numbers against curry and we all know thats one of the key things people look at.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Draymond on Steph as MVP: 'I kind of felt bad today, because I didn’t tell him congratulations. Because I felt like I knew since December.'</p>— Monte Poole (@MontePooleCSN) <a href="https://twitter.com/MontePooleCSN/status/729754818936365056">May 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Interesting fact : Harden dropped 46, 45, 34 and 33 against Portland this year to Lillard's 31, 23, 23, and 21. Houston and Portland each won twice out of four match-ups. Seems like one guy had to do more work individually just to even out the series.
At the beginning of the season, yes. There were plenty of candidates. However, as the season progressed, Curry separated himself from the pack and became the overwhelmingly best player in the league. He ultimately had one of the greatest seasons of all-time. If you believe that 2016 is Curry's new baseline, then yes, he would be the only elite player in the league until other players rise to his level. However, if you believe that Curry's baseline is lower (i.e. 2015), then "elite" players would include other players who have a comparable baseline.
^ he had to do more because Harden doesnt make anyone around him better. Lillard is a true PG and led his team to a better record with less talent. Do you have the assist numbers from those games?
There you go, So, Lebron Durant Kawhi Westbrook CP3 were not elite players this season by your standard. Many would disagree with you, so you shouldn't really force that definition onto others.
yes, Harden 11 11 8 3 to Lillard 10 9 7 2. and there's more simpler explanation, which is Portland has more offensively talented players than Houston. Their second guy averaged 20.8 points per game. Our second guy averaged 13.7.
