Which players have had a better 5-year stretch than Stephen Curry in NBA history?

[Stephonit]

since 2015 the warriors are 8-2 without stephen curry in the playoffs, they've won multiple series without him. even the infamous i'm her i'm back game warriors were already up 2-1 vs blazers without him

They've only won one series in which Curry didn't play at all and that was the series against the first round Spurs when they had Durant.

[Bronbron23]

Out of all the NBA champs which team is considered the best? If the Golden State Warriors are the pick, why? Shooting baby. Shooting. 3-point shooting especially.



If my experience watching the Warriors disagrees with the assessment of others on why they win why cannot I dismiss their opinions? Media awards have a bias towards stat-padding individuals, why should I treat them seriously if I recognize the importance of team play? Why should I or anyone take seriously an award that is narrative focused and has a history of voters changing their votes to appease television network priorities? Why should I consider a tacked on opinion to a championship anything close to the value of the championship itself? The question isn't why hasn't Curry been awarded an FMVP, the is question why hasn't the FMVP been able to recognize the essential role Curry plays in winning those championships. The FMVP should be dismissed if it doesn't give an accurate reading of how those championships were won. When you hear people determining the votes peddling hogwash like Harden is better than Curry despite Harden losing every series against Curry the past decade why should anyone put any value to what the media says?

the kd warriors are considered the best because they added kd to already championship squad. You could add kd to any championship team in the history of the game and they automatically become one of the bezt teams ever. I. Assuming your not talking about pre kd Warriors because nobody consideres them the beat team ever because of q regular season achievement.

Problem is you give credit for winning 2 MVP's but say fmvps are dumb because voters dont know shit. Theres been just as many bad mvps given out. You cant have it both ways.

As far as stephs impact i think you overrate it. They were doing just fine without him in 16 without him. Did you watch those games? The warriors were a little bit worse offensively but better defensively. With iggy holding lebron to sub 40% shooting theres no reason why they still wouldn't be able to beat the cavs in the finals.

And last ill give you the harden argument. I think people are crazy saying hes better than steph

[r0drig0lac]

probably all 2-way superstars in the history of the game

[RRR3]

I actually think Iggy was the most deserving player from the Warriors in 2015. Him being inserted into the starting lineup clearly shifted the momentum of the series, and while LeBron's shooting was atrocious all year, Iggy still managed to do the best job of covering him, his defense playing a critical role in the Finals. Curry's numbers aren't even as good as they ended up looking, he scored so many of his points in the 4th quarter with the game basically out of reach

All I can say is at the time very few people thought Curry played up to par in the finals. There’s been a ton of revisionist history going on with how he played with people just quoting his numbers to argue he should have been FMVP. At the time I feel like I remember most people thinking Iggy or LeBron deserved it.

[Jordan96]

About 30-40 players all time

[Bronbron23]

since 2015 the warriors are 8-2 without stephen curry in the playoffs, they've won multiple series without him. even the infamous i'm her i'm back game warriors were already up 2-1 vs blazers without him

yeah man ive tried telling steph stans this but they just ignore it

[RRR3]

Out of all the NBA champs which team is considered the best? If the Golden State Warriors are the pick, why? Shooting baby. Shooting. 3-point shooting especially.



If my experience watching the Warriors disagrees with the assessment of others on why they win why cannot I dismiss their opinions? Media awards have a bias towards stat-padding individuals, why should I treat them seriously if I recognize the importance of team play? Why should I or anyone take seriously an award that is narrative focused and has a history of voters changing their votes to appease television network priorities? Why should I consider a tacked on opinion to a championship anything close to the value of the championship itself? The question isn't why hasn't Curry been awarded an FMVP, the is question why hasn't the FMVP been able to recognize the essential role Curry plays in winning those championships. The FMVP should be dismissed if it doesn't give an accurate reading of how those championships were won. When you hear people determining the votes peddling hogwash like Harden is better than Curry despite Harden losing every series against Curry the past decade why should anyone put any value to what the media says?

How the hell was Harden supposed to beat Curry when Curry had ten times as much help as he did?

[Stanley Kobrick]

probably all 2-way superstars in the history of the game

he's one of the only superstars in nba history who doesn't play defense and camps in the corner while klay picks up the opposing teams tougher guards. everytime

[SouBeachTalents]

All I can say is at the time very few people thought Curry played up to par in the finals. There’s been a ton of revisionist history going on with how he played with people just quoting his numbers to argue he should have been FMVP. At the time I feel like I remember most people thinking Iggy or LeBron deserved it.

That's one that historically is always going to be considered one of the biggest FMVP snubs of all time. People looking up that series in 2040 are gonna have no idea how the hell Iggy won FMVP over Curry.

But you're right, that's something that over the years has been apart of a lot of revisionist history. I still remember thinking how lame it was gonna be that Curry was gonna win FMVP, I thought they would NEVER give it to anyone other than the player who was, by far, the highest scoring player on the team, not to mention the MVP and the future face of the league. But the voters pleasantly surprised me by picking Iggy.

