Wow the Warriors struggle makes their 73 win season even more amazing

[Stephonit]

4-1 vs Rockets
2-1 vs Blazers
4-1 vs Spurs
1-0 vs Pelicans

11-3 is GSW record without Stephen Curry the Western Conference playoffs, unless your insinuating Klay Thomspon's injury in 2019 didn't affect the series because he played 32 minutes in the closeout and 40+ everyone before that. interesting either way, the instant Klay gets briefly injured Warriors lose series. fascinating actually

Didn't realize your PCTSD was so advanced. It appears it causes you to block out facts like Steph playing in two games of the 2016 Rockets series that they won despite it being explicitly explained to you. Remember to take your meds before you post again.

[Bronbron23]

Didn't realize your PCTSD was so advanced. It appears it causes you to block out facts like Steph playing in two games of the 2016 Rockets series that they won despite it being explicitly explained to you. Remember to take your meds before you post again.

Well seems like you have the same pctsd or you don't actually watch games. Giving credit to curry for game 4 when he hit 2 shots and had 6 pts on 22% shooting and was the only player that didn't have a positive +/-.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Every title team needs that elite wing defender to keep things together. Iggy was theirs. Lakers sucked in 2003 when rick fox didn't play anymore.

You replace that guy with career shitheads like oubre and Wiggins and these are the results.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Didn't realize your PCTSD was so advanced. It appears it causes you to block out facts like Steph playing in two games of the 2016 Rockets series that they won despite it being explicitly explained to you. Remember to take your meds before you post again.

just like Draymond and Bogut played in all of 2016 Finals. as did Durant and Klay in all of 2019 Finals.

[Stephonit]

Well seems like you have the same pctsd or you don't actually watch games. Giving credit to curry for game 4 when he hit 2 shots and had 6 pts on 22% shooting and was the only player that didn't have a positive +/-.

Yes Bronbron23 we know you love to cherry-pick and are selective in what you choose to remember. The simple fact of the matter is Curry was there for 18 minutes in Game 4 before being injured a second time after being injured in Game 1. Maybe his presence or his subsequent second injury inspired his teammates. The exact dynamics at play when it comes to team sports is difficult to measure. But he was there and he was playing. Now why don't you explain why you're ignoring Steph being the leading scorer in Game 1?

[Bronbron23]

Yes Bronbron23 we know you love to cherry-pick and are selective in what you choose to remember. The simple fact of the matter is Curry was there for 18 minutes in Game 4 before being injured a second time after being injured in Game 1. Maybe his presence or his subsequent second injury inspired his teammates. The exact dynamics at play when it comes to team sports is difficult to measure. But he was there and he was playing. Now why don't you explain why you're ignoring Steph being the leading scorer in Game 1?

It's not cherry picking. You made it sound like steph was responsible for game 4 when he was in fact terrible in the limited minutes he played. As far as game one he was great. I've never said curry wasn't great. All i said was the warriors are better with klay and no steph then steph and no klay. This isn't because klay is better. It's because when down an important piece klays skill set helps the warriors maintain better than stephs does. Again this pretty simple. With no steph the warriors get worse offensively but much better defensively. With no klay the worries still get worse offensively but they also get worse defensively.

[Bronbron23]

Think about it. Curry is having a hard time getting the Warriors over 500, even with Green. The 73 win team didn't even have Durant. All these guys like Barbosa, Speights and Bogut were unwanted on other teams.

Wow. Curry only had Klay as his only star and they won 73. Green has proven he's not a star. Warriors were not a superteam. It's just that Curry carried them. The Cavaliers were actually much more talented and it was the Warriors that overachieved.

And shit dude. The 73 win warriors had an epic meltdown led by non other than steph curry. No regular season achievement can make that shit better.

[Stephonit]

It's not cherry picking. You made it sound like steph was responsible for game 4 when he was in fact terrible in the limited minutes he played. As far as game one he was great. I've never said curry wasn't great. All i said was the warriors are better with klay and no steph then steph and no klay. This isn't because klay is better. It's because when down an important piece klays skill set helps the warriors maintain better than stephs does. Again this pretty simple. With no steph the warriors get worse offensively but much better defensively. With no klay the worries still get worse offensively but they also get worse defensively.

What I said was Steph played in all Warriors playoffs series except for the 2018 first round series against the Spurs a series Durant was notably playing for the Warriors. The proposition that the Warriors led by Klay were easily winning series without Curry and were contenders even without him is therefore dubious.

As for your second point it is specious pabulum. Klay does not have the consistent knock-out power that Curry does. There is often a significant difference between best and second best and the difference between Curry and Klay or Curry and Chris Paul as another example illustrates this very well. If you would rather have Klay on your team than Steph it just shows you have fallen for the dumb idea that being good at everything will trump more focused excellence and exposes you as a clueless evaluator of talent. But I guess it shouldn't be surprising coming from someone who has such selective memory. In your fixation on downplaying Curry and propping up Klay you ignore all the instances Klay has disappeared. You rationalize that Klay is more consistent but anyone who has watched the Warriors knows he isn't.

[999Guy]

Didn't realize your PCTSD was so advanced. It appears it causes you to block out facts like Steph playing in two games of the 2016 Rockets series that they won despite it being explicitly explained to you. Remember to take your meds before you post again.

