OT: Steph Curry is the first unanimous MVP in NBA history
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Curry's performance in OT last night was the best five minutes I have ever watched anyone play. When you consider what was at stake, 3-1 vs 2-2, it was a historic performance. The viral shaming of Portland Owner Paul Allen's reaction when Curry hit the three that sealed it was hilarious, too.
GS was like Lucy holding the football for Portland's Charlie Brown for most of the game, only to pull it back in OT when Portland tried to kick it. That was a great win for GS and a devastating loss for Portland. GS in five is pretty much a fait accompli at this point.
Isiah's 16 points in the last 93 seconds against the Knicks in game 5 (best of 5 series) of the '84 playoffs was off the hook. That beats last night for me. This was also the game and series where Bernard King dominated averaging over 42/game. He scored 44 in this game as the Pistons lost in OT.
The first? That is truly amazing. This must really piss off LeBron.
Good.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
And Shaq. His 2000 MVP season was incredible.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
MJ just got $1 for use of crying Jordan meme.
Ha okay Ja Rule.
It brings up the age-old question of what an MVP is. In my opinion, Curry's the most outstanding player in the NBA, but he's not the most valuable to his team. Take away LeBron James from the Cavaliers and they're nothing. Take away Curry from the Warriors and they're still a very talented team capable of winning multiple playoff series without him.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Yeah they would.
Love would be a completely different player if Lebron were not on this team, much more similar to the guy who was putting up 25 and 12 in Minnesota. In both series (Detroit and Atlanta), its likely that the Cavs would have the two best players on the floor every night.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Lebron is the "King of the league"? Ummmm Curry is the back to back MVP, first unanimous MVP, plays on a team that won the Championship last year over Lebron and broke the record for wins this year. I'd say Curry currently wears the crown.
I'm pretty sure Curry also cares more about winning titles than MVP's, and can you point to me where I said LBJ choked the finals? Lebron used to be the best player in the league, nothing wrong with being second best during the tail end of his prime.
Minnesota Kevin Love was the guy a team would run their offense through, Cleveland Kevin Love spots up for open threes and rarely gets the ball in the paint. Totally different player right now.
I sincerely doubt they would make it to the conference finals without LeBron James.
In what context?
As in, if the Cavs had the current team for a whole season without Lebron James would they make the conference finals?
Or as in, if the Cavs lost Lebron James right before the playoffs and had to play Detroit/Atlanta without them could they make the conference finals?
If its the former, there is a decent chance you're right. If its the latter, you're probably wrong.
It's not "nothing", but the Cavs with just Kyrie couldn't even make the playoffs in a down conference. Maybe with Love they are a 6-7 seed, but LeBron absolutely changes the ceiling for any team he plays on. GSW still looks like a pretty good team without Curry.
And Curry also changes the ceiling of any team. Without Curry GS is not a championship caliber team, hence changing the ceiling.
I think if you take away Curry, you still have a chance to at least make it to the Finals. And it all depends on who they would play from the East.
So you really think they make it past the Thunder or the Spurs without Steph? The Warriors without the Steph are essentially the Atlanta Hawks. They've struggled with the Blazers, a team they cremated during the regular season. The East is extremely weak this year; the second best team is either the Raptors or the Heat. And both those teams would be a 5 or 6 seed in the West. Take out LeBron from the Cavs and they still make the Finals; there's just no chance they win.
No, I said they would have a chance to make it to the Finals. I didn't say they *would* make it to the Finals.
Curry takes the team from very good to elite. He's unquestionably the most valuable player this year. Put him on any team and they're at least a playoff contender (similar to LeBron).
and they're a finals contender. put curry on any team, and they are a playoff contender.
I don't necessarily agree with that but I do see how some people might.
By that logic, every team in the playoffs would "have a chance" to make it to the Finals.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sure. The same way the Rockets had a chance to make the finals because they were in the playoffs and anything can happen.
There's no chance the Warriors without Curry could beat the Spurs/Thunder. They would struggle to survive a healthy Clippers team as well. Shit, if they didn't have Curry, it might be 2-2 with Portland right now.
The Warriors without Curry aren't the Rockets. The Rockets didn't give a crap about continuing their season, and their star player (Harden) is famous for not playing defense. The other night Green went off for 37 points and Klay Thompson had over 30. They just didn't get any contributions from guys who are normally better (such as Andre Iguodala). That team can still put up points without Curry. I do think they would have a chance, but they wouldn't be the favorite. The Rockets weren't going to make a dent in the playoffs because they didn't care.
It's a sad fact. They didn't bother even Curry out of the line-up.
I think if you take away Curry, you still have a chance to at least make it to the Finals.
Take Curry away and the Warriors would still have "a chance to at least make it to the Finals" in the way that every team that makes the playoffs has "a chance to at least make it to the Finals."
In reality, without Curry, the Warriors wouldn't stand a chance against either San Antonio or OKC. (And I think a Curry-less team would struggle against a completely healthy Clippers team.) What the Warriors did when Curry went down was very impressive, but the Rockets were a team that was desperate for its season to be over. The Blazers are a decent team, but nowhere near the caliber of the Spurs or the Thunder.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
The Cavs had a different roster with Irving, but both Love and Irving never really sniffed the playoffs before. And yes, all the caveats about playing in the West (for Love) and poor roster construction (for both) apply, but I'm not sure either of those guys are the types of superstars that turn bad teams into good teams the way Curry or (especially) LeBron does. That's my only point.
As for Curry changing the ceiling, that's true, but in last year's finals you siwtch Curry and LeBron and GSW runs the Cavs off the court in 4 games without much difficulty. That doesn't mean LeBron is that much better than Curry, only that GSW has more talent overall and the idea that Curry is a unanimous MVP over James, Lillard, Durant, Leonard, etc. seems a bit extreme.
4-14 without him.
Not sure but I doubt anyone that good. FAs aren't exactly flocking to Cleveland without James there. Its irrelevant anyway. I'm just pointing out how terrible they were when James didn't play. It blows my mind that people think the Cavs could compete in the east without him.