OT: Steph Curry joins Brady & Gretzky as history's only unanimous MVPs

[Jackson 2]

Disagree with tougher defence back then. Players today are bigger, faster, stronger, and more fit then ever with all of the advanced dieting and workouts.

It doesn't make them more mentally committed to playing defense, however.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Disagree with tougher defence back then. Players today are bigger, faster, stronger, and more fit then ever with all of the advanced dieting and workouts.

That is an argument for the players being better athletes- not better defensive players.

A player can be in supreme physical condition and still be horrible defensively.

Throw those 80s Celtics, 80's Pistons, 90s Bulls, Knicks and Rockets teams in the NBA now and your games just got slower, tighter and more physical. Refs let a lot more stuff go back then.

 

[Jackson 2]

This logic doesn't make any sense. Getting all of the votes doesn't mean no other player had a great/valuable season, it means that each writer (and the fans) individually thought that Curry had the best season (which, for once, is fairly obvious). Saying he "didn't deserve all the votes" makes no sense, seeing as he didn't get all the votes, he got all the first-place votes. What, fifteen voters should've had to vote for someone else?

Out of curiosity, who would get your MVP vote?

 

[Fixit]

Touche.

 

[Fixit]

That is an argument for the players being better athletes- not better defensive players.

A player can be in supreme physical condition and still be horrible defensively.

Throw those 80s Celtics, 80's Pistons, 90s Bulls, Knicks and Rockets teams in the NBA now and your games just got slower, tighter and more physical. Refs let a lot more stuff go back then.

They also didn't have to deal with wall-to-wall athletic freaks and three-point bombers like today's players. My guess is that the defenses wouldn't look quite as good, physical or not.

Look, the argument that "X was better back then" is always a non-starter, because there are endless variables that make it moot.

 

[Jackson 2]

This logic doesn't make any sense. Getting all of the votes doesn't mean no other player had a great/valuable season, it means that each writer (and the fans) individually thought that Curry had the best season (which, for once, is fairly obvious). Saying he "didn't deserve all the votes" makes no sense, seeing as he didn't get all the votes, he got all the first-place votes. What, fifteen voters should've had to vote for someone else?

Out of curiosity, who would get your MVP vote?

C'mon, I was with you in terms of a reasonable dialogue, until the "Saying he 'didn't deserve...'...he got all the first place votes." You know I meant all of the first place votes, not every vote. To answer your question, I'm not sure. I think a reasonable argument could be made for Curry, James or Durant. And, for that reason, I don't think Curry should have been a unanimous pick.

 

[RobertWeathers]

They also didn't have to deal with wall-to-wall athletic freaks and three-point bombers like today's players. My guess is that the defenses wouldn't look quite as good, physical or not.

Look, the argument that "X was better back then" is always a non-starter, because there are endless variables that make it moot.

You are missing the point and not valuing how greatness is transferrable.

The athleticism is overrated. You still need to shoot, pass,rebound and play defense. You need the fundamentals.

You give a player like Bill Russell a year to adapt and he'd still be dominant. Same with Bird.

Same with a great team....Give the 2016 Warriors time to adapt or the 1989 Pistons time they will still kick ass.

Antithesis is true. You throw Steph in 1962 and he still dominates.

 

[Fixit]

C'mon, I was with you in terms of a reasonable dialogue, until the "Saying he 'didn't deserve...'...he got all the first place votes." You know I meant all of the first place votes, not every vote. To answer your question, I'm not sure. I think a reasonable argument could be made for Curry, James or Durant. And, for that reason, I don't think Curry should have been a unanimous pick.

Sorry, but I had no idea what you were trying to say. How many people should've voted for someone other than Curry to make it a better split? Because it seems to me that each voter deserves to vote for who they think was the MVP independent of every other voter, and they all chose Curry.

Also, Durant? He wasn't even the MVP of his team this year.

 

[JPsPats]

That is an argument for the players being better athletes- not better defensive players.

A player can be in supreme physical condition and still be horrible defensively.

Throw those 80s Celtics, 80's Pistons, 90s Bulls, Knicks and Rockets teams in the NBA now and your games just got slower, tighter and more physical. Refs let a lot more stuff go back then.

Regardless, being a better athlete automatically makes you a better defender then before. Even if you're a bad defender in today's NBA (like harden) they're still better defensively then a bad defensive player in the 80's, if that makes sense. Players jump higher now to block shots, run faster to challenge fast breaks, stand their ground better on post ups.

Back then in the 80's there wasn't as much talent overall as there is today in the league.

 

[Fixit]

You are missing the point and not valuing how greatness is transferrable.

The athleticism is overrated. You still need to shoot, pass,rebound and play defense. You need the fundamentals.

You give a player like Bill Russell a year to adapt and he'd still be dominant. Same with Bird.

Same with a great team....Give the 2016 Warriors time to adapt or the 1989 Pistons time they will still kick ass.

Antithesis is true. You throw Steph in 1962 and he still dominates.

Well, the more athletic you are, the better your chances of adapting to a different style. You think Bill Laimbeer would be able to stay with anyone on the Warriors? Because a guy like Draymond Green would eat up those Pistons teams.

At any rate, you saying that players adapting to different eras completely negates your "defenses were better back then" argument.

I like to consider myself a homer, but saying that Bird's a better shooter than Curry due to some made-up supremacy in an arbitrary five-foot range is ridiculous.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Regardless, being a better athlete automatically makes you a better defender then before.

