Yup, I was just checking the game logs - it's comical how few big nights the rest of the Rockets have had. The only guys who even came close to 30 was Motiejunas and Brewer who both hit 26, once. Ariza hit for 24, twice. Jones hit 21 once. Jason Terry hasn't even broken 20 this season. And his strength is scoring. Beverley's season high is 20 (once). That's a good quarter for Klay Thompson. Hell Draymond Green hit 31 this year.
Every time someone makes this point, it completely diminishes the season that the Warriors are having. You say if they swapped Curry for Lowry they'd still be "good". Well, they aren't simply "good" now. They are having, by any measure, a great season. If they were just a couple of games ahead of 2nd place, had a run of the mill point differential, weren't #2 in Offensive Rating and #1 in Defensive Rating, and didn't boast a 38-2 home record, then maybe you'd have a point. They aren't any of those things, though, so your point falls flat. You can't punish Anthony Davis for his team being a borderline 8 seed, then turn around and punish Steph Curry for his team being historically good.
I'm inclined to agree. People act like the Warriors likely record of 67-15 isn't on some otherworldly level primarily due to Curry. The guy is a walking cheat code and admitting that doesn't take away from Harden. harden in his own right is a cheat code on offense everytime he attacks the basket. But it gets annoying when people downplay Curry by saying the Warriors are stacked when the entire Western conference is pretty damn stacked. And yet at the same time you won't hear anyone compare this Golden State team to the best teams in NBA history because then it doesn't fit the agenda of discrediting Curry. Homers here would have you think replacing Curry with Harden on golden state would create a team capable of sweeping the 1996 Bulls.
Let's not pretend like the West ended up being as deep as it appeared in preseason. Preseason there was a chance of multiple 50-win teams missign the playoffs, but that didn't come close to being true. Quality dropped off markedly after the 2-6 bunch, with the disaster in OKC being the primary reason but also Phoenix and Dallas seriously underperforming expectations. Furthermore a second legit contender emerged out of nowhere in Atlanta that held its own against most West teams.
Yeah. Harden > Jordan Klay > Pippen Draymond > Rodman Bogut > Longley Livingston > Harper Iggy > Kukoc Kerr > Phil
His point doesn't really fall flat sir. His point wasn't that if you replace Curry with say Lowry that the GSW would be great but rather they'd still be a good team. It's pretty simple to understand. Obviously Curry's play(as well as Klay's play this season, Bogut's health, Draymonds emergence and Kerr on the bench) all factor into the great Warriors season so far and not merely Curry's play. His point wasn't that they'd still be the #1 seed but I'd wager his point is that they'd still be a playoff team most likely contending for one of the top 4-6 spots. Also, why bring Anthony Davis into this seeing as Harden is being punished in a way for his team not being the #1 seed and having a historically good season. The issue most have with Anthony Davis isn't merely his team being in the 8th spot but also the fact that Curry and Harden have stayed healthier over the course of the season and have played more games.
So Zach Lowe chooses Curry over Harden because we just don't know. 1. It is a huge leap from being a good team to being a contender. 2. Curry is the thing that takes the Dubs from being an interesting team to a colossus. 3. Harden could thrive in a motion heavy offense, but hasn't been able to show it this year; and Curry is a bigger threat off the ball so "less prone to holding it while everyone else stands around". It is hard to say choosing Curry is wrong because the two are so close this year. But it does seem unfair to Harden somehow. He did all he could, with what he had, yet the questions remain about whether he could lead a good team to the heights Curry has led the Warriors. My favorite quote of the article though: "Harden maintained his killer play over those extra minutes, fighting off fatigue and the mental anguish of having to drive every clutch possession against defenses overloading against him. His extra counting stats — more points, more free throws, more rebounds — absolutely matter in that sense."
