Saw a meme showing that Kelly Oubre is shooting 0-31 on non-dunk attempts this year. This Warriors team is again a laughingstock of the league and Curry being exposed as a non-star. Wtf is going on in Oakland?
I loved Tree as a younger man, but that was the Golden Age of Basketbrawl™. There was never a question that he was one of the dirtiest mofos around.Rollins literally elbow smashes Ainge in the face, instigating the entire thing. Mind-blowing.
Someone clearly thinks that Grayson is getting a raw deal by people calling out his years-long inability to control his temper.
Non star? Come on.Saw a meme showing that Kelly Oubre is shooting 0-31 on non-dunk attempts this year. This Warriors team is again a laughingstock of the league and Curry being exposed as a non-star. Wtf is going on in Oakland?
I think it might be 0-33 now, lol. On the other hand, he scored 19 ppg last year on .560 TS, and dropped 22 on 12 fga in his last preseason game, so I doubt l it’s anything beyond small-sample noise. In the meantime, his defensive activity and rebounding has been killer.Saw a meme showing that Kelly Oubre is shooting 0-31 on non-dunk attempts this year. This Warriors team is again a laughingstock of the league and Curry being exposed as a non-star. Wtf is going on in Oakland?
WTF kind of super hot take is this?Saw a meme showing that Kelly Oubre is shooting 0-31 on non-dunk attempts this year. This Warriors team is again a laughingstock of the league and Curry being exposed as a non-star. Wtf is going on in Oakland?
If any other player was the lead guy on one of the leagues worst teams would they be considered a star? I’m won’t be the only one questioning Curry if this team continues down the path they are on.....I’m just in early.Non star? Come on.
What is happening is that the team had 4 hall of fame players on their roster two years ago. Now they have one, and one injured, and one injured and out for the season. The 4th is in Brooklyn. I feel like that would probably hurt a team's fortunes. But calling Curry a non star is laughable.
Yeah for sure I’ll admit that. What if this team goes 18-50 with blowout losses continuing from last season? At what point is he questioned....or is he ever questioned. That’s kinda where I’m going with it.WTF kind of super hot take is this?
So you're Max Kellerman now calling that Brady has fallen of the cliff?If any other player was the lead guy on one of the leagues worst teams would they be considered a star? I’m won’t be the only one questioning Curry if this team continues down the path they are on.....I’m just in early.
I thinj he's just mixing things up. He just called out Ainge for tackling a behemoth for elbowing him in the chops.Steph Curry is like a top five offensive player of all time still arguably in his prime and we got guys saying hes a non star? What in the world?
If the Warriors win 18 games this year will you still consider Curry such?Steph Curry is like a top five offensive player of all time still arguably in his prime and we got guys saying hes a non star? What in the world?
What do any of his past accomplishments have to do with the present? Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today. Is that so wrong?Lol, wait, you’re being serious with this, HRB? I thought you were just parroting something you read on Twitter. Or that Curt Schilling had hacked into your account.
A quick tally:
• Two-time league MVP,; only unanimous MVP ever.
• Best FT shooter in NBA history (the only context-independent metric we have)
• Most efficient 20+ ppg scorer in NBA history
• Most efficient 20+ ppg scorer in NBA playoff history (or #2 after AD, depending on your minimum total minutes cut-off)
• Best high-volume three point shooter in NBA history; hit 402 threes in a season; is to three ball what Babe Ruth is to home runs
• Led team two a 140-24 record, two Western Conference championships, and a title as by far its best player.
• Best NBA player from 2014-19 by 538 advanced stats which attempt to factor in quality of teammate.
On the other hand, we have...
• The partial-strength Warriors took two bad losses coming of a pandemic and a laughably abbreviated training camp.
Tough call.
Yes, it's irresponsibly wrong.What do any of his past accomplishments have to do with the present? Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today. Is that so wrong?
He'd look 100% better if Golden State just took its chemo and got rid of Wiggins. He's stage 5 cancer. I wonder if the Knicks are desperate enough to trade Randall and Frankie Smokes for him? I suppose that would be one way to make a Hrden deal work, find someone like the Knicks to pony up some flotsam deals for Wiggins and then bundle those with the other Trash Brother and bring in Harden, Gordon, and possibly House.Steph Curry is like a top five offensive player of all time still arguably in his prime and we got guys saying hes a non star? What in the world?
It seems a fair question to me. I think Curry is still a great player, but there's definitely a non zero chance that that is not the case.What do any of his past accomplishments have to do with the present? Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today. Is that so wrong?
File under "begging the question." What if any superstar's team goes 18-50 with blowout losses?What if this team goes 18-50 with blowout losses continuing from last season?
