Steph Curry - Over-rated as unanimous MVP? (split)

[Padrino]

i say it every year, but teams that rely on outside shooting find ways to stumble during seven-game series. i said it last year, when the warriors were down 2-1 against both memphis and cleveland. of course, the former was at a lack for talent and the latter was heavily injured, rendering an ultimate warriors' victory a foregone conclusion--they really had a smooth, cleanly-paved road to the larry o'brien trophy. but this year, the dubs have run into a goddamned tornado in the western conference finals. it's the first legitimate challenge they've had to face in the playoffs, dating all the way back to the first round in 2015. the thunder are peaking at the best possible moment, and the warriors are slipping at the worst possible moment. the quick-and-deep three's that might not have seemed like bad shots throughout the regular season look terrible now. worse yet, there's no one to rebound over the thunder's length, which only draws greater attention to the warriors' poor shot-selection, as second-chance points have been tough for them to come by in this series. elsewhere, the bench is underperforming, the passes aren't crisp, and the defense looks passive and limp...

perhaps most surprising of all, the league's first unanimous mvp looks utterly mortal right now, with much credit deservedly going to billy donovan for preparing his team well, and much credit deservedly going to the thunder for executing their game plan with precision. when asked how he's felt about guarding stephen curry, russell westbrook said, "he's a shooter. he's not nothing i haven't seen." and it's kinda hard to argue with him on that point right now. steph is an otherworldly shooter, but while he's super-elite in that one skill, he's not truly elite in any other, and he's struggling to impact the game positively while his shot isn't falling. more importantly, he's a sub-par defender being exposed as such by a team unafraid to blaze downhill against the warriors. steve kerr has had curry guarding westbrook rather often in this series, and that seems like a sizable miscalculation to me. curry's simply not up to the task, and the thunder are absolutely feeding off westbrook's energy as a result...

personally, i don't have a problem with curry being named mvp this season, but the fact that it was unanimous is a little bit bothersome to me. are you telling me nobody else deserved a single first-place vote? are you telling me no other player who impacts the game in multiple ways at an elite level was worthy of a first-place vote? i feel like the distinction of unanimity should go to a player who's presence is clearly felt on both sides of the ball. hell, two-way marvels like michael jordan, tim duncan, and lebron james were never unanimous mvp's. it's easy to be dazzled by stephen curry's 30-footers, but is that what we should value now in nba basketball? circus shooting?

curry's ability is no doubt impressive, but is he great because he's great, or is he great because of an arbitrary line on the court that dictates the majority of his shots are worth an additional point (note: curry actually shot more three's than two's this season, and by a fairly large margin). jordan, duncan, and james would have been all-time greats under any circumstance. would stephen curry be considered an all-time-great if the nba hadn't instituted the three-point line in '79--a move roundly criticized as a gimmick at the time, and still considered a gimmick by respected basketball minds like gregg popovich? i don't know, of course, but i think it's worth the debate. a great player finds a way to assert his will on the game even when his shot isn't falling. a great player finds his way back into the game. i'm waiting to see if curry and the warriors know how to respond. after all, they didn't just get beat by the thunder twice in a row; they got completely steamrolled twice in a row...

 

[mac]

i say it every year, but teams that rely on outside shooting find ways to stumble during seven-game series. i said it last year, when the warriors were down 2-1 against both memphis and cleveland. of course, the former was at a lack for talent and the latter was heavily injured, rendering an ultimate warriors' victory a foregone conclusion--they really had a smooth, cleanly-paved road to the larry o'brien trophy. but this year, the dubs have run into a goddamned tornado in the western conference finals. it's the first legitimate challenge they've had to face in the playoffs, dating all the way back to the first round in 2015. the thunder are peaking at the best possible moment, and the warriors are slipping at the worst possible moment. the quick-and-deep three's that might not have seemed like bad shots throughout the regular season look terrible now. worse yet, there's no one to rebound over the thunder's length, which only draws greater attention to the warriors' poor shot-selection, as second-chance points have been tough for them to come by in this series. elsewhere, the bench is underperforming, the passes aren't crisp, and the defense looks passive and limp...

