Durant or Curry?

[876Stephen]

How is missing the playoffs a success`

Missing their mvp from the previous year for 45 games, westbrook missed 15 games this year and they came within a game of making the playoffs. Facing that kind of adversity, the season had to be considered a success.

Almost making the PO's isn't a success, no. I mean lol wtf??

Under those circumstances with that kind of adversity most teams would have folded but they didn't. Success is relative. But you probably don't understand what that means anyway.

[rtiff68]

If that's the logic you want to use, then have at it. You're making extreme stretches, talking about All Time this and that, when all I said was that the FMVP was the best player in the Finals (I mean imagine that?).

Try again.

So, in your estimation, whoever wins FMVP is the best player on said team in those Finals, period, paragraph, nothing else matters?

Just looking for clarification...

For that series? Yes.

Was Worthy better than Magic when he won his FMVP? Yes.

Does that mean he's better than Magic? No.

I mean, you can go throughout NBA history and find lesser players who elevated their games for a series and won FMVP over a superior player.

Very simple, TBH.

It doesn't mean Worthy was BETTER than Magic that series, necessarily.

You're completely ignoring context here, man. Part of the reason guys like Worthy, Kawhi, Iguodala, etc. were able to put up numbers in the Finals was the fact that the opposing team was committed defensively to stopping someone else.

Once again, Iguodala was not the best Warrior in the Finals; he won Finals MVP because the opposing team sold out to stop Curry. Being named FMVP does NOT mean you were the best player in the Finals. I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for this.

[LNS]

Based upon what, other than "people who voted FMVP said so?"

Again, I'm not suggesting that Iggy was undeserving of the award, considering the criteria people typically use when voting; rather, I'm challenging the notion that winning the award "proved" that Iggy was the best/most valuable Warrior that series.

Take it up with the NBA's front office, bro. I can't help your confusion on the matter. Iggy was your FMVP, until otherwise noted. Do you know what F.M.V.P. stands for?

There you have it.

So everyone has to automatically agree with it? People cant have dissenting opinions? The voters themselves disagreed. Some voted lebron for mvp in that series? You act like because iggy won it, that's cut and dry he was the best player. Like i said that's flawed logic and not thinking for yourself, especially since you haven't actually made an argument for yourself for iggy winning it. You just take the media's word for it because your a sheep.

If you want i'll make the case for you, why iggy should have won fmvp.

Of course you can disagree. You can disagree that the sky is blue, TBH. But who has the FMVP sitting on his bookcase?

You can disagree till you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day the FMVP is the guy who won the award, babe.

[LNS]

So, in your estimation, whoever wins FMVP is the best player on said team in those Finals, period, paragraph, nothing else matters?

Just looking for clarification...

For that series? Yes.

Was Worthy better than Magic when he won his FMVP? Yes.

Does that mean he's better than Magic? No.

I mean, you can go throughout NBA history and find lesser players who elevated their games for a series and won FMVP over a superior player.

Very simple, TBH.

It doesn't mean Worthy was BETTER than Magic that series, necessarily.

You're completely ignoring context here, man. Part of the reason guys like Worthy, Kawhi, Iguodala, etc. were able to put up numbers in the Finals was the fact that the opposing team was committed defensively to stopping someone else.

Once again, Iguodala was not the best Warrior in the Finals; he won Finals MVP because the opposing team sold out to stop Curry. Being named FMVP does NOT mean you were the best player in the Finals. I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for this.

TBH, I'm not sure why this is even upsetting you so much. There's no award for "Guy Who Took Pressure Off His Teammate and Allowed Him To Step Up". I mean I'm not doubting that Curry being on the floor didn't play a factor, but ultimately it's irrelevant when discussing who took home the award. Some players still win the award despite all the defensive attention they drew that allowed a teammate to do well, Curry did not though.

Shit, Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense in 2010 and Gasol had a good series as a result, but Kobe still won the award.

[876Stephen]

Take it up with the NBA's front office, bro. I can't help your confusion on the matter. Iggy was your FMVP, until otherwise noted. Do you know what F.M.V.P. stands for?

There you have it.

So everyone has to automatically agree with it? People cant have dissenting opinions? The voters themselves disagreed. Some voted lebron for mvp in that series? You act like because iggy won it, that's cut and dry he was the best player. Like i said that's flawed logic and not thinking for yourself, especially since you haven't actually made an argument for yourself for iggy winning it. You just take the media's word for it because your a sheep.

If you want i'll make the case for you, why iggy should have won fmvp.

Of course you can disagree. You can disagree that the sky is blue, TBH. But who has the FMVP sitting on his bookcase?

You can disagree till you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day the FMVP is the guy who won the award, babe.