Voters aren't infallible, they've made mistakes with MVP & All-NBA/All-Defensive selections, but it's not a coincidence that after giving him MVP, and on the verge of making him the first unanimous MVP in league history, Curry didn't get a single vote for FMVP that year

[Stephonit]

the kd warriors are considered the best because they added kd to already championship squad. You could add kd to any championship team in the history of the game and they automatically become one of the bezt teams ever. I. Assuming your not talking about pre kd Warriors because nobody consideres them the beat team ever because of q regular season achievement.

Technically they weren't a championship squad when KD joined because they lost in the finals. So why are you saying they were a championship squad? Because they might as well have been. If the Warriors were healthy they could easily have won that finals and if so you think no one would consider them the best team ever?

Problem is you give credit for winning 2 MVP's but say fmvps are dumb because voters dont know shit. Theres been just as many bad mvps given out. You cant have it both ways.

Did I give credit to the 2 MVPs? I don't believe I did but if so that's still a different animal when you have over 100+ people trying to agree on something. Which would make a unanimous MVP pretty notable....

As far as stephs impact i think you overrate it. They were doing just fine without him in 16 without him. Did you watch those games? The warriors were a little bit worse offensively but better defensively. With iggy holding lebron to sub 40% shooting theres no reason why they still wouldn't be able to beat the cavs in the finals.

It's cute that you think Iguodala's defense was worth more than Curry's 26 points of scoring and the attention that he demanded. Thing is I don't even have a problem with the award going to Iguodala in isolation. That award could be justified on narrative grounds. However the second Durant FMVP completely undid the rationale for the Iguodala award. The basic problem with the FMVPs is that they do not give an accurate account of what the team was like. It's like an article about the attack on Pearl Harbor that gets the details and numbers right but is shown on page 11 and not on the front page. It's like saying 100000 may die so Covid-19 is just like the flu. By getting that third shot at giving the award to Curry wrong the award discredited their earlier FMVP awards to the Warriors because it gave a flat out inaccurate picture of the team. As a historical record it is misleading bunk. The award fails in the only function that may justify its existence.

[Bronbron23]

Technically they weren't a championship squad when KD joined because they lost in the finals. So why are you saying they were a championship squad? Because they might as well have been. If the Warriors were healthy they could easily have won that finals and if so you think no one would consider them the best team ever?



Did I give credit to the 2 MVPs? I don't believe I did but if so that's still a different animal when you have over 100+ people trying to agree on something. Which would make a unanimous MVP pretty notable....



It's cute that you think Iguodala's defense was worth more than Curry's 26 points of scoring and the attention that he demanded. Thing is I don't even have a problem with the award going to Iguodala in isolation. That award could be justified on narrative grounds. However the second Durant FMVP completely undid the rationale for the Iguodala award. The basic problem with the FMVPs is that they do not give an accurate account of what the team was like. It's like an article about the attack on Pearl Harbor that gets the details and numbers right but is shown on page 11 and not on the front page. It's like saying 100000 may die so Covid-19 is just like the flu. By getting that third shot at giving the award to Curry wrong the award discredited their earlier FMVP awards to the Warriors because it gave a flat out inaccurate picture of the team. As a historical record it is misleading bunk. The award fails in the only function that may justify its existence.

The warriors were healthy enough. Steph was fine he was doing 360's in warm ups dude. As far as your question yes i would consider them one if the bestvteams ever if they won but they didn't. Theres lots of teams that would of been considered greater if a ball bounced a different way but it didn't thats sports qnd that's just how it is. Dosnt mean thwy weren't a great team though because they were. Add kd to any great championship caliber team and they become one of the greatest teams.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the MVPs vs FMVP's. Alot of the time the best players dont win mvp. Same goes for tbe fmvp i really dont see the difference.

And i also would of been fine with steph winning fmvp in 2015 but i have no problem with iggy getting it. Steph fans totally ignore the importance of defense even though its half the game. Iggys defence on bron is definitely debatably as important as the extra 10 points a game from steph. The second mvp to durant was fine also. Im not sure what you were seeing. Kd was as good or better in literally almost everything. Kd had more points while being alot more efficient. He also had more rebounds while almost having equal assists. Steph had less than 1 assists more a game. On the defensive end of the ball its not close kd was much better.

[Stephonit]

How the hell was Harden supposed to beat Curry when Curry had ten times as much help as he did?

The first time they met in a playoffs series Harden had finals veterans and former champions on his team like Howard, Terry, and Ariza while Curry led a cast that didn't have anyone who'd made a previous conference finals.

[RRR3]

The first time they met in a playoffs series Harden had finals veterans and former champions on his team like Howard, Terry, and Ariza while Curry led a cast that didn't have anyone who'd made a previous conference finals.

Curry had Klay, Dray, Iggy and Bogut and Harden had the corpse of Dwight Howard and role players. Seems fair

[Stephonit]

probably all 2-way superstars in the history of the game

All of them made 5 straight finals with the same franchise? News to me.

Curry had Klay, Dray, Iggy and Bogut and Harden had the corpse of Dwight Howard and role players.

That same corpse who led that playoffs in rebounds per game and is now playing on the Lakers 5 years later?

[RRR3]

All of them made 5 straight finals with the same franchise? News to me.

That same corpse now playing on the Lakers 5 years later?

Dwight’s last year as a star was 2014. The last year he was still at his best was 2012.