Are you serious? Curry put up the best offensive season of all time even if he missed some games. Of course he is the MVP.
I don't think there is a clear cut definition of MVP. If there was, it would not have been debated so much. that's why I don't think the number of MVPs necessarily define the greatness of a player. The best one can say is that winning an MVP puts you in the same conversation with the few elite players in your generation.
Last year there was an argument between Harden/Curry for the MVP. I personally thought it was Harden. This year without a doubt it's Curry and everyone else far behind. Harden is not even in the conversation and rightfully so.
I wouldn't argue the MVP, but I would argue the unanimous decision. Never had it been done before, and I don't think Curry is GOAT. Kawhi/LeBron/Westbrook/Durant all got snubbed from 1st place vote? I call BS.
It is not the greatest of all time, it is the separation between #1 and #2 and Curry did have the most efficient season ever in the history.
As the creator of this thread, I now have to say Curry deserved to be unanimous MVP. Last year, it was contested. This year it was no question.
You're kidding yourself if you think anybody but Curry had a claim for MVP. It absolutely should have been unanimous.
BS? Which of those players should have gotten a first-place vote? Or are you saying that, because no one has been unanimous before, someone should have purposely cast a vote for someone who clearly didn't deserve it just to deny Curry unanimity? No one was close to Curry this year in terms of overall impact. There have probably been other players, too, who should have been voted MVP unanimously, but just because they weren't doesn't mean Curry shouldn't have been.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">While everyone gushes over Steph, <a href="https://twitter.com/ColinCowherd">@ColinCowherd</a> reminds us Draymond Green is most valuable. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HerdHere?src=hash">#HerdHere</a><a href="https://t.co/ETJc9Ol5XS">https://t.co/ETJc9Ol5XS</a></p>— Herd w/Colin Cowherd (@TheHerd) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheHerd/status/730112313257123841">May 10, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
yes harden was in the conversation last year but i still think it was curry. They had a better record and i feel curry was just slightly better than harden. AGree this years it's not even close with anyone. Harden isnt even in the top 5 or 7 anymore. Curry . . . . Everyone else: Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Westbrook
I don't understand this sort of thinking. If you agree the award is deserved, then essentially you're upset that all the voters agreed with you.
What was wrong with those statement? The Warriors would be an average team, slightly below the Blazers, which won 48 games. Just look at the games Curry missed, the GSW barely won the first two at home, then got beaten convincingly on the road in 3rd game, would have lost 4th if not for Curry's heroic overtime show. I'd say GSW would probably win ~45 games without Curry, that's an average NBA team in my book. It's a common knowledge to most Warriors fans that Thompson had so much talent, but always makes the dumbest mistakes. He is incredibly inconsistent, he can be the best player on the court one game, then like some D-league guy in the next two. He is widely considered the player with the 2nd lowest IQ on the GSW team, just a little above Speights. Both of those observations/statement are still true.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fN_W1UGPCRU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
There isn't a clear cut definition of MVP. Nobody can use one set of logic to explain how Iguodala was the finals "MVP" while Curry is this season's "unanimous MVP". I can't argue against Curry being MVP by itself, but certainly can argue against "unanimous" MVP. MVP should be a contentious award because it's based on value, which has a subjective definition. It's not the best offensive player award. It's the same reason I always argue with people who say Scottie Pippen should have had more MVP awards. It's hard to give MVP to a guy who is a product of so much synergy on a roster, rather than a guy who is carrying a franchise on his shoulders.
How do you argue those things together? Some voters should have voted against Curry, even if they considered Curry the MVP, just to make it non-unanimous? If you can't argue against Curry being the MVP, which voters do you think could have/should have?
It doesn't mean that Curry is necessary better than the guys who won the MVPs before, just the gap between him and the other candidates is wider than former MVPs' era.