And you have yet to prove why that's relevant at all, especially to the point I originally made in this thread. Why even make that point? I never said Curry better than Durant. Heck i even said that Curry had a very good, deep team this year. You got hostile and defensive for no reason at all.

Durant, westbrook, harden(who plays with howard) ibaka etc. That's high end, superstar talent. That's what i said

Iggy, Thompson and Draymond are not high end superstar talents.

You made a whole bunch of assumptions in this thread.

[LNS]

Missing their mvp from the previous year for 45 games, westbrook missed 15 games this year and they came within a game of making the playoffs. Facing that kind of adversity, the season had to be considered a success.

Almost making the PO's isn't a success, no. I mean lol wtf??

Under those circumstances with that kind of adversity most teams would have folded but they didn't. Success is relative. But you probably don't understand what that means anyway.

No, almost making the playoffs for a contending team isn't success. I understand there are injuries and whatnot, but if anything that just proves what a failure of a season OKC had.

And I highly doubt there's anything you know that I couldn't understand, honey bunch.

[876Stephen]

For that series? Yes.

Was Worthy better than Magic when he won his FMVP? Yes.

Does that mean he's better than Magic? No.

I mean, you can go throughout NBA history and find lesser players who elevated their games for a series and won FMVP over a superior player.

Very simple, TBH.

It doesn't mean Worthy was BETTER than Magic that series, necessarily.

You're completely ignoring context here, man. Part of the reason guys like Worthy, Kawhi, Iguodala, etc. were able to put up numbers in the Finals was the fact that the opposing team was committed defensively to stopping someone else.

Once again, Iguodala was not the best Warrior in the Finals; he won Finals MVP because the opposing team sold out to stop Curry. Being named FMVP does NOT mean you were the best player in the Finals. I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for this.

TBH, I'm not sure why this is even upsetting you so much. There's no award for "Guy Who Took Pressure Off His Teammate and Allowed Him To Step Up". I mean I'm not doubting that Curry being on the floor didn't play a factor, but ultimately it's irrelevant when discussing who took home the award. Some players still win the award despite all the defensive attention they drew that allowed a teammate to do well, Curry did not though.

Shit, Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense in 2010 and Gasol had a good series as a result, but Kobe still won the award.

Exactly but Curry did that same thing in these finals and Iggy had a good series as a result yet curry didn't win it. It's why for awards like fmvp, you can't just make blanket statements like you've been making. A lot of bias and subjectivity goes into these.


.

[rtiff68]

For that series? Yes.

Was Worthy better than Magic when he won his FMVP? Yes.

Does that mean he's better than Magic? No.

I mean, you can go throughout NBA history and find lesser players who elevated their games for a series and won FMVP over a superior player.

Very simple, TBH.

It doesn't mean Worthy was BETTER than Magic that series, necessarily.

You're completely ignoring context here, man. Part of the reason guys like Worthy, Kawhi, Iguodala, etc. were able to put up numbers in the Finals was the fact that the opposing team was committed defensively to stopping someone else.

Once again, Iguodala was not the best Warrior in the Finals; he won Finals MVP because the opposing team sold out to stop Curry. Being named FMVP does NOT mean you were the best player in the Finals. I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for this.

TBH, I'm not sure why this is even upsetting you so much. There's no award for "Guy Who Took Pressure Off His Teammate and Allowed Him To Step Up". I mean I'm not doubting that Curry being on the floor didn't play a factor, but ultimately it's irrelevant when discussing who took home the award. Some players still win the award despite all the defensive attention they drew that allowed a teammate to do well, Curry did not though.

Shit, Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense in 2010 and Gasol had a good series as a result, but Kobe still won the award.

I'm not upset, dude-- I'm just talking sports on a message board, and this has been an engaging topic.

Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense, and he did win the award-- that doesn't prove that he had the better series than Gasol any more than a Gasol victory (which easily could have happened) would have proved that Pau was the best Laker in the Finals.

My main issue with you in this debate has been your declaration/assumption that FMVP necessarily means "best player in the Finals." It doesn't...any more than MVP necessarily means "best player in the league" any given year.

[LNS]

So everyone has to automatically agree with it? People cant have dissenting opinions? The voters themselves disagreed. Some voted lebron for mvp in that series? You act like because iggy won it, that's cut and dry he was the best player. Like i said that's flawed logic and not thinking for yourself, especially since you haven't actually made an argument for yourself for iggy winning it. You just take the media's word for it because your a sheep.

If you want i'll make the case for you, why iggy should have won fmvp.

Of course you can disagree. You can disagree that the sky is blue, TBH. But who has the FMVP sitting on his bookcase?

You can disagree till you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day the FMVP is the guy who won the award, babe.

And you have yet to prove why that's relevant at all, especially to the point I originally made in this thread. Why even make that point? I never said Curry better than Durant. Heck i even said that Curry had a very good, deep team this year. You got hostile and defensive for no reason at all.