You weren't just "wondering" — you made a claim that "Curry [is] being exposed as a non-star" based on small sample theater of three games. Curry is 32 — over three years younger than LeBron; the same age as Jordan at the very beginning of his second three-peat; or (if we want to pick a guy with the same skillset, size, and body type) Steve Nash in his second MVP season. He trains and takes care of his body as religiously as those guys. @Kliq It's not just 2014 and 2015 when he was unstoppable — he was equally or more unstoppable in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The last time we saw him in games that mattered was the 2019 Finals, when at age 31 he put-up 30.5 ppg on 60% true shooting, 5.2 rpg, and 6.0 apg, roughly the same numbers as Finals MVP Kawhi, despite being box-and-one'd to death in the absence of KD. The series before that he wrecked Portland and Dame in four straight without KD; and the series before that he crushed the souls of an NBA-champion quality Rockets team that was licking its chops at being able to face him without KD.Curry was obviously a great player. I wondering whether he still is today.
Wiggins kinda sucks as a player, but your characterization of him as any kind of a clubhouse cancer is pretty wildly off-base. He was by all accounts extremely well-liked in Minnesota, and continues to be that in SF. He has a rep as a nice guy (maybe too nice?) and really hard worker; and to the extent that the "best ability is availability" cliché is true, he's arguably the most durable player in the association. He laces 'em every single night and does his thing for 30+ mpg, for better or (quite often) worse,He'd look 100% better if Golden State just took its chemo and got rid of Wiggins. He's stage 5 cancer. I wonder if the Knicks are desperate enough to trade Randall and Frankie Smokes for him? I suppose that would be one way to make a Hrden deal work, find someone like the Knicks to pony up some flotsam deals for Wiggins and then bundle those with the other Trash Brother and bring in Harden, Gordon, and possibly House.
(Say something like Wiggins to New York, Randall, Frankie Smokes, DSJ, Alec Burks, KO Jr, Minnesota #1, Golden State '21 #1, plus picks to Houston, and Harden/Gordon, and House to Golden State.)
You can say that about anyone. The point is that a three-game sample tells us nothing we did not already know.It seems a fair question to me. I think Curry is still a great player, but there's definitely a non zero chance that that is not the case.
And yet teams immediately get worse when they acquire him. And the players around him get worse once they start playing with him. He's that guy that fans and GMs dream on, but when you're ginormous downgrade from Mr. DARcy, you need to be playing for the Knicks.Wiggins kinda sucks as a player, but your characterization of him as any kind of a clubhouse cancer is pretty wildly off-base. He's was by all accounts extremely well-liked in Minnesota, and continues to be that in SF. ...
His main issue is not that he's carcinogenic but simply that isn't that good at basketball. He's mediocre at best as a shooter, passer, rebounder, and defender, without excelling any one area. He really is the second coming of Harry Barnes in a lot ways.
Wiggins is definitely the exception to that.He has a rep as a nice guy (maybe too nice?) and really hard worker; and to the extent that the "best ability is availability" cliché is true, he's arguably the most durable player in the association.
Honestly curious - and maybe you don't know - but if Wiggins is such a hard worker, how come he never seems to get better given his physical gifts?He has a rep as a nice guy (maybe too nice?) and really hard worker
This is going to be a very weird regular season.Five remaining undefeated teams in the league at the moment: Cleveland, Orlando, Indiana, Atlanta, and OKC. Heh.
Pretty simple. I would question that player being a superstar. Doc Rivers coached a team to .500 with Ron Mercer as arguably his best player and 5 Undrafted Rookie FA in his rotation.....and he didn’t even play.File under "begging the question." What if any superstar's team goes 18-50 with blowout losses?
Yes, he was a non-factor in the two blowout losses before lighting up Coby White and Zach Levine......so I was wondering when others would begin questioning him should it continue.You weren't just "wondering" — you made a claim that "Curry [is] being exposed as a non-star" based on small sample theater of three games.
Based on? The Warriors are the only that has ever acquired him, and they were (by W-L record and eye test) a bit less awful with Wiggins than they had been with Mr. DARcy. (Unless you're counting the Wolves sending off their franchise player to draft him as 19 yo. rookie, which doesn't seem particularly fair).And yet teams immediately get worse when they acquire him.
Some people just aren't that good at stuff, you know? He may have "physical gifts" in a track and field sense, but that quite often does not translate to the feel for a game that make an NBA star. The areas where Wiggins is most lacking — feel, court vision, awareness, rebounding, physicality, e.g.. — are not really things that can be improved to a significant degree with hard work. Shooting can to a degree, but even that has it limits. LeBron has never been a very good FT shooter, for example, despite his legendary work ethic.Honestly curious - and maybe you don't know - but if Wiggins is such a hard worker, how come he never seems to get better given his physical gifts? And what is he working on all of the time that he is working?
No one said that he was working at basketball (I mean, jaysus, it’s his seventh season and his defense still sucks like an aging ex porn star).Honestly curious - and maybe you don't know - but if Wiggins is such a hard worker, how come he never seems to get better given his physical gifts?
His stock portfolio.And what is he working on all of the time that he is working?
Fair. So cross that bridge if you get to it, rather than assuming the premise in your conclusion. Your "questioning" of Steph can be applied to LeBron, Durant, Lillard, or any other superstar. And again, your initial comment that got me and others fired up was a claim, not a question.Pretty simple. I would question that player being a superstar.