perhaps most surprising of all, the league's first unanimous mvp looks utterly mortal right now, with much credit deservedly going to billy donovan for preparing his team well, and much credit deservedly going to the thunder for executing their game plan with precision. when asked how he's felt about guarding stephen curry, russell westbrook said, "he's a shooter. he's not nothing i haven't seen." and it's kinda hard to argue with him on that point right now. steph is an otherworldly shooter, but while he's super-elite in that one skill, he's not truly elite in any other, and he's struggling to impact the game positively while his shot isn't falling. more importantly, he's a sub-par defender being exposed as such by a team unafraid to blaze downhill against the warriors. steve kerr has had curry guarding westbrook rather often in this series, and that seems like a sizable miscalculation to me. curry's simply not up to the task, and the thunder are absolutely feeding off westbrook's energy as a result...

personally, i don't have a problem with curry being named mvp this season, but the fact that it was unanimous is a little bit bothersome to me. are you telling me nobody else deserved a single first-place vote? are you telling me no other player who impacts the game in multiple ways at an elite level was worthy of a first-place vote? i feel like the distinction of unanimity should go to a player who's presence is clearly felt on both sides of the ball. hell, two-way marvels like michael jordan, tim duncan, and lebron james were never unanimous mvp's. it's easy to be dazzled by stephen curry's 30-footers, but is that what we should value now in nba basketball? circus shooting?

curry's ability is no doubt impressive, but is he great because he's great, or is he great because of an arbitrary line on the court that dictates the majority of his shots are worth an additional point (note: curry actually shot more three's than two's this season, and by a fairly large margin). jordan, duncan, and james would have been all-time greats under any circumstance. would stephen curry be considered an all-time-great if the nba hadn't instituted the three-point line in '79--a move roundly criticized as a gimmick at the time, and still considered a gimmick by respected basketball minds like gregg popovich? i don't know, of course, but i think it's worth the debate. a great player finds a way to assert his will on the game even when his shot isn't falling. a great player finds his way back into the game. i'm waiting to see if curry and the warriors know how to respond. after all, they didn't just get beat by the thunder twice in a row; they got completely steamrolled twice in a row...

He's a great shooter but it's not like he's just standing around chucking shots. His passing and ability to score on crafty drives and the like are good too. The thing with Curry is that he rarely has his shot not falling. What the Thunder have done is prevent him from even getting looks. I'm rooting for the Thunder, but at the same time I'm objective enough to say that Curry isn't fully healthy in this series. The Thunder deserve a lot of credit, and they've been switching a lot defensively as well - Adams or Ibaka has ended up on Curry multiple times.

I also think it's quite ridiculous to question whether any player today would be great if not for rules that are in place today. The game evolves, rules change and such. Would Kobe be great if the league didn't allow players to dribble the ball? That's a ridiculous comparison of course, but the fact is that 99% of the players in the league today were born after the 3 point line was introduced. The majority of the players entering their prime now or entering the league now practise their craft GIVEN the current rules and offenses that teams run. DeRozen is the anomaly, not Steph Curry. So I can accept your argument about impacting the game on one-end only, but I can't see how some idea that a player might not be that good if the rules were different is valid at all. Sometimes it feels like many on this board are just a bunch of old folks (no offense intended) clamoring for the return to the glory days of old. BAH OUTSIDE SHOOTING BAD! GAME IS SOFT! WE USED TO HAVE REAL MEN! BRING BACK THE FIGHTS! GRINDING IT OUT IS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN! Not too different from what happens in every aspect of life and technology.

Curry was unanimous MVP because he was the star player on a team that won the most games in NBA history. If "circus shooting" is all it took to do that then perhaps Jordan and LeBron aren't that great after all?

