Durant or Curry?

[rtiff68]

If LNS was voted "biggest Bulls fan on the board," would that automatically become an objective fact?

I'm not asking for much here man, just a small concession-- winning a voted upon award is not objective proof. Quit being so fucking stubborn.

[LNS]

My point has been pretty clear: a voted upon award is not "proof" of anything, whether it be over the course of a season or a series.

You have been completely unwilling to concede that point.

Why would I concede a point that's incorrect?

Curry winning the award proved he had the best season. His shooting and leading his team to 67 wins is proof of that.

I don't think he's a better individual player than Durant or Lebron, just like I don't think Iggy's a better individual player than Curry. But circumstances being what they were, the MVP was Curry and the FMVP was Iggy.

You're the one arguing against what factually is, not me. If it doesn't sit well with you, then boycott. Good luck to you with that.

I never argued against what factually was (i.e. who won the award, and whether they deserved it, based up on the criteria typically used in such votes), I argued that a voted upon award is not factual proof of anything, and you continue to argue other wise for someone unknown reason.

George W. Bush and Obama being voted President PROVES that they were the best candidates for the job, right LNS?

Your line of logic is absurd, man.

I don't follow politics, so I don't care to respond to your deflection.

Now, as for my logic, it has proven vastly superior thus far. If they gave out MVP's of threads, I'd have it on my mantle right now.

Your logic has basically been "hey yeah I'm cool with Iggy winning FMVP, I'm totally happy for him, but I don't think he had the best series, even though the award is given to the best player of a series".

Lol wtf?? But it's my logic that is wrong? Please.

[LNS]

If LNS was voted "biggest Bulls fan on the board," would that automatically become an objective fact?

I'm not asking for much here man, just a small concession-- winning a voted upon award is not objective proof. Quit being so fucking stubborn.

Has such a vote taken place?

[LNS]

I'm curious, is Iggy over Curry for FMVP the only time you've ever disagreed with the FMVP? Or is this a new development?

I'm not being a smartass, I'd genuinely like to establish some precedence here.

[bELIever10]

Curry > Durant


Period.

[rtiff68]

Why would I concede a point that's incorrect?

Curry winning the award proved he had the best season. His shooting and leading his team to 67 wins is proof of that.

I don't think he's a better individual player than Durant or Lebron, just like I don't think Iggy's a better individual player than Curry. But circumstances being what they were, the MVP was Curry and the FMVP was Iggy.

You're the one arguing against what factually is, not me. If it doesn't sit well with you, then boycott. Good luck to you with that.

I never argued against what factually was (i.e. who won the award, and whether they deserved it, based up on the criteria typically used in such votes), I argued that a voted upon award is not factual proof of anything, and you continue to argue other wise for someone unknown reason.

George W. Bush and Obama being voted President PROVES that they were the best candidates for the job, right LNS?

Your line of logic is absurd, man.

I don't follow politics, so I don't care to respond to your deflection.

Now, as for my logic, it has proven vastly superior thus far. If they gave out MVP's of threads, I'd have it on my mantle right now.

Your logic has basically been "hey yeah I'm cool with Iggy winning FMVP, I'm totally happy for him, but I don't think he had the best series, even though the award is given to the best player of a series".

Lol wtf?? But it's my logic that is wrong? Please.

Your logic isn't basically anything, it's crystal clear and massively flawed. In your estimation, a voted upon award = proof.

A voted upon award is evidence, not proof. Proof is showing that one player shot higher percentage from the field than another, or averaged more rebounds per game.

Saying Iguodala was the best player in the series is an opinion, and there is a voted upon award to serve as evidence for said opinion. There is also a lot of evidence that runs contrary to said opinion (the league MVP who lead the team in points and assists that series, in addition to drawing the vast majority of the defense's attention).

I'm stoked for Iggy, but saying that Curry not winning a voted upon award PROVES anything is factually untrue.

[rtiff68]

I'm curious, is Iggy over Curry for FMVP the only time you've ever disagreed with the FMVP? Or is this a new development?

