NBA

[Malcolm]

Not the NBA but...

What the gifted 6-foot-9 high school basketball player didn't reveal is his age, and according to the Windsor Star, Nicola is actually 30 years old.

Update.

[Leisher]

Dwayne Wade is disrespectful towards Canada.

At first I was thinking, he probably didn't see people lining up for the anthem. Who cares?

But it sounds like he was doing this towards the end of the song, and he's blaming it on his team's timing of pre-game? WTF?

[Malcolm]

[Leisher]

So Stephen Curry won the MVP unanimously. Colin Cowherd went on a rant explaining how he's not the Most "Valuable" Player and I have to say, I agree.

Value doesn't mean best.

Value is about what you mean to your team or even the league.

Is Curry a star? Yes.
Is he possibly the best shooter ever? Yes.
Can his team win without him? Yes.
Is the Western Conference still interesting without him? Yes.
Is he the most important person on his team? No. Green is probably Golden State's best player. As Colin points out, the guy had the best playoff series a player not named LeBron has had in 20 years and all anyone can talk about is Curry. Green is the leader of the Warriors and they play worse when he's not in the game.

Now look at LeBron.

Is he a star? Yes.
Does he carry his team? Yes.
Can his team win without him? No.
Is the Eastern Conference still interesting without him? No. The next interesting story would be Boston's rebuild, then maybe Miami's vets, and then the mega boring Atlanta or Toronto. I'd argue that the Knicks probably rank second on this list, but they're not a playoff team.
Is he the most important person on his team? Yes.
Does anyone watch the NBA finals without LeBron? No because everyone will say the real championship is the Western Conference Finals.

Point being, they need to rename that award. LeBron agrees.

Is Curry the "Best Player" this year? Sure.

Is he the "Most Valuable"? No.

[TheCatt]

Stupid argument.

Take Curry, put him on any other team, how much would he improve that team?

Do the same with Lebron.

That's how you determine which is more valuable.

[Malcolm]

So is this an argument over whether or not the MVP award has a parenthetical "team" or "individual" tag after it?

[Leisher]

Stupid argument.

Take Curry, put him on any other team, how much would he improve that team?

Do the same with Lebron.

That's how you determine which is more valuable.

Obviously, I completely disagree.

How has Curry's team fared without him? Very, very well. He's barely played this playoff season and they've eliminated two teams without him.
How has LeBron's team fared without him? Cleveland was a laughing stock when he left. Miami, while a playoff team, hasn't done shit. That's a team with two top tier stars on it too.

If we took LeBron off Cleveland and Curry off the Warriors right now, who would you put your money on to win the title? It's a no brainer.

Curry is a great shooter. However, he's been in the league since 2009 and until last year, nobody but the most die hard NBA fans would have known. He's stuck in a 1 or a 2 spot and really is nothing more than someone who shoots deep threes and uses bush league tactics to draw fouls.

LeBron can play all 5 positions and has been a household name since day one. That little tidbit means LeBron can be more valuable to more teams too. Curry would only be valuable to teams that need a guard.

Curry is selling tickets right now, but if his shooting slumps, he doesn't have any sort of game left. And make no mistake, it will drop off. Hawkeye and Daredevil might be legit in comics and movies, but in the real world skills degrade and your mind plays tricks on you. Eventually, his numbers will drop and then what?

I don't mind Curry, but I think he's currently getting the full force of the MSM blowing smoke and it's garbage. The guy is unbelievably good, but let's not call him the GOAT when he's only now becoming a household name in his 7th/8th year.

Is he the MVP this year? No. LeBron is the MVP. Curry is the player having the best season though, and there is a difference.

[Stranger]

Put it this way.. Lebron hasn't lost an Eastern Conference playoff series since 2010 and if(when) he makes it to the finals this year, he will have been to the finals 6 straight years. Now, you tell me.. Who's the most VALUABLE player??

No doubt Curry deserved the award this year, he had an incredible season. But I agree, MVP is probably not the right term.

