LOL Stephen "I Wanna Be Kobe" Curry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

The only year you could reasonably say was an exception to my PG theory is 2015, and even then Curry played like shit in the finals getting guarded by Dellavad:lolva, but they were playing against a Cavs team with the 2nd and 3rd best player injured so the giant talent disparity was enough to overcome his poor play. The stars aligned for Golden State that year. No healthy OKC team to give them any kind of challenge in the West, and without Irving or Love the Cavs were maybe an even worse finals team than the 2007 Cavs were.

I’ve also never denied that there isn’t the occasional transcendent talent, team loaded with talent up and down its roster where it just so happens the PG is the most talented of the bunch, or team that is in the right place at the right time and wins in a historically weak year (in the case of the 2015 Warriors, it’s all of the above). The Warriors are perfectly constructed to prevent all of the defensive tactics that might actually stop Curry. Klaynus takes away any ability to put a bigger defender on Curry because of his size and how good he is at shooting over smaller players. The other wings Golden State has won with (Iggy, Durant, Harrison Barnes) are also all 6’6” and over which more or less forced the other team to put its PG on Curry.

Curry is also unique in that he can influence the game as a PG without needing to dominate the ball the way nearly every other elite PG does. The success of guys like Irving and Westbrook is almost inversely related to their team’s success because them having a big night means no one else was touching the ball. Curry is able to be part of an offensive scheme that emphasizes ball sharing and fluidity to get open shots.

---

The theory was definitely valid at the time, given the way the game was played. Post-Magic and pre-Curry, no title team really had a PG that could be considered a top 10 (or even 20) player in the league. Let's see: BJ Armstrong, Sam Cassell, Avery Johnson, Derek Fisher, Speedy Claxton (:lol), Billups, Tony Parker, who was probably the best of the group, but is overrated, the corpse of Jason Kidd, and Mario Chalmers. Now it's essential a team has a top 20 PG or pseudo-PG (Harden). They might not always necessarily be the alpha, but a Derek Fisher or Avery Johnson level PG would probably be too big of a roster deficiency to overcome unless the other 4 starters were superstars.

The PG as your best player theory is still perfectly valid..

As Dok said, the reason Curry is different is due to his off-ball dominance.. he's one of the only players in league history who consistently gets doubled without even having the ball in his hands..

There will be plenty of emulators coming up, but you won't get another one like him..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

yeah, in game 2 where he shot 5-23.

in the other 5 games he averaged 27 ppg, shot 49% from the field, 46% from 3... still averaged 5 rebounds 6 assists and 2 steals the whole series. thats the most overblown narrative in recent history tbh... mostly believed by casual white american fans who want delly to get credit for being an actual nba player

---

So you took away his worst game in a 6 game stretch and the numbers look really good...cool. I could do the same thing in the other direction. If you take away his 37 point game 4, he averaged 23.8 points on 41% shooting.

I'll admit that saying he "played like shit" is an overstatement but his play wasn't the big reason they won that series, their elite defense was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

The theory was definitely valid at the time, given the way the game was played. Post-Magic and pre-Curry, no title team really had a PG that could be considered a top 10 (or even 20) player in the league. Let's see: BJ Armstrong, Sam Cassell, Avery Johnson, Derek Fisher, Speedy Claxton (:lol), Billups, Tony Parker, who was probably the best of the group, but is overrated, the corpse of Jason Kidd, and Mario Chalmers. Now it's essential a team has a top 20 PG or pseudo-PG (Harden). They might not always necessarily be the alpha, but a Derek Fisher or Avery Johnson level PG would probably be too big of a roster deficiency to overcome unless the other 4 starters were superstars.

---

Calling Harden a "pseudo-PG" is a gimmicky way to try to argue with the PG theory, especially since there clearly is a PG on that team who's subordinate to Harden as the top option. No reasonable person would argue the Rockets are a team where the PG is its best player. One of the biggest factors behind my opinion of PGs is their size and the fact that you can't consistently rely on the shortest player on the court to close playoff games against elite defensive teams. Slapping the label of "point guard" on a wing who handled the ball a lot was something people who (for reasons I'll never really understand) got uncontrollably enraged every time my PG theory got brought up.

I don't disagree that winning a championship with someone like Fisher or Avery Johnson as your starting point guard would be difficult now and that your PG does need to be an offensive weapon to a larger extent, but that doesn't invalidate my theory. It's not like my theory was "you should have an unathletic slug playing point guard if you want to win championships".