Define "non-factor." He put up 20 pts 4 reb 10 ast in 30 minutes in Game 1, and 19 pts 4 reb 6 ast in 29 minutes in Game 2. Roughly the same numbers as LeBron and Lillard in their first two games. When do we get to begin "questioning" them?Yes, he was a non-factor in the two blowout losses before lighting up Coby White and Zach Levine......so I was wondering when others would begin questioning him should it continue.
Jonathan Feigen
@Jonathan_Feigen
Ugh. Ja Morant hopped off the court in pain, terrible looking turn of his left ankle. No more injuries, please.
8:28 PM · Dec 28, 2020
I don’t know if he’s that good but he is phenomenal in your system with the ball in Hardens hands. Instant chemistry between the two.If Wood is legitimately this good, we’re going to end up as a top 3 seed. There’s no need to trade Harden, his best fit is where he is.
Thanks for response. Seems to me that faith, consistency, and hard work pay off, but . . . .Some people just aren't that good at stuff, you know? He may have "physical gifts" in a track and field sense, but that quite often does not translate to the feel for a game that make an NBA star. The areas where Wiggins is most lacking — feel, court vision, awareness, rebounding, physicality, e.g.. — are not really things that can be improved to a significant degree with hard work. Shooting can to a degree, but even that has it limits. LeBron has never been a very good FT shooter, for example, despite his legendary work ethic.
Is it really hard to believe that a player can fall short of NBA stardom for some other reason than being a cancer or having a bad work ethic?
Yeah, Wood and Harden have been a terrific combo. Houston is going to push 50 wins with them. There’s zero urgency to trade Harden if teams are offering pennies on the dollar. They can always get that little in the offseason.Harden with 28/6/4 at the half, 8/10 from the field, 4/5 from three, 8/8 FTs. We can't trade him. We'll never get back anywhere close to what his true value is. We'll win a bunch of games with a full roster.
I remember how Lebron stopped being a superstar two years ago but then became one again last year.Pretty simple. I would question that player being a superstar. Doc Rivers coached a team to .500 with Ron Mercer as arguably his best player and 5 Undrafted Rookie FA in his rotation.....and he didn’t even play.
Yes, he was a non-factor in the two blowout losses before lighting up Coby White and Zach Levine......so I was wondering when others would begin questioning him should it continue.
Portland's problem last season was that they just had no depth at the wings position and lacked the players with the size and athleticism to guard LeBron/Davis. Getting Covington was a good move; and they are relying on Derrick Jones Jr. a ton to contribute, he has played big minutes so far. They won tonight because they got a monster game out of Gary Trent Jr., who had 28 points in 23 minutes and went 7/11 from three.If Portland could ever keep its starter healthy into the post-season, they could make some noise!
Jokic has been a slow starter over the past few years; but with the quick turn around he didn't have enough time to get out of shape so he is off and rolling so far.
It helps when you go 15/15 from the line.Trae 29 pts with 13 FGA... crazy efficient
We need to have a talk about Kareem then.But I get what HRB is hot-taking. If you're an NBA superstar, your team should be at least a .500 team, even if you're playing with four guys from Moses Malone's neighborhood.
Not to belabor the point, but HRB’s Hot Take (TM) did not include any caveats about “if the team sucks with him as leader” and did not use the term “superstar.” Those were both weasely goalpost moves. The original claim is at the top of the page: “Stephen Curry is being exposed as a non-star.”If the Warriors don't get Green back, and have to play this castoff crew all season, Steph will be the Trae Young from the last two seasons. He still will put up numbers, but his team will lose. It will be interesting to see how Curry responds to playing with a bunch of guys, after a long run of playing with great players.
But I get what HRB is hot-taking. If you're an NBA superstar, your team should be at least a .500 team, even if you're playing with four guys from Moses Malone's neighborhood.
That was 26-30 Curry. The 31 year old Curry did not play basketball so thinking the 32 year old Curry might be pretty different than the 26-30 Curry is fair. HRB's take is obviously hot and hyperbole but I don't think questioning Curry or Durant this year is (was) unfair. Both look perfectly fine to me in the early going though.Anyway, yes, that was all the age 26-31 Curry as opposed to the geriatric 32 year old version we see now. You can check out the last minute or so if the highlights from the last game (all during crunchtime with the Ws on the ropes) and judge for yourself to what degree he has or has not declined:
Curry was 31 in the 2019 Finals when he put up 31 ppg 5 rpg 6 apg on 60% true shooting while being box-and-one’d.That was 26-30 Curry. The 31 year old Curry did not play basketball so thinking the 32 year old Curry might be pretty different than the 26-30 Curry is fair. HRB's take is obviously hot and hyperbole but I don't think questioning Curry or Durant this year is (was) unfair. Both look perfectly fine to me in the early going though.
His take isn't even all that hot since some people didn't even have Curry or Durant in their top 10 to begin the year. I think that's fair too. Well, ok. It's still pretty hot. It's one thing to argue if he's in the top 10 after missing a year to injury, and another completely to call him a non star.
People did the same with Kawhi, and to a lesser extend Paul George too.