+2800 roster and sidekick < Hornacek, so 73 wins means CURRY is goat-like, not lebron

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022659]Dude is some nerd who never played basketball and says KG is top 10 of all time

Invalidates anything he says. Not even gonna listen to any of that nonsense. Also funny you have such a low ball iq and normal iq you can’t even articulate your own ideas in your own words.

Yikes.[/QUOTE]

We have already been through this. I already stated my ideas and provided proof with the vid, that has actual data. Almost everyone in this thread agrees with my assessment. The only people who don't are you and 3ball, you know it's bad when you side with 3ball. If you want to keep talking in circles like a woman on her period, go for it.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022661]We have already been through this. I already stated my ideas and provided proof with the vid, that has actual data. Almost everyone in this thread agrees with my assessment. The only people who don't are you and 3ball, you know it's bad when you side with 3ball. If you want to keep talking in circles like a woman on her period, go for it.[/QUOTE]

You watched a half baked low iq youtube video and then interpreted it as it was your own idea, because you are low iq and susceptible to such nonsense.

You have low iq and even lower ball iq.

No klay, no slay.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022661]If you want to keep talking in circles like a woman on her period, go for it.[/QUOTE]
[Url=https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPZqPRPHIF2xVI5uiUFQ7DcZyo3SNqMMQAlw&usqp=CAU][img]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/image.php?u=827668&dateline=1624237688&type=thumb[/img][/url]

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022679]You watched a half baked low iq youtube video and then interpreted it as it was your own idea, because you are low iq and susceptible to such nonsense.

You have low iq and even lower ball iq.[/QUOTE]

I actually found the vid right after I posted my analysis in the first page. Vid just supported everything I said, which means we are both high IQ.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022651]3ball wanted no smoke[/QUOTE]


I saw no need to go point for point with him because nothing he said refuted the original point that winning spotlight is real, which is why secondary producers like Klay, Mo and Pippen don't get media accolade until they get winning spotlight first... Meanwhile, true franchise players and dominant producers like Love, KAT, or AD don't need winning teams or playoff success to get media accolade.

Ultimately, the stats tell the story - Klay and Pippen were carried, which means that the original point stands, i.e. Klay was a lower producer than Hornacek and the Warriors had a trashy +2800 preseason roster, so the 73 wins means Curry is goat-like, not that the roster was stacked - aka Lebron beat a 1-man team with a "big 3" preseason favorite.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022683]I actually found the vid right after I posted my analysis in the first page. Vid just supported everything I said, which means we are both high IQ.[/QUOTE]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

just like you weren’t a legit obese child who never played ball :roll:

ya, okay

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022690]:roll: :roll: :roll:

just like you weren’t a legit obese child who never played ball :roll:

ya, okay[/QUOTE]

I have no reason to lie. My eye test is strong, my analysis was even confirmed by most posters in this thread and Ben Taylor aka "thinking basketball" who is by far the best NBA analyst out there.

Edit: Notice in my first post I brought up my memory about his defense in 2017, I then looked up his defense on YouTube that year and immediately saw a vid of him playing great man D on Kyrie in the Finals. I have exceptional memory.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022692]I have no reason to lie. My eye test is strong, my analysis was even confirmed by most posters in this thread and Ben Taylor aka "thinking basketball" who is by far the best NBA analyst out there.

Edit: Notice in my first post I brought up my memory about his defense in 2017, I then looked up his defense on YouTube that year and immediately saw a vid of him playing great man D on Kyrie in the Finals. I have exceptional memory.[/QUOTE]

This is the most low iq shit i’ve ever read.

lmfao

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022695]This is the most low iq shit i’ve ever read.

lmfao[/QUOTE]

Truth hurts

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022696]Truth hurts[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you were an obese kid who never hooped and have a room temp iq level who literally thinks the moon is a spaceship

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022659]Dude is some nerd who never played basketball and says KG is top 10 of all time

Invalidates anything he says. Not even gonna listen to any of that nonsense. Also funny you have such a low ball iq and normal iq you can’t even articulate your own ideas in your own words.

Yikes.[/QUOTE]
Tbf though you were genuinely arguing for a while Chris Bosh was better than still prime/FMVP Kobe, that's worse than claiming KG is top 10 all time.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022697]Yeah, you were an obese kid who never hooped and have a room temp iq level who literally thinks the moon is a spaceship[/QUOTE]

I was referring to your crack use.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15022698]Tbf though you were genuinely arguing for a while Chris Bosh was better than still prime/FMVP Kobe, that's worse than claiming KG is top 10 all time.[/QUOTE]

:roll:

Low IQ

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022692]

Ben Taylor aka "thinking basketball" who is by far the best NBA analyst out there.


