I am not a Curry fan. I am really happy he failed and the cavs won. However Curry is clearly better than Irving. Both are terrible defenders. Curry the better scorer and playmaker. At what I Irving better? You can argue that he is better at getting his own shot (I do not think this is true) of and atacking the ring, but this does not lead to more assist or points or higher FG% (even though Curry shots much more 3 pointers). So at what is Irving better? I do not think Irving could be the main guy on a team that wins a championship (or even make a huge play off run).
I understand your points but: Better ball handler: Irving Better defender: Irving may not be the greatest defender and has been awful in the past but he put in work on that end in the finals Irving is clearly better at attacking the rim and is a better a finisher (I know Curry had an insanely high fg% around the rim but the finals showed that Irving is the greatest finisher in the league). Irving is lethal from mid range, Curry is allergic to the mid range game. As for the better playmaker argument: Curry averaged 3.7 assists per game in the finals, Irving 4. Curry also averaged 4.3 turnovers a game in the finals. That's just awful. Over the regular season Curry averaged 6.7 assists per game as the primary ball handler of the team and having a similar USG % to Harden. Irving played second fiddle to LEBRON JAMES and still averaged 4.7 assists per game. So I respectfully disagree that Curry is the better playmaker, if anything it's been shown he's not particularly creative with the ball when you play exceptionally disciplined team Defense against him. As for the better scorer, Irving is the second option. Irving scored at will in the finals, Curry shot 40% from the floor. Sure, I agree that Irving couldn't be the number one option for a championship team but neither could Curry this season. He also has the luxury of playing alongside klay Thompson and Draymond Green who can go off at any moment and any night. So apart from being the better shooter, why is Curry clearly better? There's really not a lot of difference between the two and the gap is not that pronounced.
HUGE point. Irving will be better than Curry at his age no doubt. After this series it's safe to say the skill gap between the two isn't as big as people once though.
Holy crap Curry is old, I never realized how many years he spent in college, I thought he was younger than Harden
Curry is a late bloomer. Nobody expected him to be this good just three years ago, let alone when he was in college. He is kind of like Nash who doesn't have otherworldly physical talent but has worked to hone the skills he is good at to an elite level. Nash kept on improving after he turned 30.
That's fair, and I agree. Makes me wonder how last year would have gone if Kyrie was healthy then, as well. Curry is a better shooter, passer, defender (both are bad, but still...). Kyrie probably has him in handles and finishing at the rim. That's about it. Having said that...I think the gap between the two is smaller than you'd think.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2016 Finals:<br>Steph Curry: 22.6 ppg (40.3 FG%), 3.7 apg, 0.9 steals, 4.3 TO's<br><br>Kyrie Irving: 27.1 ppg (46.8 FG%), 3.9 apg, 2.1 stls, 2.5 TO's</p>— Tommy Beer (@TommyBeer) <a href="https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/744902940729671681">June 20, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I'll take the player who in the NBA finals thoroughly outplayed the other while winning the championship.
Irving was way better on D than curry in the finals. Not even close. Curry is truly pathetic on that end. Don't agree with the passing either, read my post above about that.
Yes. And they not only beat him like a drum but they took away his soul too. Curry was all kinds of frazzled.