Harden showed that he is capable of playing off great players, of spot shooting, of making smart plays, and of beasting as a one man wrecking crew in his time in OKC and Houston. I don't think there's any question as to how good this guy is. Throw whatever hypothetical you want out there, Harden will ace it. He is the MVP (I'm a little biased so what)
How much of Golden States success is due to Currys presence on the court? He could just stand there and teams have to account for him. Usually teams account for Harden when he has the ball but don't respect his set shooting ability nearly as much as Currys. While Harden has obviously kept this engine running despite a flawed roster, his playoff shortcomings continue to haunt him, fair or not.
he picked the guy he liked more, we know that's how it works For people to pick Harden, they absolutely must feel that Harden was better because if it's a tiebreaker in people's minds, they pick the one they like more That's how pretty much all votes work. One thing i've come to notice over the years is that when someone is writing an article and their basis is emotional attachment (and its become more prevalent now the media doesn't really have editors that well, edit), they will plant self contradictions they're unaware of. How can you on one hand claim that applying counterfactuals serves the purposes of creating a preferred ending and then apply it so liberally that it'd cause a politician to smile? In times gone past, or maybe in journalistic circles that aren't so tabloid rubbishy that sort of thing would be sent back, not so much anymore.
I honestly don't understand why people don't like Harden more than they do. Is it that they haven't seen him play enough - given that his playoffs time has been more limited and less awe inspiring than other MVP candidates? Or that he started out being a 6th man. I don't see how you could NOT like Harden, how you could not be blown away -- not just by his iso's and clutch performances -- but his genius passing skills, the general coolness of the Beard, and the fact that he is doing all of this at the age of 25 and without the physical advantages of someone like A Davis.
He has something of a point. Obviously those players aren't greater than those other players, but a 71 win season, assuming everyone stayed healthy, wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility if Harden and Curry switched places.
That's where I disagree based on team chemistry. The Warriors are a well-oiled machine, much like the Spurs are. Curry is the biggest gear, but they are essentially a balanced attacking and defensive team. They need Curry to be exactly as he is (elite shooter and playmaker) to over-achieve. The Rockets on the other hand need an elite scorer and finisher like Harden rather than a an elite shooter and above average attacker like Curry because of their makeup. Thus, if you swapped Curry with Harden it's likely both teams suffer in the W/L department. It's also much more likely Harden's usage rates and offensive volume stats would suffer, whereas Curry's usage would skyrocket but his shooting percentage, turnovers, and overall efficiency would likely drop. MVP is an individual award, but it's very team dependent because a superstar has to play in the right system that caters to his strengths. If Houston were to trade Dwight, Bev, Brewer, and Josh Smith for Kanter and Westbrook for example, then we'd probably still have roughly the same record but with Harden's MVP candidacy diminished.
Huh? What does the Warriors having a great season have to do with Curry by himself? Curry is amazing, but at the end of the he isn't the heart and soul of the GSW team, rather he's the arguably the best player in a collection of great parts, there were lots of times where you have guys like Klay Thompson, Iggy and Bogut/that PF they have suddenly go ape**** and lead the team to victory. In fact if you ask me I'd say the number 1 guy opponents need to lock down is Klay Thompson, he's IMHO the most important and deadliest weapon on that squad, not Curry. Not sure why you suddenly think the replacing Curry with Lowry argument falls flat, the reality is even if you replaced those two guys GSW would still be a number 1 seed. On the other hand if you replaced Harden with another SG (even someone like Klay Thompson), with the injuries the Rox have had I don't think they even make the playoffs. So if you ask the question who has been the biggest difference maker on their team, a guy who makes a number 1 seed a great number 1 seed or a guy who turns a lottery team into 2nd/3rd seed? In comparison Davis and WB are in similar situations and can only bring their teams to the 8th seed. So nobody is punishing Davis or WB for being on bad teams, it's just that the reality is Harden has produced more for his team than the two of them despite being in the same situation, hell his pts total this season tops everybody else by a couple hundred easy. So at the end of the day unless your criteria for MVP is the single best player this season (which would be LBJ), the MVP award should go to Harden. Giving it to Curry this year would be like when Dirk won his MVP over TD/KG and a few others or when DRose won his MVP over LBJ or when the Admiral won his MVP over Hakeem. It's just a case of rewarding a guy being lucky for getting drafted to a top team over somebody's individual achievements. If this is how it's gonna go down then rather than working on his game Harden should work on getting traded to GSW, if he goes to GSW and Curry comes here is Harden suddenly the MVP in your eyes? Because he's now on a great team that is the first seed and have a ridiculous record on the road, obv he's the MVP