I'm not being a smartass, I'd generally like to establish some precedence here.

For the record, I don't disagree with Iggy winning-- I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. I disagree with the idea that winning FMVP proves who the best player in the Finals was. Call me a stickler if you want, but I've held to that this entire thread. That is all.

I would have to go back and take a look at previous series to give you an honest answer. Off of the top of my head, I thought Duncan was extremely valuable last year, Jason Terry had an outside chance in 2011, and Pau could have easily won it in 2010 (as has been discussed ad nauseam on this board).

[LNS]

I never argued against what factually was (i.e. who won the award, and whether they deserved it, based up on the criteria typically used in such votes), I argued that a voted upon award is not factual proof of anything, and you continue to argue other wise for someone unknown reason.

George W. Bush and Obama being voted President PROVES that they were the best candidates for the job, right LNS?

Your line of logic is absurd, man.

I don't follow politics, so I don't care to respond to your deflection.

Now, as for my logic, it has proven vastly superior thus far. If they gave out MVP's of threads, I'd have it on my mantle right now.

Your logic has basically been "hey yeah I'm cool with Iggy winning FMVP, I'm totally happy for him, but I don't think he had the best series, even though the award is given to the best player of a series".

Lol wtf?? But it's my logic that is wrong? Please.

Your logic isn't basically anything, it's crystal clear and massively flawed. In your estimation, a voted upon award = proof.

A voted upon award is evidence, not proof. Proof is showing that one player shot higher percentage from the field than another, or averaged more rebounds per game.

Saying Iguodala was the best player in the series is an opinion, and there is a voted upon award to serve as evidence for said opinion. There is also a lot of evidence that runs contrary to said opinion (the league MVP who lead the team in points and assists that series, in addition to drawing the vast majority of the defense's attention).

I'm stoked for Iggy, but saying that Curry not winning a voted upon award PROVES anything is factually untrue.

So in your estimation the voters used no statistical evidence, or thought things out rationally, or used any logical sense when making their vote? Not a single vote for Curry, so they all most have been smoking something, right?

You're right and they're wrong, correct?

Lol were there tons of outrage over Iggy winning the award over Curry that I'm unaware of? You do realize that there are two sides of the ball and not just points and assists, right?

Do you know what FMVP stands for? It stands for Finals Most Valuable Player. There's no ambiguity with that title, it's extremely cut and dried.

The voters were swept up in the love story the nation was having with Iggy though, was that it? I mean everyone loves Iggy and he's a superstar and all. Or did they do it to stick one to Curry?

[LNS]

I'm curious, is Iggy over Curry for FMVP the only time you've ever disagreed with the FMVP? Or is this a new development?

I'm not being a smartass, I'd generally like to establish some precedence here.

For the record, I don't disagree with Iggy winning-- I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. I disagree with the idea that winning FMVP proves who the best player in the Finals was. Call me a stickler if you want, but I've held to that this entire thread. That is all.

I would have to go back and take a look at previous series to give you an honest answer. Off of the top of my head, I thought Duncan was extremely valuable last year, Jason Terry had an outside chance in 2011, and Pau could have easily won it in 2010 (as has been discussed ad nauseam on this board).

You act as if there's some huge drop off between "most valuable" and not winning the award (or receiving a single vote, in Curry's case). If you agree that Iggy is the rightful FMVP, then why is it such a leap of faith to say he was the "most valuable player" of that series? By definition, that is what the award is for.

Does that mean Curry was just a role player? Of course not. He just wasn't, for one series, quite as important as Iggy.

And lol @ you saying I'm "fucking stubborn", when it takes two to tango. Didn't you go nearly 30 pages arguing with Riley??

[rtiff68]

I don't follow politics, so I don't care to respond to your deflection.

Now, as for my logic, it has proven vastly superior thus far. If they gave out MVP's of threads, I'd have it on my mantle right now.