 

[Padrino]

He's a great shooter but it's not like he's just standing around chucking shots. His passing and ability to score on crafty drives and the like are good too. The thing with Curry is that he rarely has his shot not falling. What the Thunder have done is prevent him from even getting looks. I'm rooting for the Thunder, but at the same time I'm objective enough to say that Curry isn't fully healthy in this series. The Thunder deserve a lot of credit, and they've been switching a lot defensively as well - Adams or Ibaka has ended up on Curry multiple times.

I also think it's quite ridiculous to question whether any player today would be great if not for rules that are in place today. The game evolves, rules change and such. Would Kobe be great if the league didn't allow players to dribble the ball? That's a ridiculous comparison of course, but the fact is that 99% of the players in the league today were born after the 3 point line was introduced. The majority of the players entering their prime now or entering the league now practise their craft GIVEN the current rules and offenses that teams run. DeRozen is the anomaly, not Steph Curry. So I can accept your argument about impacting the game on one-end only, but I can't see how some idea that a player might not be that good if the rules were different is valid at all.

Curry was unanimous MVP because he was the star player on a team that won the most games in NBA history. If "circus shooting" is all it took to do that then perhaps Jordan and LeBron aren't that great after all?

of course the game evolves, but i question whether or not the evolution is a good thing. personally, i see stephen curry as a symptom of a greater problem, and i'm not speaking from a "get off my lawn" kind of perspective. it's just that many people like to claim the "pace and space" era of nba basketball "opens things up" and makes the game more interesting, and i've always disagreed. i see this evolution as one of homogenization, in which every team's front office and coaching staff eventually gets funneled to the same point. i don't like that "modern" nba basketball is marginalizing alternative play styles. i don't like that teams are all arriving at the same conclusion: "if we don't play this one way, we cannot compete for a championship."

i especially hate that every conversation about team-building now centers around catering to that more "modern" style of play. ya know, "team x has hired coach y, which will allow them to play a more modern style," or "team x has drafted player y, which will allow them to play a more modern style," or "team x has traded for player y (or traded away player z), which will allow them to play a more modern style." it just goes on and on and on, and i find it so dreadfully boring. i'm tired of watching every single team run side pick-and-rolls all game long. i've coached inner-city basketball camps at the junior high level in the past, and i can get those kids to run side pick-and-rolls all game long, too. it's rudimentary stuff that hardly represents the pinnacle of professional competition...

unfortunately for fans like me, it's unlikely that the nba or the general nba fanbase gets bored by this analytics-driven homogenization anytime soon. but if it were up to me, i'd eliminate the three-point shot altogether. let great shooters like stephen curry take whatever shots the defense will give them, without the need to award them an extra point. i say "good for you"; you can beat the defense by shooting from distance, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be valued more than any other shot on the court. an nfl quarterback isn't awarded seven points for throwing a 50-yard touchdown pass; it's the same 6 points that he gets for throwing a 5-yard touchdown pass. i'd even compromise and push the arc back from 23'9" to a full 25', and eliminate the three from the corners altogether, where it's not a terribly challenging shot that's become overvalued by "the rules." why does it need to stretch to the corners anyway?

again, it's an arbitrary line that has been [smartly] exploited by increasingly analytics-driven front offices and coaching staffs. i don't blame teams for taking advantage of the math. but if the math says a team should play only this way, then my instinct would be to install correctives that truly "open things up" to many styles of play in an effort to keep the game interesting. despite the blanket criticisms leveled at slow-footed eras of the past, every decade of nba basketball has brought with it a variety of play styles and approaches. magic's showtime lakers were very different from larry's celtics, who were both very different from the bad boy pistons. jordan's bulls were very different from stockton-and-malone's jazz, who were both very different from hakeem's rockets. hell, shaq's lakers were very different from webber's kings, who were both very different from duncan's spurs. so i'm delighted to see the thunder putting the hurt on the warriors, because OKC has long been considered too "old school" in their roster construction to ever get over the hump in the "modern era," as if simply adopting the "modern" style of play because "everybody's doing it" is how you achieve success...