Even if you're a bad defender in today's NBA (like harden) they're still better defensively then a bad defensive player in the 80's, if that makes sense. Players jump higher now to block shots, run faster to challenge fast breaks, stand their ground better on post ups.

Yes- If you are a better athlete then you are automatically at a better starting position to be better defensively. The next level that differentiates good vs bad defenders is discipline, film study, fundamentals, work and toughness.

Back then in the 80's there wasn't as much talent overall as there is today in the league.

I don't buy that for a second. League is watered down. More teams now than back then.

 

[Fixit]

Yes- If you are a better athlete then you are automatically at a better starting position to be better defensively. The next level that differentiates good vs bad defenders is discipline, film study, fundamentals, work and toughness.



I don't buy that for a second. League is watered down. More teams now than back then.

There were a lot less teams in the 50s than in the 90s. Does that necessarily mean there was a lot less talent in Bird's era?

 

[Jackson 2]

Regardless, being a better athlete automatically makes you a better defender then before. Even if you're a bad defender in today's NBA (like harden) they're still better defensively then a bad defensive player in the 80's, if that makes sense. Players jump higher now to block shots, run faster to challenge fast breaks, stand their ground better on post ups.

Back then in the 80's there wasn't as much talent overall as there is today in the league.

Hey, I am usually one who acknowledges that today's guys in every sport are generally superior to their predecessors. But, the NBA in the 80s was loaded with players who could match up favorably to any era's players. And good teams in that decade vs. now? Sorry, but you've got to be ****ting me...

 

[Fixit]

Anyway, good talk, fellas. I need to finish watching 11/22/63 before my kid gets home from school.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Well, the more athletic you are, the better your chances of adapting to a different style. You think Bill Laimbeer would be able to stay with anyone on the Warriors? Because a guy like Draymond Green would eat up those Pistons teams.

First of all, Laimbeer wouldn't guard them. Sally, Rodman, Dumars, etc would.....and it would be very interesting. Any of those guys go to the paint....good luck.

At any rate, you saying that players adapting to different eras completely negates your "defenses were better back then" argument.

Adaptability and talent are two different things.

I like to consider myself a homer, but saying that Bird's a better shooter than Curry due to some made-up supremacy in an arbitrary five-foot range is ridiculous.

In all seriousness I think you don't understand Bird's offensive game well enough for this conversation.

Just because someone can shoot farther better doesn't mean they are a better shooter.

 

[RobertWeathers]

There were a lot less teams in the 50s than in the 90s. Does that necessarily mean there was a lot less talent in Bird's era?

No it means the talent couldn't play. Also the games popularity was still maturing.

I don't believe more people are playing basketball now than in the 80s. Studies show its decreased. There are more developmental programs no question. I played AAU in 1987-1988 because I was pretty good in HS. Now everyone plays freaking AAU.

 

[Fixit]

First of all, Laimbeer wouldn't guard them. Sally, Rodman, Dumars, etc would.....and it would be very interesting. Any of those guys go to the paint....good luck.



Adaptability and talent are two different things.



In all seriousness I think you don't understand Bird's offensive game well enough for this conversation.

Just because someone can shoot farther better doesn't mean they are a better shooter.

You got It! I never actually broke down Bird's game so I could play like him. And the only place Curry is a great shooter is from 30+ feet!

 

[RobertWeathers]

You got It! I never actually broke down Bird's game so I could play like him. And the only place Curry is a great shooter is from 30+ feet!

Deflect the criticism I have with your assessment of Bird's game with sarcasm all you want. Doesn't change the argument.

Bird had players 6-7 to 6-10 guarding him. Steph has players 6-1 to 6-5 guarding him. 90% of Birds shots were inside 3pt land. Last year 55% of Stephs shots came OUTSIDE 3pt land. There is nothing arbitrary about it. You might want to look at his shooting chart to verify.

The point is the 3 was part of Bird's game. For Steph his game is predicated on it which is fine and he'll go down as the greatest ever at it

 

[Fixit]

Deflect the criticism I have with your assessment of Bird's game with sarcasm all you want. Doesn't change the argument.

Bird had players 6-7 to 6-10 guarding him. Steph has players 6-1 to 6-5 guarding him. 90% of Birds shots were inside 3pt land. Last year 55% of Stephs shots came OUTSIDE 3pt land. There is nothing arbitrary about it. You might want to look at his shooting chart to verify.

The point is the 3 was part of Bird's game. For Steph his game is predicated on it which is fine and he'll go down as the greatest ever at it

Once again, Curry shot 56% from 2-pt range this year, which is higher than Bird ever had.

You're arguing that Bird is a better shooter because he shot from inside the arc a lot more than Curry, and that Curry's ridiculous accuracy from behind the arc is actually a knock against him. There's no place to go from there, my friend. So I'm going to stop wasting time trying.

 

[JPsPats]

Hey, I am usually one who acknowledges that today's guys in every sport are generally superior to their predecessors. But, the NBA in the 80s was loaded with players who could match up favorably to any era's players. And good teams in that decade vs. now? Sorry, but you've got to be ****ting me...

Of course the superstars back then could hang with the ones now, I was just saying in general there is more talent spread around the league, better development. That is why there are a lot more players from Canada and Europe in the NBA now a days than 20 years ago.