[Malcolm]

Put it this way.. Lebron hasn't lost an Eastern Conference playoff series since 2010 and if(when) he makes it to the finals this year, he will have been to the finals 6 straight years. Now, you tell me.. Who's the most VALUABLE player??

MVP awards are for a season, not multiple ones. Until someone defines "value" as team or individual, I can subjectively assign value to whatever I want.

[TheCatt]

Warriors without Curry

Per Basketball-Reference, the Warriors lead the NBA with an Effective Field Goal Percentage of 56.3 percent, which is 3.7 percentage points ahead of the San Antonio Spurs' second-best mark. That may not sound like much, but it's the same differential between the Spurs and the 23rd-ranked team, the Denver Nuggets.

With Curry off the floor in 2015, Golden State's Effective Field Goal Percentage is 50.4 percent, which would rank them 12th in the league.

Golden State's Offensive Rating is 114.5, also best in the league. With Curry on the floor, that number is even more impressive at 119.1. With Curry off the floor, that number drops down to 105.3, which would rank the Warriors 20th in the NBA.

It doesn't end there -- the Warriors' rebounding, assists, steals, pace and just about every offensive category that exists are all down when Curry isn't playing. But it's not only on the offensive end where his presence is missed. Curry has evolved into a very good defender, and the Warriors are worse defensively without him.

The Effective Field Goal Percentage against the Warriors is 47.9 percent, second-best in the NBA. With Curry on the floor, that number is even better: 46.8 percent. When Curry doesn't play, the Warriors allow a mark of 50.2 percent, which is exactly the league average. So they go from being a great defensive team, by this measure, to exactly league average when Curry isn't on the court.

In terms of Defensive Rating, the Warriors allow 101.2 points per 100 possessions with Curry on the court, second-best in basketball. With Curry off the court, that number is 109.6, a differential of 8.4, which would rank sixth-worst in the NBA. So teams perform like the second worst offense in the NBA when Curry is playing and the sixth-best when he isn't playing.

For reference, let's take a look at the Spurs and Kawhi Leonard, who just repeated as the Defensive Player of the Year. Offenses facing the Spurs without Kawhi on the floor see an Offensive Rating boost of 4.6 when Leonard is off the court. Curry's is 8.4 -- nearly doubled.

So on both sides of the court, the overall impact when Curry doesn't play is massive. The Warriors statistically are an average to below-average team in many areas without him, which speaks volumes to how important he really is to the team. Considering the numbers we just ran through are mostly times when Curry simply is resting, this type of affect stretched out over the course of one or multiple games is a scenario the Warriors do not want to find themselves in.

[Malcolm]

The main arguments against Curry's winning this seem to be based on relativity:

1) the Warriors are so goddamned good that losing any one individual player wouldn't have you noticing a difference, so Curry's hard numbers get minimized.
2) some other team is more of a one-man show and that man is more valuable to his team than Curry is to GS.

The main argument for it is backed by a fuckload of individual and team statistics which, in terms of absolutes, are simply fucking amazing.

[TheCatt]

Curry vs everyone else in history on 3 pointers

[Leisher]

Curry vs everyone else in history on 3 pointers

Impressive, but two things:
1. It proves my point that he will fall back to normal levels. Probably sooner rather than later.
2. "history" is a bit misleading. The 3 point shot hasn't been around forever, and until recently wasn't a huge part of most teams' game plan.

And again, he's so important to the Warriors that they won two playoff series without him. Hell, they won all but 1 game in 30 some that their coach was out. This team is stacked top to bottom. It's so loaded that they probably won't make a play for Kevin Durant in the off season.

[TheCatt]

1. It proves my point that he will fall back to normal levels. Probably sooner rather than later.

No, it does not. Nothing in that chart does.

"history" is a bit misleading. The 3 point shot hasn't been around forever, and until recently wasn't a huge part of most teams' game plan.

And look what player has taken advantage of it the most. The most valuable one.