Every team other than the Warriors that's trying to build around a PG as its best player right now has obvious flaws. The rest of the Celtics can't mesh with Irving, the rest of the Thunder can't mesh with Westbrook, the Blazers are choking away huge leads because Lillard gets thrown around like a rag doll and runs out of gas by the 4th quarter (they also overachieved getting to the WCF because of lucky playoff seeding), and there aren't any other top 8 teams I can think of with a PG as the best player. While I agree that you can't have a gaping offensive liability at PG anymore, I'd say its even harder to win as a PG dominated team now than it was 10 years ago. There's such an emphasis on ball movement that an offense where a PG runs around calling for pick and rolls would get run off the court by a team like the Bucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

The PG as your best player theory is still perfectly valid..

As Dok said, the reason Curry is different is due to his off-ball dominance.. he's one of the only players in league history who consistently gets doubled without even having the ball in his hands..

There will be plenty of emulators coming up, but you won't get another one like him..

---

Exactly, the fact such a physically un-intimidating player commands off ball double teams is transcendent and unlikely to be replicated.

If the people who like arguing against the PG theory just for the sake of it want me to change the theory from "Teams with a PG as their best player aren't built to win championships" to "You can't win with a PG as your best player unless said PG is a transcendent shooting talent who gets double teamed off-ball, but you'll still need to have a 6'7" 20+ point scorer at SG who's also a historically efficient off-ball scoring threat to make sure that larger defenders can't be switched onto said PG" then I guess I can concede that :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

So you took away his worst game in a 6 game stretch and the numbers look really good...cool. I could do the same thing in the other direction. If you take away his 37 point game 4, he averaged 23.8 points on 41% shooting.

I'll admit that saying he "played like shit" is an overstatement but his play wasn't the big reason they won that series, their elite defense was.

---

its disingenuous to say "he played like shit in the finals" when he played like shit for 1 game out of 6 and otherwise played up to his standards.

nobody says hurr durr dirk played like shit in the 2011 finals because he shot 9-27 in one game and 6-19 in another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

its disingenuous to say "he played like shit in the finals" when he played like shit for 1 game out of 6 and otherwise played up to his standards.

nobody says hurr durr dirk played like shit in the 2011 finals because he shot 9-27 in one game and 6-19 in another.

---

I already said it was incorrect to say he played like shit. Are you just arguing now for the sake of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

I already said it was incorrect to say he played like shit. Are you just arguing now for the sake of it?

---

thats my MO

though tbh i didnt read past the first line, my bad :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Calling Harden a "pseudo-PG" is a gimmicky way to try to argue with the PG theory, especially since there clearly is a PG on that team who's subordinate to Harden as the top option. No reasonable person would argue the Rockets are a team where the PG is its best player. One of the biggest factors behind my opinion of PGs is their size and the fact that you can't consistently rely on the shortest player on the court to close playoff games against elite defensive teams. Slapping the label of "point guard" on a wing who handled the ball a lot was something people who (for reasons I'll never really understand) got uncontrollably enraged every time my PG theory got brought up.

I don't disagree that winning a championship with someone like Fisher or Avery Johnson as your starting point guard would be difficult now and that your PG does need to be an offensive weapon to a larger extent, but that doesn't invalidate my theory. It's not like my theory was "you should have an unathletic slug playing point guard if you want to win championships".

Every team other than the Warriors that's trying to build around a PG as its best player right now has obvious flaws. The rest of the Celtics can't mesh with Irving, the rest of the Thunder can't mesh with Westbrook, the Blazers are choking away huge leads because Lillard gets thrown around like a rag doll and runs out of gas by the 4th quarter (they also overachieved getting to the WCF because of lucky playoff seeding), and there aren't any other top 8 teams I can think of with a PG as the best player. While I agree that you can't have a gaping offensive liability at PG anymore, I'd say its even harder to win as a PG dominated team now than it was 10 years ago. There's such an emphasis on ball movement that an offense where a PG runs around calling for pick and rolls would get run off the court by a team like the Bucks.