 

[funkykingston]

steph is an otherworldly shooter, but while he's super-elite in that one skill, he's not truly elite in any other, and he's struggling to impact the game positively while his shot isn't falling.

Curry is an elite ball handler, a very good passer and under Kerr he's become one of the best defensive PGs in the NBA.

I'm somewhat rooting for the Thunder in this series but the idea that Curry is a sub-par defender isn't supported by the eye test, simple stats or advanced metrics.

He led the league in steals. He was fourth among PGs in defensive +/-. Opponents show 3% worse with him guarding them than average. The Warriors defensive rating drops 3.1 points when he's off the floor despite the praise for guys like Livingston and Iguodala coming off the bench. And that drop is bigger than when Klay Thompson leaves the floor and Klay is lauded for being a great two way SG. Curry plays with his hands high and is incredibly active in passing lanes. He and Green are dynamite at ICE'ing the pick and roll. Since he's gotten stronger he's even avoided having guys successfully posting him up for baskets. Synergy rates him in the 87th or 89th (I forget which) percentile as a defender. If anything I think his amazing shooting actually masks his growth as a defender because his scoring, dribbling, passing highlights are what get all the attention.

Steve Nash was a one way MVP. Curry is a much more well rounded player despite not having fantastic physical gifts.

But if we're calling guys subpar defensively because they can't contain Russell Westbrook well then there's an entire NBA full of subpar defenders. . .

 

[Boogie_Fever]

Not a 2 way player. Phenomenal offensive player. An All-Time great offensive player. But if you have to hide your MVP on defense, he's not a true MVP IMO, especially a unanimously voted one. Only reason he was voted unanimously is because of the social media shaming that would occur to some of the ones that didn't vote for him.

 

[funkykingston]

Not a 2 way player. Phenomenal offensive player. An All-Time great offensive player. But if you have to hide your MVP on defense, he's not a true MVP IMO, especially a unanimously voted one. Only reason he was voted unanimously is because of the social media shaming that would occur to some of the ones that didn't vote for him.

Mark Jackson hid Curry on defense. One of the first things Kerr did was tell Curry he needed to guard opposing star PGs. And he has.

 

[LPKingsFan]

personally, i don't have a problem with curry being named mvp this season, but the fact that it was unanimous is a little bit bothersome to me. are you telling me nobody else deserved a single first-place vote? are you telling me no other player who impacts the game in multiple ways at an elite level was worthy of a first-place vote? i feel like the distinction of unanimity should go to a player who's presence is clearly felt on both sides of the ball. hell, two-way marvels like michael jordan, tim duncan, and lebron james were never unanimous mvp's. it's easy to be dazzled by stephen curry's 30-footers, but is that what we should value now in nba basketball? circus shooting?

Not a 2 way player. Phenomenal offensive player. An All-Time great offensive player. But if you have to hide your MVP on defense, he's not a true MVP IMO, especially a unanimously voted one. Only reason he was voted unanimously is because of the social media shaming that would occur to some of the ones that didn't vote for him.

I know there's a certain cachet that comes with being a unanimous MVP, but the reality is that such unanimity depends on the context of the league and the other MVP contenders. I think Curry was the easy choice as the MVP, and it just so happened that every voter agreed. Should some voter have taken an unreasonable position and voted against Curry just out of spite, or to be contrary?

 

[Bricklayer]

Overrated? Yes. But undeserving of the unanimous MVP? No. He had a ridiculous season in every way that can be measured, including astouding on/off impact, and led his team to a league record in wins. If that's not a unanimous MVP, there is none.

That said, Westbrook has always been my preferred flavor. Reckless, fearless, relentless. And kicking the pretty boy's butt all over the court right now. I'm thoroughly enjoying the asswhooping.