[/quote]


Bro please stop with the debunked Ben Taylor - he was debunked when he said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 75th percentile (better than 75% of casts) - this is still worse than 1 in 4 casts (7 of 28 teams), which is all 2nd Round opponents, aka 1st Round caliber... TLDR: Ben Taylor said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber (timestamp to 75th percentile remark [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c&t=12m00s]here[/url])

Btw, Taylor's claim is that Jordan's impact isn't that high, except Taylor's numbers use different casts and guys that MJ never played with - Kukoc was the leader in Box Plus minus (BPM) for the 94' Playoffs, so he impacted differentials the most, but Jordan never played with him, which makes Taylor's numbers completely bogus - Kukoc wasn't some tiny role player that barely impacted the game - he was the team leader in BPM and closer, while every other position had been upgraded with guys that MJ never played with (Longley, Kerr, Harper, etc).. So Taylor is a buffoon and amateur with bogus "analysis".. aka sophistry to fool the nascent.. Again, Taylor says that MJ's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, while the 88-90' and 2nd three-peat casts are actually among the worst in the league - this is what his own (bogus) numbers show, even with the Kukoc/new cast issue.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022701]Bro please stop with the debunked Ben Taylor - he was debunked when he said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 75th percentile (better than 75% of casts) - this is still worse than 1 in 4 casts (7 of 28 teams), which is all 2nd Round opponents, aka 1st Round caliber... TLDR: Ben Taylor said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber (timestamp to 75th percentile remark [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c&t=12m00s]here[/url])

Btw, Taylor's claim is that Jordan's impact isn't that high, except Taylor's numbers use different casts and guys that MJ never played with - Kukoc was the leader in Box Plus minus (BPM) for the 94' Playoffs, so he impacted differentials the most, but Jordan never played with him, which makes Taylor's numbers completely bogus - Kukoc wasn't some tiny role player that barely impacted the game - he was the team leader in BPM and closer, while every other position had been upgraded with guys that MJ never played with (Longley, Kerr, Harper, etc).. So Taylor is a buffoon and amateur with bogus "analysis".. aka sophistry to fool the nascent.. Again, Taylor says that MJ's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, while the 88-90' and 2nd three-peat casts are actually among the worst in the league - this is what his own (bogus) numbers show, even with the Kukoc/new cast issue.[/QUOTE]

I used to ether his ass on realgm well over 10 years ago

He is a clown

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022701]Bro please stop with the debunked Ben Taylor - he was debunked when he said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 75th percentile (better than 75% of casts) - this is still worse than 1 in 4 casts (7 of 28 teams), which is all 2nd Round opponents, aka 1st Round caliber... TLDR: Ben Taylor said that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber (timestamp to 75th percentile remark [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c&t=12m00s]here[/url])

Btw, Taylor's claim is that Jordan's impact isn't that high, except Taylor's numbers use different casts and guys that MJ never played with - Kukoc was the leader in Box Plus minus (BPM) for the 94' Playoffs, so he impacted differentials the most, but Jordan never played with him, which makes Taylor's numbers completely bogus - Kukoc wasn't some tiny role player that barely impacted the game - he was the team leader in BPM and closer, while every other position had been upgraded with guys that MJ never played with (Longley, Kerr, Harper, etc).. So Taylor is a buffoon and amateur with bogus "analysis".. aka sophistry to fool the nascent.. Again, Taylor says that MJ's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, while the 88-90' and 2nd three-peat casts are actually among the worst in the league - this is what his own (bogus) numbers show, even with the Kukoc/new cast issue.[/QUOTE]

The funny thing is, Ben Taylor still had MJ #1 in his all-time peaks project, but that still isn't good enough for you weirdos.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022703]I used to ether his ass on realgm well over 10 years ago

He is a clown[/QUOTE]

Only person you ethered is yourself in that "Curry wins 2015 FMVP thread".

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022706]Only person you ethered is yourself in that "Curry wins 2015 FMVP thread".[/QUOTE]

Yah man, Iguodala was more irreplaceable than Steph Curry

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You will always be a low iq fat kid at heart

[IMG]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Pq_Z-7g-lt5X4_7j9Ch3RrITNC0=/0x179:3427x2107/1600x900/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46573820/usa-today-8638745.0.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022704]The funny thing is, Ben Taylor still had MJ #1 in his all-time peaks project, but that still isn't good enough for you weirdos.[/QUOTE]

Taylor's a weirdo - he puts out a video that is meant to boost Jordan's cast, yet it actually takes a dump on them and uses bogus numbers/different casts (guys that MJ never played with)

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022713]Taylor's a weirdo [/QUOTE]

You have literally made hundreds of threads about the same topics for a decade now.