Your logic has basically been "hey yeah I'm cool with Iggy winning FMVP, I'm totally happy for him, but I don't think he had the best series, even though the award is given to the best player of a series".

Lol wtf?? But it's my logic that is wrong? Please.

Your logic isn't basically anything, it's crystal clear and massively flawed. In your estimation, a voted upon award = proof.

A voted upon award is evidence, not proof. Proof is showing that one player shot higher percentage from the field than another, or averaged more rebounds per game.

Saying Iguodala was the best player in the series is an opinion, and there is a voted upon award to serve as evidence for said opinion. There is also a lot of evidence that runs contrary to said opinion (the league MVP who lead the team in points and assists that series, in addition to drawing the vast majority of the defense's attention).

I'm stoked for Iggy, but saying that Curry not winning a voted upon award PROVES anything is factually untrue.

So in your estimation the voters used no statistical evidence, or thought things out rationally, or used any logical sense when making their vote? Not a single vote for Curry, so they all most have been smoking something, right?

You're right and they're wrong, correct?

Lol were there tons of outrage over Iggy winning the award over Curry that I'm unaware of? You do realize that there are two sides of the ball and not just points and assists, right?

Do you know what FMVP stands for? It stands for Finals Most Valuable Player. There's no ambiguity with that title, it's extremely cut and dried.

The voters were swept up in the love story the nation was having with Iggy though, was that it? I mean everyone loves Iggy and he's a superstar and all. Or did they do it to stick one to Curry?

I don't understand why you continue to put words in my mouth and refuse to acknowledge a simple fact: a voted upon award does not equal objective proof.

I never said "voters were against Curry," or that "Curry deserved it and got screwed," or any other BS. I simply said that Iggy winning FMVP didn't prove that he was the best player in the Finals. It didn't.

I'm not arguing on behalf of Curry, I'm arguing on behalf of logic and common sense.

[rtiff68]

I'm curious, is Iggy over Curry for FMVP the only time you've ever disagreed with the FMVP? Or is this a new development?

I'm not being a smartass, I'd generally like to establish some precedence here.

For the record, I don't disagree with Iggy winning-- I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. I disagree with the idea that winning FMVP proves who the best player in the Finals was. Call me a stickler if you want, but I've held to that this entire thread. That is all.

I would have to go back and take a look at previous series to give you an honest answer. Off of the top of my head, I thought Duncan was extremely valuable last year, Jason Terry had an outside chance in 2011, and Pau could have easily won it in 2010 (as has been discussed ad nauseam on this board).

You act as if there's some huge drop off between "most valuable" and not winning the award (or receiving a single vote, in Curry's case). If you agree that Iggy is the rightful FMVP, then why is it such a leap of faith to say he was the "most valuable player" of that series? By definition, that is what the award is for.

Does that mean Curry was just a role player? Of course not. He just wasn't, for one series, quite as important as Iggy.

And lol @ you saying I'm "fucking stubborn", when it takes two to tango. Didn't you go nearly 30 pages arguing with Riley??

So you think the Warriors sans Curry would have been better off in the Finals that series than the Warriors sans Iguodala? Really?

Touchee in regards to my stubborness (by bringing up the Riley thread), by the way...that doesn't make you any less stubborn in this thread, though.

[LNS]

Your logic isn't basically anything, it's crystal clear and massively flawed. In your estimation, a voted upon award = proof.

A voted upon award is evidence, not proof. Proof is showing that one player shot higher percentage from the field than another, or averaged more rebounds per game.

Saying Iguodala was the best player in the series is an opinion, and there is a voted upon award to serve as evidence for said opinion. There is also a lot of evidence that runs contrary to said opinion (the league MVP who lead the team in points and assists that series, in addition to drawing the vast majority of the defense's attention).

I'm stoked for Iggy, but saying that Curry not winning a voted upon award PROVES anything is factually untrue.

So in your estimation the voters used no statistical evidence, or thought things out rationally, or used any logical sense when making their vote? Not a single vote for Curry, so they all most have been smoking something, right?

