|
>But there's something unquantifiable about the way his >shooting and his ability to shoot from anywhere on the court >at an elite level enhances his team's offense.
Right. Also the energy that generates when he gets in the zone is uncanny. There's a flow and joy to the how he plays the game that is also must-watch basketball, so there's a dramatic flair that few can replicate.
>Everyone here isn't big into analytics, but Stephs's on/off >numbers are mind-blowing, especially for a player who is under >6'5" and not a tremendous two-way player. > >When Durant was playing for them, and in the limited number of >games, he played alongside Klay and Dray, the team performed >at a 55-win level. But when Steph played without KD, the team >played at a 60 or 65-win level.
Right. They also won 73 games without KD and were champions before he joined them. The DNA in how they play is actually more pure sans KD - but when it comes to the Finals, they needed KD to come in an put them over the top after 2016.
KD in that role was the ultimate assassin. He could just cruise through the season, score in bunches, and then provide assassin like offense in the Finals that featured the most top-heavy offensive team ever assembled. Even though KD was the better player, Steph was always the leader of those teams.
>He should have won the Finals MVP that Iggy got. I think Zach >Lowe put it best when he asked how Iggy could win the MVP for >his defense against LeBron if LeBron arguably could have won >the award while losing the series? I think Steph put up 26 a >game in that series. > >In an odd way, the fact he lost that Finals MVP is part of the >uniqueness of his shooting. Yes, he scored 26 but his 3PT% >dropped to 38%, whereas his next lowest percentage for a >series was a little over 40%. And in the series before, >against Houston, he shot over 50% from 3.
Could def make a case for Steph in that 2015 Finals - but he had so many turnovers (almost like 30?) throughout the course of that Finals, and defensively was somewhat of a liability. His scoring was there (albeit inconsistently - and at times - Matthew Dellavedova locked him up!
He could've still gotten the MVP - but it didn't feel like an MVP like performance because it wasn't clear that Steph was *the* reason why they won like it is with most recipients of the award. If there was ever to give the award to the opposing player, it should've bee in that series. LeBron set a crazy record: only player in history to lead *both* teams in essentially every major statistical metric: pts, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks etc..
Bananas. If Jerry West got the Finals MVP on a losing team, then Bron definitely should've gotten it there given the precedent.
Because to your point - how does Iggy get the MVP award for his defense on LeBron if Bron accomplished ^that on 36, 13 & 9 from the field? lol
>For as much as I like Steph, it's hard to think of someone as >small as he is, that doesn't impact defense on an individual >level like LeBron or MJ or Kareem as a top 10 player. But he >may have had an impact on basketball like a top 10 player. > >It's just hard to compare apples to oranges and it seems that >what Steph is relative to other legends. It'll be interesting >to look back on his career after it's done and make sense of >it.
I don't think Steph has been or will ever be on the level of LeBron - or even KD individually - but I'd take him over almost every other guy (maybe with the exception of Giannis) in his era.
-->
|