Where is the self awareness?

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15022718]You have literally made hundreds of threads about the same topics for a decade now.

Where is the self awareness?[/QUOTE]


That's not weird

Otoh, it's weird to put out a video that is meant to boost Jordan's cast, yet it actually takes a dump on them and uses bogus numbers/different casts (guys that MJ never played with)

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022721]That's not weird[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022721]That's not weird[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022713]Taylor's a weirdo - he puts out a video that is meant to boost Jordan's cast, yet it actually takes a dump on them and uses bogus numbers/different casts (guys that MJ never played with)[/QUOTE]

Bwhahahah Bro, you been running around on the net more than a decade solid spewing hundreds of thousands of posts like a deranged chap gpt that answers questions nobody asks about only one subject.

LeBron fam wins again.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022686]I saw no need to go point for point with him because nothing he said refuted the original point that winning spotlight is real, which is why secondary producers like Klay, Mo and Pippen don't get media accolade until they get winning spotlight first... Meanwhile, true franchise players and dominant producers like Love, KAT, or AD don't need winning teams or playoff success to get media accolade.

Ultimately, the stats tell the story - Klay and Pippen were carried, which means that the original point stands, i.e. Klay was a lower producer than Hornacek and the Warriors had a trashy +2800 preseason roster, so the 73 wins means Curry is goat-like, not that the roster was stacked - aka Lebron beat a 1-man team with a "big 3" preseason favorite.[/QUOTE]

The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022759]The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Oh nah, you sent him running to start 5 more threads in hopes that this one disappears :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022759]The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

I don't think he's of the opinion that crushing supporting arguments for a main point constitutes as crushing the point. He'll always bring the main thing up to hold onto.

Just basic logic not being followed :lol

But you're right, it's not really about that but about the responses in general.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022759]The historical record shows you go back and forth with people regardless of whether you think they 'refuted' your point or otherwise because you're an attention seeking whore. The reality is you have no real counters to what I'm saying so you retreat into 'I don't need to reply' bitch mode, yet you're replying to Sdot_Thadon who agrees with me and hoping I'm not observant enough to notice. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]


I appreciate your vetting and here's what I've come up with in response to your questions:

Aside from defensive centers (i.e. Gobert) and 8+ APG point guards (Rod Strickland or Stockton), every All-NBA selection since the play-by-play era began was a 1st option for the vast majority of their career and known as a 1st option.

The only exceptions are 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Draymond and Kyrie, so they were simply propped up by winning spotlight... Lowry in 2016 is another exception (Raptors surprised everyone with 56 wins in 16').

So again - Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022894]I appreciate your vetting and here's what I've come up with in response to your questions:

Aside from defensive centers (i.e. Gobert) and 8+ APG point guards (Rod Strickland or Stockton), every All-NBA selection since the play-by-play era began was a 1st option for the vast majority of their career and known as a 1st option.

The only exceptions are 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Draymond and Kyrie, so they were simply propped up by winning spotlight... Lowry in 2016 is another exception (Raptors surprised everyone with 56 wins in 16').

So again - Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..[/QUOTE]
All-NBA usually goes to players on winning teams, that's some groundbreaking insight there.

MVP usually goes to players on winning teams as well.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022892]I appreciate your vetting and here's what I've come up with in response to your questions:

Aside from defensive centers (i.e. Gobert) and 9 APG point guards (Rod Strickland or Stockton), every All-NBA selection since the play-by-play era began was a 1st option for the vast majority of their career and known as a 1st option.

The only exceptions are 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, and Kyrie, so they were simply propped up by winning spotlight... Ben Simmons in 2020 and Lowry in 2016 are also exceptions (Raptors surprised everyone with 56 wins in 16').

So again, 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Parker, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..[/QUOTE]

I didn't ask anything, I set the record straight and you're farting in the wind. Winning to some degree is going to play a role in all-NBA selections in general. How many guys have made the all-NBA, first or second option, on a 20 win team?

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15022896]All-NBA usually goes to players on winning teams, that's some groundbreaking insight there.

MVP usually goes to players on winning teams as well.[/QUOTE]

Exactly lol. That's like arguing SGA won MVP this year because of the winning spotlight winning 67 games. Yeah, no shit.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022898]I didn't ask anything, I set the record straight and you're farting in the wind. Winning to some degree is going to play a role in all-NBA selections in general.