I would caution however that the series is not over, and all it takes is one stumble by OKC and its a Game 7 in Oakland,.

 

[kingsboi]

he was the undisputed MVP of the regular season. Well deserved, his team and himself had historic seasons that we might not ever see again.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

While I will stipulate that the above post is one hundred percent true, I will also point out that "undisputed" and "Well deserved" are not antonyms of "overrated." Stephen Curry was the rightful unanimous MVP of the league this season, and he's overrated.

 

[206Fan]

He's not overrated, and yes he does deserve unanimous MVP. You can't just forget what he did this season because the Warriors are getting beat by the Thunder.

 

[peacelate]

Curry should have been the unanimous MVP. No doubt.

It's funny how people harp on Curry for relying on the NBA instituting the 3 pt line which makes him great, but blindly ignore how hand-check fouls have let iso guards run wild on the court for the past decade.

Is defense/Spurs system overrated because they couldn't make it to the WCF? I'd say the Thunder are simply hot right now and running everybody out of the gym.

 

[LA King Fan II]

My opinion is absolutely MVP, and an ankle problem and loss of just a hint of mobility or quickness is especially important to a player slight of build (whether admitted or not).

...especially when competing with the best athlete on the planet. Donovan and staff also is now help setting up switches that are currently taking advantage of Curry.

I believe 100% that Curry is not 100% and a great player. Maybe over-rated if referred to as greatest ever but definitely a great basketball player. With ball instincts on both sides of the ball that are hall of fame worthy.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

He's not overrated, and yes he does deserve unanimous MVP. You can't just forget what he did this season because the Warriors are getting beat by the Thunder.

He is overrated, and one thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I believe 100% that Curry is not 100% and a great player. Maybe over-rated if referred to as greatest ever but definitely a great basketball player. With ball instincts on both sides of the ball that are hall of fame worthy.

Guess what? That's all it takes.

 

[LA King Fan II]

Okay. He's overrated in being called the greatest player ever. Got me.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Why are you acting like that doesn't count?

 

[peacelate]

I'm not sure who has called him the greatest player ever. He's certainly the greatest shooter ever, but haven't heard GOAT associated with him.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't know what the conversation is like in the Sacramento/Northern California area, since I have no reason to care about any team there besides the Kings, but I've heard plenty of analytics guys get on national sports radio over the last year and try to make the argument that advanced metrics support the idea that Curry is better than Jordan. That gets you into overrated territory, I'm sorry.

 

[peacelate]

I don't know what the conversation is like in the Sacramento/Northern California area, since I have no reason to care about any team there besides the Kings, but I've heard plenty of analytics guys get on national sports radio over the last year and try to make the argument that advanced metrics support the idea that Curry is better than Jordan. That gets you into overrated territory, I'm sorry.

Well there you go. Those guys usually have no idea what they are talking about. If they said he was more efficient, well he is one of the most efficient players ever.

Maybe some hack on ESPN has said it, but in Northern CA, I have not heard one person say Curry is GOAT.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yeah well, unfortunately for me, people are talking about Steph Curry in more places than just Northern California. And also more than just ESPN. Wish I had the luxury of living in your GOAT-free bubble.

 

[LA King Fan II]

Hmm. I guess if I am arguing anything it is if someone is great they can only be so over-rated. After all, that's pretty impressive in itself.

 

[LA King Fan II]

I don't like any SF teams ever BTW. LA fan except for Kings since 1999. I just think Curry is hard to criticize.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Hmm. I guess if I am arguing anything it is if someone is great they can only be so over-rated.

Okay, cool. My response to that would be to quote the great Vogon philosopher, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: 'Ever so slightly' happens to qualify.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Okay, cool. My response to that would be to quote the great Vogon philosopher, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: 'Ever so slightly' happens to qualify.

If you start reading poetry, I'm out of here.