And again, he's so important to the Warriors that they won two playoff series without him. Hell, they won all but 1 game in 30 some that their coach was out. This team is stacked top to bottom. It's so loaded that they probably won't make a play for Kevin Durant in the off season.

Puh-leez, the stats for this team say otherwise.

[Leisher]

No, it does not. Nothing in that chart does.

Sure it does. He's exceeding not only historical levels, but also his own benchmarks. Even if you want to pretend someone shooting a basketball from range has no chance of the percentage made fluctuating age will make those numbers drop.

And look what player has taken advantage of it the most. The most valuable one.

Take the 3 out of his game and what do you get? A ball handler. He does nothing else at exceptional levels. So we're saying that a guy who simply scores from 3 land is more valuable than another player who can play every position, score inside and outside, rebound, and is a shutdown defender.

By this logic, I expect the NFL has been fucking up not giving the MVP every year to a kicker.

Puh-leez, the stats for this team say otherwise.

Those stats don't overwhelmingly support your argument as much as you think.

Curry creates space because he shoots from 10-15 feet behind the 3 point arc. If he wasn't hitting a good percentage of those shots, he'd be a laughing stock for shooting from back there. Without him, teams can close their defense inside the arc. That's the biggest thing he gives his team.

I'm not Curry bashing. The guy's amazing. Should he have won the MVP this year? Yes. I'm just saying that the award should be renamed because there are more valuable players to their teams. Hell, Harden is a complete liability on defense, but his team doesn't make the playoffs without him. Isn't that value? The Warriors make the playoffs easily without Curry.

I'm just saying the award should be "Best Player" because "Most Valuable" brings a different meaning. And let's be 100% honest, if you ask most people what the "MVP" signifies to them, they'll most likely use the word "best", which again, doesn't necessarily mean "most valuable".

[TheCatt]

Take the 3 out of his game and what do you get? A ball handler. He does nothing else at exceptional levels. So we're saying that a guy who simply scores from 3 land is more valuable than another player who can play every position, score inside and outside, rebound, and is a shutdown defender.

No, the 3 is part of the game. Part of the game that makes him so valuable. Let's taking passing out of the NFL, what's Tom Brady then? And even with the 3, he's a pretty amazing shooter.

Curry creates space because he shoots from 10-15 feet behind the 3 point arc. If he wasn't hitting a good percentage of those shots, he'd be a laughing stock for shooting from back there. Without him, teams can close their defense inside the arc. That's the biggest thing he gives his team.

Another valuable thing he does for his team.

[Leisher]

No, the 3 is part of the game. Part of the game that makes him so valuable. Let's taking passing out of the NFL, what's Tom Brady then? And even with the 3, he's a pretty amazing shooter.

It's honestly ruining the game, but that's a different topic... (We need to stop talking about Curry's MVP before we hit that topic.)

Curry isn't historically amazing without those 3s. He isn't winning the MVP without those 3s. Put him in the pre-3 era and he's just another shooter.

And again, "best shooter" is vastly different from "most valuable".

Another valuable thing he does for his team.

And when the percentage he makes from way outside the arc starts to drop he's going to get a lot of harsh criticism asking why he's not moving closer to the basket for higher percentage shots.

By the way, you can't say "another valuable thing" to something that is already established. He hits long 3s which create space because defenders have to come out farther. They're related.

Again, the guy is amazing and should have won "best player this year", but not "MVP" and certainly not unanimously.

[Leisher]

The worst team in the NBA just started the worst new trend.

[Malcolm]

NBA teams will keep half of the money generated by selling sponsorships on jerseys, and that half will be further split in two, with one portion going to the individual team that does the deal and the other going to a revenue-sharing pool. The half that does not go to the teams will be split with the players and will contribute to a rising salary cap.

I can't see how this can possibly go wrong.

[Leisher]

The Thunder came to play! That's a huge win.

Good luck tonight and through the rest of the playoffs Stranger. You're only 8 wins away.