[B]How many guys have made the all-NBA, first or second option, on a 20 win team?
[/B]

[/QUOTE]


Tons of guys make All-NBA on weak teams that are barely .500 or worse, but it requires dominant 1st options like 2005 Lebron or 85' Jordan, or 2014 Love, or AD's years in New Orleans...

Otoh, 2nd options generally don't dominate, and therefore need winning spotlight to make All-NBA..

History proves this (that 2nd options need winning spotlight), since all the 2nd options that made All-NBA since the play-by-play era started required winning spotlight (Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Kyrie, Draymond, Lowry).. This excludes defensive centers and floor generals that average 8+ APG.

So again, 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Parker, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..

[QUOTE=3ba11;15022909][B]Tons of guys make All-NBA on weak teams that are barely .500 or worse,[/B] but it requires dominant 1st options like 2005 Lebron or 85' Jordan, or 2014 Love, or AD's years in New Orleans...

Otoh, 2nd options generally don't dominate, and therefore need winning spotlight to make All-NBA..

History proves this (that 2nd options need winning spotlight), since all the 2nd options that made All-NBA since the play-by-play era started required winning spotlight (Pippen, Klay, Pau, Manu, Kyrie, Draymond, Lowry).. This excludes defensive centers and floor generals that average 8+ APG.

So again, 2nd options like Pippen, Klay, Pau, Parker, Manu, Wiggins, Mo, and Dumars are examples of 2nd options that needed winning spotlight to attain All-NBA or all-star, which are normally reserved for 1st options..[/QUOTE]

Barely .500 and 20 win teams are leagues apart. Dominant first options can make all-NBA on middle of the road teams, but 20 wins? Rarely if ever and the way voters vote changes over time. Nobody on this years all-NBA won less than 44 games( Cade Cunningham). Basically if you weren't on a 'winning team' this year you weren't getting on any all-NBA, first or second option, dominant stats or 'secondary producers'. It's why Devin Booker can drop 26/7/4 and not touch all-NBA because the Suns couldn't even crack 40 wins this year. 20 years ago he'd have made the team. You had Tracey Mcgrady make 2nd team in 2004 on a 21 win Magic squad, the voters today wouldn't put him in. Trae Young has one all-NBA team on his resume in a six year career averaging 25/10, and averaged 24/12 this year. Didn't sniff the team.

I addressed those players before and showed you that the whole 'winning spotlight' thing doesn't make sense for alot of those guys based on the timelines of them winning anything and being selected. You couldn't begin to explain, for example, how 'winning spotlight' applies to why Joe Dumars would make all-NBA in 93 because his stats weren't dominant and the Pistons were too far removed from winning titles for the 'winning spotlight' to apply by then. You also can't explain why Klay would get voted onto the team in 2015 two months before winning his first title, but not in 2018 and 2023 coming off titles when the 'winning spotlight' would have been brightest and his production was the same. Nor could you explain why Kevin Willis would make third team in 92 dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team, but not averaging 19/12 on a 57 win one, because 'dominant stats' would apply in both cases but he was awarded in the losing team scenario, not the winning one. Or why James Worthy wouldn't get 'winning spotlight' recognition in 89 coming right off the 88 title, but got voted on in 90 when his stats and level of play were identical( and wasn't getting all-NBA nods in the mid 80s when the Lakers were winning titles). You can repeat yourself and I'm going to simply repeat that those cases and others I mentioned earlier don't align with what you're saying.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022938]Barely .500 and 20 win teams are leagues apart. Dominant first options can make all-NBA on middle of the road teams, but 20 wins? Rarely if ever and the way voters vote changes over time. Nobody on this years all-NBA won less than 44 games( Cade Cunningham). Basically if you weren't on a 'winning team' this year you weren't getting on any all-NBA, first or second option, dominant stats or 'secondary producers'. It's why Devin Booker can drop 26/7/4 and not touch all-NBA because the Suns couldn't even crack 40 wins this year. 20 years ago he'd have made the team. You had Tracey Mcgrady make 2nd team in 2004 on a 21 win Magic squad, the voters today wouldn't put him in. Trae Young has one all-NBA team on his resume in a six year career averaging 25/10, and averaged 24/12 this year. Didn't sniff the team.