 

[uolj]

Saying somebody is overrated by the people who rate him the highest is kind of useless, isn't it?

if the math says a team should play only this way

(The math never actually says anything on its own, but) the people interpreting it don't say a team should play only this way unless they're doing it wrong. One of the biggest aspects of analytics is to find ways to add efficiency. If all teams are exploiting those, then all teams would also be aiming to defend them, which would then open up different ways to add efficiency. The reason analytics folks are still saying the three point shot is a good idea is because teams haven't adjusted enough on defense to make it less of a good idea than other options. As that adjustment happens, the math will show evidence that it's not the most efficient option anymore, and perhaps something else will be the new fad.

Note that this cycle occurs with and without the math, it's just that the analytics exposes some information that wasn't so obvious before, or was contrary to traditional thinking.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Saying somebody is overrated by the people who rate him the highest is kind of useless, isn't it?

If your ambition is to avoid the conversation, sure. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be.

(The math never actually says anything on its own, but) the people interpreting it don't say a team should play only this way unless they're doing it wrong. One of the biggest aspects of analytics is to find ways to add efficiency. If all teams are exploiting those, then all teams would also be aiming to defend them, which would then open up different ways to add efficiency. The reason analytics folks are still saying the three point shot is a good idea is because teams haven't adjusted enough on defense to make it less of a good idea than other options. As that adjustment happens, the math will show evidence that it's not the most efficient option anymore, and perhaps something else will be the new fad.

I said this same thing months ago, only with fewer words: coaching hasn't caught up to the analytics yet.

 

[uolj]

If your ambition is to avoid the conversation, sure. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be.

Because it is also true, by that logic, that pretty much everybody is underrated. If everybody is both overrated and underrated, then... useful how?

To be more clear, normally I would consider an unqualified "overrated" assertion to mean that the individual is overrated by the consensus opinion. It seems, though, that when you said, "Stephen Curry was the rightful unanimous MVP of the league this season, and he's overrated," you were simply saying that he is overrated by some people, rather than the consensus. (It seems that way because your evidence that he is overrated is unnamed people on the radio who claim he is the greatest of all time, which is certainly not the consensus opinion.")

But assuming that's all true, you could just as easily say "Stephen Curry was the rightful unanimous MVP of the league this season, and he's underrated," because I'm certain there are some people that rate him lower than he should be rated. In fact, you can pretty much say that about anybody. Whatever one's individual rating for someone is, there's probably going to be someone else with a higher rating and someone with a lower rating.

That's why it would make more sense to use the term "overrated" to me "overrated by the consensus of opinions". That is a useful term and can reasonably be discussed because it's not always going to be true. (Although I personally think overrated/underrated discussions are overrated.)

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No, I think that he's overrated by the consensus, too. When I say that he is the rightful unanimous MVP, I only mean that in the general sense that I think that most MVP's should be unanimous. If you are voting for the MVP, you probably think that everybody else voting thinks that person should be the MVP. Or, at the very least, you think that nobody should throw their vote away on some sort of asinine protest. I didn't mean it in some kind of "It is entirely appropriate and expected that Stephen Curry should rightfully be the first of all the MVP's in history to be so selected unanimously, because that's how good he is" context.

I think that Curry is the rightful MVP, in the same way that thought that Steve Nash was the rightful MVP is one of those years (not both; one of those belonged to Shaquille O'Neal), and I think that he's overrated as a great player.

 

[uolj]

No, I think that he's overrated by the consensus, too.

The rest of the reply wasn't really relevant to what I was saying, so I clipped it. (I completely agree that he can be unanimous MVP and overrated at the same time and I also don't think Curry's status as first unanimous MVP should be taken as an indication that he is somehow better than other MVPs.)

My point was just that originally you defended "he's overrated" with "some people claim he's the greatest ever, isn't that enough for me to say he's overrated?" If you think he's overrated by the consensus, then no, that's not enough.