---

Yeah, that's basically my point. 10-20 years ago, if I were building a team, PG would probably the last position I'd be overly concerned about filling. Today, I would first try to find an athletic wing who can shoot or be developed into a shooter and then find an athletic 3 point shooting PG to complement. I think the Rockets' Achilles heel is the fact Chris Paul's game is still stuck in the early 10s, too midrange centric. So being an elite PG isn't enough, either (his game impact metrics are always solid over the regular season, top 15 in RPM). You have to be an off-the-dribble threat from 3. The Giannis+Bledsoe is probably the boilerplate duo now (Giannis is of course listed as a PF, but he plays like a wing), and if/when Giannis develops a 3 (I think for the Bucks to take it to the next level [don't see them beating GS], he's going to have to. His game will be too prone to paint packing), we could be looking at the next dominant NBA team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

thats my MO

though tbh i didnt read past the first line, my bad :lol

---

"Philo'ing." :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Yeah, that's basically my point. 10-20 years ago, if I were building a team, PG would probably the last position I'd be overly concerned about filling. Today, I would first try to find an athletic wing who can shoot or be developed into a shooter and then find an athletic 3 point shooting PG to complement. I think the Rockets' Achilles heel is the fact Chris Paul's game is still stuck in the early 10s, too midrange centric. So being an elite PG isn't enough, either (his game impact metrics are always solid over the regular season, top 15 in RPM). You have to be an off-the-dribble threat from 3. The Giannis+Bledsoe is probably the boilerplate duo now (Giannis is of course listed as a PF, but he plays like a wing), and if/when Giannis develops a 3 (I think for the Bucks to take it to the next level [don't see them beating GS], he's going to have to. His game will be too prone to paint packing), we could be looking at the next dominant NBA team.

---

I think the Rockets have the same issue Portland has, they don't have a long scoring wing. As you said, if you were building a team today, an athletic wing who can score from anywhere on the court would be the player you build around, and imo the Rockets don't have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

I think the Rockets have the same issue Portland has, they don't have a long scoring wing. As you said, if you were building a team today, an athletic wing who can score from anywhere on the court would be the player you build around, and imo the Rockets don't have it.

---

Harden is only like 6'3", so they should just move him to PG full time and trade CP3 for a wing, picks, assets, whatever. The Harden/CP3 duo is flawed. I don't even know what CP3's role on that team is anymore? Harden pretty much runs the show, so CP3 is reduced to an undersized SG who can pass. Kind of like when Manu and Parker used to share the court. Manu was the PG, while Parker was basically the SG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

"Philo'ing." :lol

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

LOL... fucking overrated chucker

---

This thread aged well:

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Harden is only like 6'3", so they should just move him to PG full time and trade CP3 for a wing, picks, assets, whatever. The Harden/CP3 duo is flawed. I don't even know what CP3's role on that team is anymore? Harden pretty much runs the show, so CP3 is reduced to an undersized SG who can pass. Kind of like when Manu and Parker used to share the court. Manu was the PG, while Parker was basically the SG.

---

CP3's contract is trade prohibitive. Nobody touching it. :)

If durant didnt join this thread would've gotten the naruto treatment every day for the last 3 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LkrFan

This thread aged well:

:lmao

---

This thread was started the last time your team was in the playoffs.

Consider that, pendejo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

This thread was started the last time your team was in the playoffs.

Consider that, pendejo .

---

:lol

-20 points for even creating this thread to mock the great Kobe Bean Bryant. :lol

Turned out Steph is one of the players pushing Kobe out of the Top 15 of All Time...not that he ever belonged, but good to see Today's NBA pushing out yesterday's over hype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucho

Turned out Steph is one of the players pushing Kobe out of the Top 15 of All Time...not that he ever belonged, but good to see Today's NBA pushing out yesterday's over hype.

---

i dont think he's there. at his peak kobe was also a great defender. curry is a decent defender but he's not a standout, and he's not somebody that you can ever put on the other team's best player... if its a small guard klay usually takes over. thats why houston would aggressively target him (seems like they did so more last year). curry isn't an awful defender, but he doesn't have a prayer against elite players like harden. kobe would usually be up to the task when the chips were down

offensively is a different story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

i dont think he's there. at his peak kobe was also a great defender. curry is a decent defender but he's not a standout, and he's not somebody that you can ever put on the other team's best player... if its a small guard klay usually takes over. thats why houston would aggressively target him (seems like they did so more last year). curry isn't an awful defender, but he doesn't have a prayer against elite players like harden. kobe would usually be up to the task when the chips were down

offensively is a different story

---

But like Kobe, Steph has seen other players take the Finals MVP, while he has none (yet). Kobe finally got one during ring 4. This could be ring 4 for Steph. Will he get the MVP if so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LkrFan

:lol

-20 points for even creating this thread to mock the great Kobe Bean Bryant. :lol

---

Not coincidental you're defending a bean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Not coincidental you're defending a bean.

---

:lol

It's really close between Bryant and Curry right now, but Curry is definitely on pace to surpass him. It doesn't even matter how good or bad he is on defense. We don't rank players by going skill-for-skill down a checklist. We compare them based on who was more dominant. Curry is more dominant than Kobe ever was.