They've already won a championship and were in game 7 of the NBA Finals. It makes no sense to ignore the fact that they've already had strong postseason success.
Do you think KG's celtics were an all time great team? because they have just one title, but their reputation is that of arguably the best defense this league has ever seen. I'm sure people feel the same way about the mid 2000's Pistons.
What do you think is the biggest reason for those breakdowns to begin with. Curry forces a defense to bend both on and off ball unlike we've ever seen, they still made mistakes after that stretch and purposely chose to leave players open in order to contain Curry, but they could not capitalize (Harrison Barnes being the main culprit) and I don't know what you're even watching if you don't understand that Cleveland's aggressive traps behind the arc were a big part of their success.
If I wasn't being real I'd try to pretend Curry didn't play subpar in the Finals. He did. I just won't exaggerate like you and say that means he's exposed. This is almost like saying David Robinson in 1994 got exposed because he got his ass kicked by Hakeem when in reality that is easily one of the GOAT seasons for a center in this leagues history. You do not nuke an entire year nor do you dramatically take away from a campaign because of a poor series. If Curry played like he did against Cleveland against OKC as well then you would have a remote argument, but that did not happen. The 27.9ppg he averaged in the Thunder series including three straight phenomenal performances in closeout games is not indicative of a player who struggles with mental fortitude and can't deal with physicality like you suggested.
A title and a media decided accolade has literally nothing to do with a players peak. You clearly don't understand what a peak is despite my attempts to explain to you that its a valid way to compare players historically and that it is separate from ranking all time. Curry is not ranked with IT and those others all time. But he is in that conversation in terms of highest level of play reached.
Reading this it seems you don't have any idea how to evaluate and compare players across league history and determine whether or not someone is dominant unless their team results or your apparently broke eye test says so. It's exactly because it's a team game that you shouldn't hold lack of postseason success against their abilities as individuals. Chris Paul is objectively one of the greatest players the position has ever seen. I would love to see you try to argue him out of the top 5 all time, today. Seriously try it. Westbrook has had a two year stretch that rivals virtually anyone to play the position as well, and for that he has a historically great peak. Doesn't mean all time, but a stretch of play worth noting historically. It is the exact same with Curry. You can say that about 2003 T mac who NEVER got back to the level of play he exhibited that season but can still be compared to Kobe at his best. You can say the same for Bill Walton in '77.
It has spoken for itself. Frankly its on you if you fail to appreciate what you're seeing. Most fans are victims of recency bias and use what's happened lately to influence their opinions on a player. Nobody put Curry over those guys all time, but in that he had a season that is better than their best years. And the problem with looking at Curry's PS in a vacuum is not accounting for the fact that he got injured the very first game (after putting up 24 in 19 minutes of action). His postseason run was interrupted by injury, he would have had a more impressive run if not for the foot and later MCL sprain.
I'm not denying it, just doesn't take away from the bottom line that he dropped 30 in every closeout game. Your attempts to deflect from that are terrible. Curry's activity on the perimeter is directly responsible for OKC's players wearing down over the course of a series and by this logic, especially with Steph on a sore knee (which he tweaked in game 7), he should have been fatigued as well.
Curry scored 22 points in the 2nd half of G6 including 14 in the 3rd that led both teams. The Warriors go home if he doesn't do that, too. Who would have thought that this is a team sport and you need your teammates to step up in huge moments if you want to win in the postseason. You just think isolating events sounds intelligent and makes for a rational argument (it doesn't)
Last edited:
at him being a top 5 point guard of all time. Like I said, you're just a stat boy geek. There's no argument. Dude hasn't even lead a team to the conference finals yet. As far as Westbrook, yea his individual numbers are impressive. It's like I said above tho, he has clear holes in his game that has kept him from leading his team all the way. He's not one of the best point guards ever. He's a shooting guard playing point.