Durant, westbrook, harden(who plays with howard) ibaka etc. That's high end, superstar talent. That's what i said

Iggy, Thompson and Draymond are not high end superstar talents.

You made a whole bunch of assumptions in this thread.

All I originally said was that Curry has a stacked team, and he does. I then used Iggy, a bench player, winning FMVP as a way to illustrate my point.

You then started foaming at the mouth, saying I'm wrong and you're right, I'm a sheep, etc. Lol don't try to play the victim with me, princess.

[876Stephen]

Almost making the PO's isn't a success, no. I mean lol wtf??

Under those circumstances with that kind of adversity most teams would have folded but they didn't. Success is relative. But you probably don't understand what that means anyway.

No, almost making the playoffs for a contending team isn't success. I understand there are injuries and whatnot, but if anything that just proves what a failure of a season OKC had.

And I highly doubt there's anything you know that I couldn't understand, honey bunch.

When your best player missing almost the entire year, and your second best player misses a large chunk of the season too, your not a contender. The Thunder wren't contenders at all this year.

[LNS]

It doesn't mean Worthy was BETTER than Magic that series, necessarily.

You're completely ignoring context here, man. Part of the reason guys like Worthy, Kawhi, Iguodala, etc. were able to put up numbers in the Finals was the fact that the opposing team was committed defensively to stopping someone else.

Once again, Iguodala was not the best Warrior in the Finals; he won Finals MVP because the opposing team sold out to stop Curry. Being named FMVP does NOT mean you were the best player in the Finals. I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for this.

TBH, I'm not sure why this is even upsetting you so much. There's no award for "Guy Who Took Pressure Off His Teammate and Allowed Him To Step Up". I mean I'm not doubting that Curry being on the floor didn't play a factor, but ultimately it's irrelevant when discussing who took home the award. Some players still win the award despite all the defensive attention they drew that allowed a teammate to do well, Curry did not though.

Shit, Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense in 2010 and Gasol had a good series as a result, but Kobe still won the award.

I'm not upset, dude-- I'm just talking sports on a message board, and this has been an engaging topic.

Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense, and he did win the award-- that doesn't prove that he had the better series than Gasol any more than a Gasol victory (which easily could have happened) would have proved that Pau was the best Laker in the Finals.

My main issue with you in this debate has been your declaration/assumption that FMVP necessarily means "best player in the Finals." It doesn't...any more than MVP necessarily means "best player in the league" any given year.

Actually, Kobe winning FMVP absolutely proved he had the better series, which is why he won it. Ditto for Iggy, despite what caveats you'd like to use "he only did well because of the attention Curry took off of him", etc.

I mean good for Curry for being a decoy out there. It resulted in him not receiving a single vote, but at least it shows what a great teammate he is.

[LNS]

Under those circumstances with that kind of adversity most teams would have folded but they didn't. Success is relative. But you probably don't understand what that means anyway.

No, almost making the playoffs for a contending team isn't success. I understand there are injuries and whatnot, but if anything that just proves what a failure of a season OKC had.

And I highly doubt there's anything you know that I couldn't understand, honey bunch.

When your best player missing almost the entire year, and your second best player misses a large chunk of the season too, your not a contender. The Thunder wren't contenders at all this year.

Agreed, and them almost making the PO's is a participation ribbon at best. Certainly not a success.

[876Stephen]

Of course you can disagree. You can disagree that the sky is blue, TBH. But who has the FMVP sitting on his bookcase?

You can disagree till you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day the FMVP is the guy who won the award, babe.

And you have yet to prove why that's relevant at all, especially to the point I originally made in this thread. Why even make that point? I never said Curry better than Durant. Heck i even said that Curry had a very good, deep team this year. You got hostile and defensive for no reason at all.

Durant, westbrook, harden(who plays with howard) ibaka etc. That's high end, superstar talent. That's what i said

Iggy, Thompson and Draymond are not high end superstar talents.

You made a whole bunch of assumptions in this thread.

All I originally said was that Curry has a stacked team, and he does. I then used Iggy, a bench player, winning FMVP as a way to illustrate my point.

You then started foaming at the mouth, saying I'm wrong and you're right, I'm a sheep, etc. Lol don't try to play the victim with me, princess.

Me disagreeing with you isn't foaming at bro. Another assumption.

And Westbrook, Durant, Harden, Paul, Griffin etc have all had stacked teams as well for much no longer than curry in fact. And all of them are ringless.

What does that tell you?

[elmerjfudd]

Under those circumstances with that kind of adversity most teams would have folded but they didn't. Success is relative. But you probably don't understand what that means anyway.

No, almost making the playoffs for a contending team isn't success. I understand there are injuries and whatnot, but if anything that just proves what a failure of a season OKC had.

