It's incredibly weird how you just pick and choose things to fit with your logic, and then come up with an explanation after the fact to make the logic fit. As far as I can tell, you spent a ton of time arguing that Curry is a great playmaker because he has gravity, and that playmaking shouldn't be limited to just "traditional" definitions. So a guy that can move off the ball well and pull in defenders is a great playmaker in your definition. Now here you are, in an attempt to play down other players' playmaking skills, are now saying that tempo doesn't matter for playmaking, even though you literally refer to it as a "game-management tool". Apparently, being able to manage the game is not a form of playmaking, but being able to move without the ball is.
The objective of playmaking is to create plays for teammates. I've explained how Curry's off-ball movement accomplishes this. Tempo is a form of game management which, to me, isn't playmaking. I don't see how tempo creates plays for teammates. If you see a correlation, can you explain it? This is the problem with Harden-fans and Curry-haters. I take the time to explain my positions. I explained why I believe off-ball playmaking qualifies as playmaking. They don't. They make declarative statements and consider that to be their argument. RudyTBag didn't explain why he thinks tempo is a component of playmaking. He just said "it is a massive component of playmaking" and left it at that. And since it reinforces something Curry-haters want to believe, they agree with it, despite it being an incomplete argument. Similarly, look at Icehouse and his supporting cast argument. I've been saying all season long that GSW has a weak supporting cast. I've gone through the roster, player by player, pointing out their strengths and weaknesses. I've compared GSW roster to other rosters, player by player, to demonstrate the inferiority. What does Icehouse do? He says "they're good enough" and leaves it at that. At the beginning of the season, you had Curry-haters crowing about acquiring a "proven" player like Oubre and having #2 pick Wiseman. After the Warriors got eliminated, do you think these same people pointed out that Oubre and Wiseman didn't play in the later part of the season and the play-in games? Of course not. Their argument immediately goes to "Curry wasn't good enough". They're blind to their own double standards. Yet the idiots in this thread think I'm the one losing arguments? I've been wrong about two things in this thread. I originally underestimated how good Wiggins would be (he had a career year), and I overestimated Draymond Green's defensive regression (he was great defensively, but clearly not as good as he was a few years ago). Everything else? Right as rain.
If we're going to use your logic, then being able to control the tempo means you know how to speed up the game, push the pace or slow things down, all of which are important factors to ensure your team is placed at the best opportunity to score. This is playmaking. If you have athletic players on your team that are deadly in the fast break? Push the pace and make the team run more so they can score. If you have a slower team that thrives at the half court? Slow down the game so the team can get in position and run half court sets. Most people logically wouldn't assume gravity is playmaking, but "to you" it is. Yet here, "to you" tempo isn't playmaking. If you want to argue that it's just your opinion, and that your opinion of the term playmaking is different to others, then that's fine. However, don't you think it's a little arrogant to re-define a "traditional" definition of a basketball term, then suddenly claim domain over all definitions of it? That's not arguing in good faith, that's just arguing. You honestly could just say "My opinion of playmaking is different, so based on the traditional definition of playmaking, Curry isn't a good playmaker. Based on my definition however.......". Try leading with that next time instead of just redefining something, claiming your definition is correct, and then saying you win the argument.
At the end of the day, just like Harden gets heat for not having a ring by daring to challenge an all time team, Curry gets deserved heat for not dragging his team to the playoffs. It can't be argued, Curry is not an elevator of talent like Harden and he definitely couldn't carry his own team.
Incorrect. This is not playmaking. Even by your own explanation, this is not playmaking. Managing tempo to allow for playmaking is not actually playmaking. Do you understand the difference? Managing tempo doesn't cause defensive breakdowns nor does it create scoring opportunities for teammates.
Would Draymond Green be in the HOF without Curry? And Curry led several Warriors teams to the playoffs before they became a super team. Why aren't those considered "carry" jobs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014–15_Golden_State_Warriors_season This was Kerr's first season, and yeah if you will Curry and Thompson carried the offensive load. It doesn't even matter because basketball isn't about carrying a team by one individual year in year out. Why not make the NBA one on one then. You do it in stretches and hope your co-star (s) work out, having the iota of luck. That is like saying, hey, we have a top hybrid tank but no DPS to get over the hump, but you have 2 of the best DPS. (Damage per second) Lebron is a Swiss Army Knife but he is not the most clutch player in history, he needs scorers/shooters around him. (The Nets are considered Durant's team barring his injury in the Playoffs.)
Stop the blabbing Curry is the greatest shooter of all time. Period. For every other PG attribute he is above average/borderline all-star. No more than that. Add that WITH TERRIBLE body for defense. The result of that: he can't carry a team by himself
who said it's about it? there's nothing wrong in wanting to know if a superstar can carry his team to the playoffs
He didn't this year, which is the purpose of the thread, and last year was even worse. 2 years of playoff failure in a row and has demonstrated he can't be successful without multiple all stars. He hasn't carried his team and Harden has yet to miss any playoffs. Clear-cut case. Great that you love your hero, but the numbers don't lie.
So you're punishing Curry for breaking his hand last year and then GSW tanking because of it? Seems like a reach. Your logic is bad. He's already reached the playoffs without multiple all-stars. If the Nets win the championship this year, do you think the following is a fair statement: "Harden can't win a title unless he's playing with 2 franchise players, 3 former all-stars, and role players who shoot 3 pointers at an elite percentage."
Just stating cold hard facts. Curry is brittle and can't carry a team without multiple all stars into the playoffs. And yes, just like Curry, Harden has demonstrated he can't win without multiple all stars (if he wins) but he has never missed the playoffs, not once. Curry simply cannot carry teams. Facts.
Except he's already done that. So again, your logic is bad. No, I didn't limit it to "multiple all-stars". "Harden can't win a title unless he's playing with 2 franchise players, 3 former all-stars, and role players who shoot 3 pointers at an elite percentage." Assuming the Nets win the title this year, do you think that's a fair statement?
There's nothing wrong in wanting to know, but there's plenty wrong with some of the conclusions based on that knowledge.
@wekko368 You want to tell us who on that team is better than the current GS team. Do a side by side.
Isn't that the roster that came back from a huge deficit in an elimination game against the Clippers in game 6 while Harden was on the bench? I really don't get why Harden-fans insist on using that roster to demonstrate a weak supporting cast. Clippers game 6 destroys that argument.
My definition of play making is having a large booty. I therefore conclude Kim Kardashian is the best play maker in the league and therefore can carry a team
Like I said, I love your irrational and delusional support for your hero, but facts are facts. Curry has missed the playoffs 2 years in a row and was only successful in the playoffs while being supported by multiple stars. If Harden wins, it will be the same case, but he has proven to never miss the playoffs and always carries his team. Curry hasn't, so thus the answer to the thread. Good ceiling raiser, not able to carry. Simple facts.