You're right and they're wrong, correct?

Lol were there tons of outrage over Iggy winning the award over Curry that I'm unaware of? You do realize that there are two sides of the ball and not just points and assists, right?

Do you know what FMVP stands for? It stands for Finals Most Valuable Player. There's no ambiguity with that title, it's extremely cut and dried.

The voters were swept up in the love story the nation was having with Iggy though, was that it? I mean everyone loves Iggy and he's a superstar and all. Or did they do it to stick one to Curry?

I don't understand why you continue to put words in my mouth and refuse to acknowledge a simple fact: a voted upon award does not equal objective proof.

I never said "voters were against Curry," or that "Curry deserved it and got screwed," or any other BS. I simply said that Iggy winning FMVP didn't prove that he was the best player in the Finals. It didn't.

I'm not arguing on behalf of Curry, I'm arguing on behalf of logic and common sense.

Common sense dictates that the recipient of the FMVP deserved the FMVP. Because it stands for basically "the most valuable player of the Finals", common sense would also conclude that the winner of such an award did something to make himself the best player in the Finals.

And finally, common sense would clearly state that while the voters are not gods, they are still objective, intelligent individuals who generally make sound decisions.

Now, if you agree that Iggy is the rightful FMVP, then by definition you shouldn't have any grievances with him being seen as the "most valuable player of the Finals", or put in another way; "had the best series of the Finals".

Don't argue against common sense, broseph.

[LNS]

For the record, I don't disagree with Iggy winning-- I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. I disagree with the idea that winning FMVP proves who the best player in the Finals was. Call me a stickler if you want, but I've held to that this entire thread. That is all.

I would have to go back and take a look at previous series to give you an honest answer. Off of the top of my head, I thought Duncan was extremely valuable last year, Jason Terry had an outside chance in 2011, and Pau could have easily won it in 2010 (as has been discussed ad nauseam on this board).

You act as if there's some huge drop off between "most valuable" and not winning the award (or receiving a single vote, in Curry's case). If you agree that Iggy is the rightful FMVP, then why is it such a leap of faith to say he was the "most valuable player" of that series? By definition, that is what the award is for.

Does that mean Curry was just a role player? Of course not. He just wasn't, for one series, quite as important as Iggy.

And lol @ you saying I'm "fucking stubborn", when it takes two to tango. Didn't you go nearly 30 pages arguing with Riley??

So you think the Warriors sans Curry would have been better off in the Finals that series than the Warriors sans Iguodala? Really?

Touchee in regards to my stubborness (by bringing up the Riley thread), by the way...that doesn't make you any less stubborn in this thread, though.

Without either Curry or Iggy or Klay or maybe even Draymond, I don't know if they beat the Cavs. But that's just a hypothetical, so it's kinda pointless.

I mean maybe they sweep the Cavs without Curry? Or Iggy? Doubtful of course, but just as unprovable.

[rtiff68]

So in your estimation the voters used no statistical evidence, or thought things out rationally, or used any logical sense when making their vote? Not a single vote for Curry, so they all most have been smoking something, right?

You're right and they're wrong, correct?

Lol were there tons of outrage over Iggy winning the award over Curry that I'm unaware of? You do realize that there are two sides of the ball and not just points and assists, right?

Do you know what FMVP stands for? It stands for Finals Most Valuable Player. There's no ambiguity with that title, it's extremely cut and dried.

The voters were swept up in the love story the nation was having with Iggy though, was that it? I mean everyone loves Iggy and he's a superstar and all. Or did they do it to stick one to Curry?

I don't understand why you continue to put words in my mouth and refuse to acknowledge a simple fact: a voted upon award does not equal objective proof.

I never said "voters were against Curry," or that "Curry deserved it and got screwed," or any other BS. I simply said that Iggy winning FMVP didn't prove that he was the best player in the Finals. It didn't.

I'm not arguing on behalf of Curry, I'm arguing on behalf of logic and common sense.