And I highly doubt there's anything you know that I couldn't understand, honey bunch.

When your best player missing almost the entire year, and your second best player misses a large chunk of the season too, your not a contender. The Thunder wren't contenders at all this year.

A large chunk of the season, he missed 15 games.

Its never a success to almost make the postseason, especially in a league where more teams make the playoffs than miss it.

[LNS]

Had the voting been close, had Curry and Iggy been neck and neck, then I'd entertain these assertions that he deserved the award over Iggy. But it wasn't close at all, TBH. When you don't get a single vote for something, you didn't almost win or were deserving to win.

[LNS]

And you have yet to prove why that's relevant at all, especially to the point I originally made in this thread. Why even make that point? I never said Curry better than Durant. Heck i even said that Curry had a very good, deep team this year. You got hostile and defensive for no reason at all.

Durant, westbrook, harden(who plays with howard) ibaka etc. That's high end, superstar talent. That's what i said

Iggy, Thompson and Draymond are not high end superstar talents.

You made a whole bunch of assumptions in this thread.

All I originally said was that Curry has a stacked team, and he does. I then used Iggy, a bench player, winning FMVP as a way to illustrate my point.

You then started foaming at the mouth, saying I'm wrong and you're right, I'm a sheep, etc. Lol don't try to play the victim with me, princess.

Me disagreeing with you isn't foaming at bro. Another assumption.

And Westbrook, Durant, Harden, Paul, Griffin etc have all had stacked teams as well for much no longer than curry in fact. And all of them are ringless.

What does that tell you?

Yeah, you're angry as fuck lol. Your post looks like it was written by a 10 year old.

And the Clippers not winning tells me that they're the friggin' Clippers. They're choke artists and underachievers.

[876Stephen]

No, almost making the playoffs for a contending team isn't success. I understand there are injuries and whatnot, but if anything that just proves what a failure of a season OKC had.

And I highly doubt there's anything you know that I couldn't understand, honey bunch.

When your best player missing almost the entire year, and your second best player misses a large chunk of the season too, your not a contender. The Thunder wren't contenders at all this year.

Agreed, and them almost making the PO's is a participation ribbon at best. Certainly not a success.

Under the circumstances they did as well as they could and i don't hold it against them not making the playoffs.

[rtiff68]

TBH, I'm not sure why this is even upsetting you so much. There's no award for "Guy Who Took Pressure Off His Teammate and Allowed Him To Step Up". I mean I'm not doubting that Curry being on the floor didn't play a factor, but ultimately it's irrelevant when discussing who took home the award. Some players still win the award despite all the defensive attention they drew that allowed a teammate to do well, Curry did not though.

Shit, Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense in 2010 and Gasol had a good series as a result, but Kobe still won the award.

I'm not upset, dude-- I'm just talking sports on a message board, and this has been an engaging topic.

Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense, and he did win the award-- that doesn't prove that he had the better series than Gasol any more than a Gasol victory (which easily could have happened) would have proved that Pau was the best Laker in the Finals.

My main issue with you in this debate has been your declaration/assumption that FMVP necessarily means "best player in the Finals." It doesn't...any more than MVP necessarily means "best player in the league" any given year.

Actually, Kobe winning FMVP absolutely proved he had the better series, which is why he won it. Ditto for Iggy, despite what caveats you'd like to use "he only did well because of the attention Curry took off of him", etc.

I mean good for Curry for being a decoy out there. It resulted in him not receiving a single vote, but at least it shows what a great teammate he is.

So what does regular season MVP prove?

[LNS]

When your best player missing almost the entire year, and your second best player misses a large chunk of the season too, your not a contender. The Thunder wren't contenders at all this year.

Agreed, and them almost making the PO's is a participation ribbon at best. Certainly not a success.

Under the circumstances they did as well as they could and i don't hold it against them not making the playoffs.

I'm sure they care and appreciate that you don't hold it against them for not making the PO's.

[876Stephen]

All I originally said was that Curry has a stacked team, and he does. I then used Iggy, a bench player, winning FMVP as a way to illustrate my point.

You then started foaming at the mouth, saying I'm wrong and you're right, I'm a sheep, etc. Lol don't try to play the victim with me, princess.

Me disagreeing with you isn't foaming at bro. Another assumption.

And Westbrook, Durant, Harden, Paul, Griffin etc have all had stacked teams as well for much no longer than curry in fact. And all of them are ringless.

What does that tell you?

Yeah, you're angry as fuck lol. Your post looks like it was written by a 10 year old.

And the Clippers not winning tells me that they're the friggin' Clippers. They're choke artists and underachievers.

So why haven't durant, westbrook and harden been able to win a title with all the stacked as fuck teams they've played on?