So acknowledging that the team has played at a high level without him and the roster consist of 4 all star starters is somehow a movement of goalposts?? Some of you cats are weird man.LOL.
Now you cant judge the impact/value of a player based on how team has performed with out him... (goal post moved)
You cant fold in other years, this isnt a legacy award, no matter how much youd like it to be.
You have only the sample the season to work with. Your arguments seem to be based on past years.
17 games played and 4 of 5 warriors losses came with out curry in the line up.
Team scores 15 less points, shooting % drops dramatically overall and disgustingly from 3. Assits fall off, hell the entire offense comes to a stop.... for the best (at least most hated) team of all time!
And since when do we award MVP awards based on a players absence and not his presence? Thus far the argument seems to be that since the team has lost a few games without him, Curry is MVP. Shouldnt we wait to atleast see how they perform long term while Curry is there... since it isnt a legacy award as you stated? Or is it ok to use past years stats in this instance since it benefits your argument?
Would Curry?If all star voting happend today would Klay or Draymond make the team?