One thing is certain though we can't have Harden closing out games because he's not clutch enough to be a closer.
I love this critera. Are you saying Kevin Martin is a superstar? Superstars make shots or make plays when their team needs them the most. Superstars are CLUTCH.
Kevin isn't getting to the line anymore. He's a role player. Nate Robinson is "clutch" so I guess he's a superstar.
Most bizarre comparison ever. Harden isn't the one making "excuses". WE ARE. And yes, I've personally seen fans of the Lakers, Thunder, Cavs and Heat make "excuses" for the aforementioned three players. Most were justified. There are reasons for players to struggle. You're right; those players gave it their all every time on the court. Harden is doing that right now. He just had a bad game. It happens. Want perspective? Let's use one of the players you listed. In Kevin Durant's third year, he led the league in scoring (30.1 PPG on 47.6% shooting) and took OKC to the No. 8 seed, where they faced No. 1 LA. Want to guess what Durant's line was in that series? 25 points and 7 rebounds... on 35.0% FG, 28.6% 3-point FG, 3.7 turnovers and 2.3 assists. Somehow Durant was just fine in the ensuing postseasons and reverted back to his career norms. Pretty sure Harden will, too.
I love these threads in a different way though. When in 2 years we come looking back and we make fun of old posts from posters. Can't wait.
Well, look at it this way, a player can make 3 of 10 shots for 30%, but if that same player can score 20 points with FG's and FT's on only 10 shots. That's pretty damn good amiright? That's Harden in a nutshell, he's no Durant but he's also no Carmelo.
Ehhh. I'd take Curry over Harden. Harden's game is predicates solely on getting the whistle. Curry makes shots regardless if he gets to line or not
It really is amazing what a perfect parallel that is. The only difference is that Harden has technically played in the postseason before, while that was Durant's first time. But this is Harden's first time as a high-usage, go-to option, so he's basically starting anew. And it is the first time in the postseason for almost all of his teammates. It's long forgotten now, but I remember a few folks back then prematurely calling Durant an overrated chucker. Fact is, there's a learning curve to postseason basketball as an alpha dog, particularly when you're going against a No. 1 seed with a great perimeter defender (Artest then, Sefalosha now) and very good shot blocker (Bynum then, Ibaka now). Durant was all the better for his experience, and I'm sure Harden will be as well.
Even if you take free throws completely out of the game, which is asinine, Curry averaged 8.0 made shots per game while Harden was at 7.5. That's a whopping difference of 0.5 shots per game (oh, and Curry had to shoot more attempts to even get that tiny separation). If you think Curry's extra 0.5 shots made per game outweighs the fact that Harden scores more points on fewer shots and has a superior PER and TS%... I think you don't know that much about basketball.
I'd take Curry if it wasn't for his ankle. He may not be able to give you the ft ability or slashing ability that Harden provides but after those two traits he's really better at everything else imo.
If not for being able to slash and get free throws, Glen Rice was a better NBA player in the mid-to-late 1990s than Grant Hill. As it is, though, those are two extremely crucial skills for becoming an NBA star.
If we have Curry instead of Harden, we're watching OKC play the Jazz because we're not in the playoffs.