Common sense dictates that the recipient of the FMVP deserved the FMVP. Because it stands for basically "the most valuable player of the Finals", common sense would also conclude that the winner of such an award did something to make himself the best player in the Finals.

And finally, common sense would clearly state that while the voters are not gods, they are still objective, intelligent individuals who generally make sound decisions.

Now, if you agree that Iggy is the rightful FMVP, then by definition you shouldn't have any grievances with him being seen as the "most valuable player of the Finals", or put in another way; "had the best series of the Finals".

Don't argue against common sense, broseph.

Common sense, in that context, would also say that a player who won 2 MVPs (an individual award, not a team award) would be a superior player to a player who only won 1, especially if they played in the same era...

...but now we're continuing to go in circles. I have to make sure I don't burn dinner-- I'll be back on in a bit.

Peace, bro.

[LNS]

I don't understand why you continue to put words in my mouth and refuse to acknowledge a simple fact: a voted upon award does not equal objective proof.

I never said "voters were against Curry," or that "Curry deserved it and got screwed," or any other BS. I simply said that Iggy winning FMVP didn't prove that he was the best player in the Finals. It didn't.

I'm not arguing on behalf of Curry, I'm arguing on behalf of logic and common sense.

Common sense dictates that the recipient of the FMVP deserved the FMVP. Because it stands for basically "the most valuable player of the Finals", common sense would also conclude that the winner of such an award did something to make himself the best player in the Finals.

And finally, common sense would clearly state that while the voters are not gods, they are still objective, intelligent individuals who generally make sound decisions.

Now, if you agree that Iggy is the rightful FMVP, then by definition you shouldn't have any grievances with him being seen as the "most valuable player of the Finals", or put in another way; "had the best series of the Finals".

Don't argue against common sense, broseph.

Common sense, in that context, would also say that a player who won 2 MVPs (an individual award, not a team award) would be a superior player to a player who only won 1, especially if they played in the same era...

...but now we're continuing to go in circles. I have to make sure I don't burn dinner-- I'll be back on in a bit.

Peace, bro.

Had the better season, absolutely. Nash had better seasons, by the criteria of the MVP award, than Kobe did. Just like Iggy had the better series over Curry, or Klay, or technically even Lebron (considering Lebron's team lost).

[876Stephen]

There's just fundamental difference in how LNS sees media voted awards. He apparently sees them as gospel. Whoever wins the award must have been without a doubt the most deserving with no argument to be made otherwise.

Me and rtiff simply don't see it that way. That's what this comes down too.

Lots of going in circles with no one being convinced either way. That's usually how these things go.

It is funny though, LNS is the on who started this whole thing and then accuses us of being mad.

Funny stuff.

[LNS]

There's just fundamental difference in how LNS sees media voted awards. He apparently sees them as gospel. Whoever wins the award must have been without a doubt the most deserving with no argument to be made otherwise.

Me and rtiff simply don't see it that way. That's what this comes down too.

Lots of going in circles with no one being convinced either way. That's usually how these things go.

It is funny though, LNS is the on who started this whole thing and then accuses us of being mad.

Funny stuff.

It's funny too how you tried to pretend Curry plays with lesser teammates, yet as soon as I pointed out the FMVP going to a bench player you started stuttering and stumbling all over the place.

By the way, in 8 pages I don't think I saw one valid reason for why Curry should've won FMVP over Iggy.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Damn, how the hell did this thread reach 8 pages???

Steph is a stud, but when healthy Durant is THE best player on the planet.

[rtiff68]

Damn, how the hell did this thread reach 8 pages???

Steph is a stud, but when healthy Durant is THE best player on the planet.

This thread ended up having little to do with "Curry or Durant."

[bELIever10]

Damn, how the hell did this thread reach 8 pages???

Steph is a stud, but when healthy Durant is THE best player on the planet.

Better shooter: Curry

Better ball-handler: Curry

Lead dog ring: Curry