Can Steph carry his own team thread.

Irrelevant? You're saying that playing styles are irrelevant? Oh please... Then please explain to me why different methods were created just to measure a player's capability. Advanced stats, PER, etc... If it's so simple as you previously say and not so complicated as I seem to make it, then maybe, you have a better way of measurement. Wow! You must be better than Hollinger and co. I hope Rockets can hire you as their advanced analyst so they can perform better in each free agent signing.

 

I've NEVER said that Klay Thompson wouldn't be a star without Curry. In fact, I've stated countless times that he'd be a star wherever he went.

Please work on your reading comprehension.

However, I do believe that Draymond Green wouldn't be a star without Curry. He would've had a huge defensive impact for however long his prime lasted, but players can be great defenders without being stars (Camby), especially when the defensive contributions aren't statistically reflected in the box score (i.e. league leading rebounding numbers). We all know Green's offensive limitations so there's no need to discuss them.

Again, please work on your reading comprehension. Cmon now. WTF LOL.

 

Why don't you think Curry answered that question in 2014?

 

That would be quite the accomplishment. He doesn't even understand how to round decimals....

 

Oh man. You're amazing. Then tell us why playing styles are irrelevant when it can dictate one's production? . E.g., pace of play, passing, shooting, rebounds... I wonder who's drawing straw. Does it suddenly that a coach and his play style doesn't matter in NBA since what only matters are the players? Maybe you'd like to compare how Harden performs between McHale's and D'Antoni's systems. Here are some stats if you're too lazy to google it...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardeja01.html

 

Well you reacted to my very previous comment which is comparison between A and B. What the hell are you talking about? Did you read my previous comments? Have you read through? Do you want me to paste here all that's been said? Argument is good but ignorance isn't. Of course, production (not only ppg, but all those other stats, both tangible and non-tangible) is all relative to whether a player can carry his team or not. Saying that production isn't a way to gauge this trait is pure B.S.

 

I could take the time to find where you attribute Klay's success to Steph, but it's not necessary because you are still claiming Green wouldn't be a star without Curry, which is quite nuts and INCORRECT, and you still hold on to that incorrect claim. Kinda goes against the whole "I acknowledge when I'm wrong bit". Reading comprehension works just fine. Possibly take your own advice.

 

Then do it. Good luck. I've repeatedly stated that I believe Klay Thompson would be a star on any team.

Again, work on your reading comprehension. With regards to this specific hypothetical, it's literally impossible for my opinion to be incorrect or correct. It's whether or not I can make a compelling argument to support my opinion. And I can. Do you know the key difference between Klay Thompson's skillset and Draymond Green's skillset with regards to this specific argument?

You probably don't, so I'll tell you. Portability.

Klay Thompson can go anywhere and still be an elite shooter and a plus defender. Draymond Green can go anywhere and be an elite defender, but how many teams could utilize his combination of elite passing and poor shooting? Keep in mind, that would require the incumbent star to play significantly more off-ball.

 

wekko368

You believe you have made a compelling argument. You won't admit that it is not compelling. All you are doing is giving your faulty reasoning for why you think you are right. Half of this thread is full of posts with others dismissing opinions that you keep holding onto. Which is why it's laughable that you are typing you can admit when you are at fault. Sure, if you "think" you are at fault. Hardly anyone is agreeing with some of your takes in this thread, ala Green needing Curry to be a star player, but you keep defending them to be correct. That take is laughably nuts.

Again, my reading comprehension works just fine. I'm reading the words of someone that can't realize he is wrong about something, who is being hypocritical.

 

Yes, I believe I've made a compelling argument because you've been unable to make a compelling counterargument.

Most people in this thread are idiots. A few pages ago, you had a guy who thought that 1.9 rounds down to 1.

You're right. Maybe your reading comprehension is fine. Maybe it's your poor critical thinking skills that are the problem. This thread is populated by Harden fans, and Curry has triumphed over Harden in championships, accolades, and popularity. Are you really surprised that people in this thread are looking to tear Curry down?

Regarding Draymond Green, did he look like a star player last year?

 

So what? You are the one who replied to my statement, not me. In case you don't understand that case in point, then ignore my previous comments. Clearly, we're not thinking at the same level. Again, let's go back to where it all started. Tell us why it's so simple to tell who's better between player A and B. Am I really making it complicated by including the playing style their teams are playing? If so, why do those advanced stats, PER, and other methods do include the pace, the position, etc. when comparing players? Out of playoffs? It's still too early to tell. GSW is at the 9th seed. They may have badly performed due to losing most of their core players but they're still on the playoff hunt.

 

Plenty of compelling counterarguments have been made.

And in multiple pages, we have a guy who thinks Green is only a star because of Curry.

Horrible assumptions. Folks can recognize Green's skillsets, and it has nothing to do with Harden. It's the lack of critical thinking to conclude that a player who can pass (and make the right passes) and play elite defense on multiple players, while also not being an offensive liability, wouldn't be fine in numerous other situations. It's a lack of critical thinking to conclude those skills wouldn't translate elsewhere. Or maybe it's just hypocritical stubborn talk.

He's not a top option. As I and others have pointed out numerous times, there are plenty of other stars Green would be great alongside. Dennis Rodman wouldn't look like a star on a team with no primary scoring, etc.

 

Not really. Most of the counterarguments confuse Curry's playmaking with Green's.

And if you look outside the Rocket bubble, you'd see that a lot of people agree with me.

We all saw what he did last year. Did he look remotely close to being a star?

There's a big difference between being "fine" on another team and being a "star" on another team.

Sure, Green can make the right pass, but how often would Green be asked to make the right pass? Most of the stars in the league are ball-dominant. Why would that team want the ball in Green's hands instead of their franchise player's? Hint....they wouldn't.

Not a top option? What an understatement.

You keep saying there are plenty of stars compatible with Green, but have you listed them? Lillard's skillset would be great with Green, but I don't think his ego would allow it. Who else? Harden? Their personalities would clash horribly, and Harden would have Green traded away.

 

Why so frustrated? Is it cause you have to lead a team without all stars and all nba players next to you against a damn good team. Oh you got smacked by 30

 

26 point loss...lmao

both Steph and Kerr looking real fraudulent

Steph’s a better playmaker than Harden tho...lol at some of the dumb sh*t that gets said on here

 

yelling at your teammates when you're 6/16 FG 1/8 3PT 1/2 FT and -19? yikes.