I addressed those players before and showed you that the whole 'winning spotlight' thing doesn't make sense for alot of those guys based on the timelines of them winning anything and being selected. You couldn't begin to explain, for example, how 'winning spotlight' applies to why Joe Dumars would make all-NBA in 93 because his stats weren't dominant and the Pistons were too far removed from winning titles for the 'winning spotlight' to apply by then. You also can't explain why Klay would get voted onto the team in 2015 two months before winning his first title, but not in 2018 and 2023 coming off titles when the 'winning spotlight' would have been brightest and his production was the same. Nor could you explain why Kevin Willis would make third team in 92 dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team, but not averaging 19/12 on a 57 win one, because 'dominant stats' would apply in both cases but he was awarded in the losing team scenario, not the winning one. Or why James Worthy wouldn't get 'winning spotlight' recognition in 89 coming right off the 88 title, but got voted on in 90 when his stats and level of play were identical( and wasn't getting all-NBA nods in the mid 80s when the Lakers were winning titles). You can repeat yourself and I'm going to simply repeat that those cases and others I mentioned earlier don't align with what you're saying.[/QUOTE]

Warriors took the league by storm in 2015. They were the talk of the town even before playoffs started.

Klay got a recognition boost because of this.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022938]Barely .500 and 20 win teams are leagues apart. Dominant first options can make all-NBA on middle of the road teams, but 20 wins? Rarely if ever and the way voters vote changes over time. Nobody on this years all-NBA won less than 44 games( Cade Cunningham). Basically if you weren't on a 'winning team' this year you weren't getting on any all-NBA, first or second option, dominant stats or 'secondary producers'. It's why Devin Booker can drop 26/7/4 and not touch all-NBA because the Suns couldn't even crack 40 wins this year. 20 years ago he'd have made the team. You had Tracey Mcgrady make 2nd team in 2004 on a 21 win Magic squad, the voters today wouldn't put him in. Trae Young has one all-NBA team on his resume in a six year career averaging 25/10, and averaged 24/12 this year. Didn't sniff the team.

I addressed those players before and showed you that the whole 'winning spotlight' thing doesn't make sense for alot of those guys based on the timelines of them winning anything and being selected. You couldn't begin to explain, for example, how 'winning spotlight' applies to why Joe Dumars would make all-NBA in 93 because his stats weren't dominant and the Pistons were too far removed from winning titles for the 'winning spotlight' to apply by then. You also can't explain why Klay would get voted onto the team in 2015 two months before winning his first title, but not in 2018 and 2023 coming off titles when the 'winning spotlight' would have been brightest and his production was the same. Nor could you explain why Kevin Willis would make third team in 92 dropping 18/16 on a 38 win team, but not averaging 19/12 on a 57 win one, because 'dominant stats' would apply in both cases but he was awarded in the losing team scenario, not the winning one. Or why James Worthy wouldn't get 'winning spotlight' recognition in 89 coming right off the 88 title, but got voted on in 90 when his stats and level of play were identical( and wasn't getting all-NBA nods in the mid 80s when the Lakers were winning titles). You can repeat yourself and I'm going to simply repeat that those cases and others I mentioned earlier don't align with what you're saying.[/QUOTE]


Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012.

Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they [I]don't[/I] dominate.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022899]Exactly lol. That's like arguing SGA won MVP this year because of the winning spotlight winning 67 games. Yeah, no shit.[/QUOTE]

Its a valid point though. SGA isn't better than a bunch of guys who never won MVP talent wise. Hes a shorter, softer tmac. Which leads credence to the winning spotlight theory inflating peoples reps through whatever accolades. SGA just had a MJ level accolade run... but eye test it really wasnt on that level at all.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15022958]Warriors took the league by storm in 2015. They were the talk of the town even before playoffs started.

Klay got a recognition boost because of this.[/QUOTE]

Yes but the Warriors improving to 'taking the league by storm' status and Klay's improvement ( from 18 to 22ppg) aren't mutually exclusive. If he was the same player in 2015 that he was in 2014 the Warriors are a worse team. The voters would have rewarded his improvement as a player within the context of the Warriors ascension.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022899]Exactly lol. That's like arguing SGA won MVP this year because of the winning spotlight winning 67 games. Yeah, no shit.[/QUOTE]


You're avoiding the differentiating factor that keeps being thrown in your face, which is the correlation of All-NBA to 1st options, unless a 2nd option has sufficient winning spotlight...

1st options get All-NBA because they dominate, regardless of the caliber of their team, while 2nd options don't dominate, so they need winning spotlight to get All-NBA, and often all-star as well.

And again, Love was All-NBA with 26 wins in 2012, or Tmac was All-NBA with 21 wins in 2002.. Tons of guys were All-NBA with 20-something wins, such as Mitch Richmond in 94' or 98'.

So again - 1st options can make All-NBA with bad teams because they dominate, while 2nd options need winning spotlight because they don't dominate.