9-3 without you in the PS is insane for any superstar. Steph had loaded teams.


Steph was great but his team success had way more to do it’s the team as a whole than just him.

It’s now obvious to the average idiot, it should be obvious to you.

Curry may well have been the league’s best player for a few yrs there, but GS W/L had nothing to do with it.

Curry’s still probably the best guard in the NBA, and he won’t make the playoffs. Team game.

[Bronbron23]

What I said was Steph played in all Warriors playoffs series except for the 2018 first round series against the Spurs a series Durant was notably playing for the Warriors. The proposition that the Warriors led by Klay were easily winning series without Curry and were contenders even without him is therefore dubious.

As for your second point it is specious pabulum. Klay does not have the consistent knock-out power that Curry does. There is often a significant difference between best and second best and the difference between Curry and Klay or Curry and Chris Paul as another example illustrates this very well. If you would rather have Klay on your team than Steph it just shows you have fallen for the dumb idea that being good at everything will trump more focused excellence and exposes you as a clueless evaluator of talent. But I guess it shouldn't be surprising coming from someone who has such selective memory. In your fixation on downplaying Curry and propping up Klay you ignore all the instances Klay has disappeared. You rationalize that Klay is more consistent but anyone who has watched the Warriors knows he isn't.

Nah like most steph stans your emotions don't allow you be unbiased. Im not saying klay is better in general or i'd rather have him on my team. Steph is the better player and as you say the player with the it factor or knock out punch. In most situations i'd rather have steph but it depends on the team and situation. On those warriors teams i'd probably rather have klay and no steph then steph without klay. This is for the simple fact that without steph they were stil decent offensively but they were very good defensively. They no longer had a weakness on the defensive end.

And based on the sample of games we have i don't know how with a straight face you can say otherwise. We know for a fact those warriors teams could compete in the playoffs without steph. We have no idea if steph could do the same. Based on the games steph has played without him it dosn't look likely.

As far as me saying they could contend that's debatable i guess. They were on there way to beating portland to play in the western conference finals. That's a contender in my eyes. Maybe not a strong one but one still. I don't think they were gonna win or anything but with their defense and deep bench i wouldn't have been surprised if they came close.

[Stephonit]

9-3 without you in the PS is insane for any superstar. Steph had loaded teams.


Steph was great but his team success had way more to do it’s the team as a whole than just him.

It’s now obvious to the average idiot, it should be obvious to you.

Curry may well have been the league’s best player for a few yrs there, but GS W/L had nothing to do with it.

Curry’s still probably the best guard in the NBA, and he won’t make the playoffs. Team game.

Sorry I'm smarter than the average idiot so this explanation of yours isn't obvious to me at all.

[999Guy]

Sorry I'm smarter than the average idiot so this explanation of yours isn't obvious to me at all.

So the idea that Curry was not mostly(as in literally mostly like you would imply, not more than others like I’m saying) responsible for GS breaking win records is not obvious to you?

He’s on a .500 team now, and it means nothing, but GS W/L when they won a ton means everything?

Your arguments for Curry being best and I remember you even saying goat level, were nonsense. This year has exposed it in a clear way. Nobody carries a team to winning 67 games per year. Or least nobody has so far.

[Axe]

Well seems like you have the same pctsd or you don't actually watch games. Giving credit to curry for game 4 when he hit 2 shots and had 6 pts on 22% shooting and was the only player that didn't have a positive +/-.

Curry has never won anything remotely close to 73 wins without steve kerr and his then assistant coach luke walton yet that stan somehow thinks the head coach himself is overrated when he's the catalyst to pioneering the warriors into a dynasty during his rookie year.

[Bronbron23]

Curry has never won anything remotely close to 73 wins without steve kerr and his then assistant coach luke walton yet that stan somehow thinks the head coach himself is overrated when he's the catalyst to pioneering the warriors into a dynasty during his rookie year.

Yeah curry fans are crazy with this shit. Steph is great but it was always that team as a whole that made them special. They played great team offense which steph gets the lion share of the credit for and they played great team defense which steph gets very little credit for. Take away any one of the necessary pieces and they go from a championship contender to a mediocre team.

[Stephonit]

So the idea that Curry was not mostly(as in literally mostly like you would imply, not more than others like IÂ’m saying) responsible for GS breaking win records is not obvious to you?

HeÂ’s on a .500 team now, and it means nothing, but GS W/L when they won a ton means everything?

Your arguments for Curry being best and I remember you even saying goat level, were nonsense. This year has exposed it in a clear way. Nobody carries a team to winning 67 games per year. Or least nobody has so far.

Him being on a .500 team now would mean nothing to those who know nothing. But to those who are aware of history and know how rare it is for a bottom dwelling team to reach the playoffs the very next year, it would be notable.

A person aware of the probabilities would actually recognize that this year, contrary to what you seem to think, is confirming even more that Curry is an all-time great player. It is a great data point to contrast with his years where he led a team to 67 wins three straight years (something no one else in NBA history can claim) with only Klay Thompson and Draymond Green as his primary support. This year is confirming yet again with a different cast if 2013 wasn't enough that Curry is a terrific floor raiser as well as possibly the greatest ceiling raiser in NBA history.