Stephen Curry has been the MVP frontrunner from the first game of the season, but there have been a number of other superstars having MVP-worthy seasons. Maybe we should have a real conversation. Paul Flannery and Tom Ziller discuss in the latest F+Z.
Should we give Stephen Curry the NBA MVP already?
Has the Warriors star really sewn up the NBA’s highest individual honor, and are superlative performances by the league’s other great players being overlooked?
Jason Miller/Getty Images
FLANNERY: Steph Curry has been far and away the Most Valuable Player of the first half of the season. Unless something dramatic (or terrible or terribly dramatic) happens, Steph's going to be the first guard to win back-to-back MVPs since Steve Nash a decade earlier. No one is arguing this.
But, man, look at the rest of this field!
LeBron James has had a quietly excellent season despite a wayward jump shot, Kevin Durant has had a fantastic return to form, Russell Westbrook is having the best season of his career and we've run out of ways to describe Kawhi Leonard's emergence. That's one hell of a top five, and I think you have to make room for Draymond Green on this list as well.
Steph really does ruin everything.
ZILLER: Mark Jackson was right all along.
The MVP race was deep last season, and while Steph was the best player, it was a far more debatable call, especially with James Harden running neck and neck all season in terms of individual prowess. As you say, there's simply no reasonable argument AGAINST Steph right now. There are just strong cases for other guys having MVP-type seasons.
That said, I do wonder if Kawhi will get more push should the Spurs catch Golden State (which seems plausible but not probable). Steph is revolutionizing the game on the offensive end. You could argue Kawhi is doing the same defensively with his evolved-Pippen model.
The Spurs are putting up historic team defense numbers despite the widespread adoption and improved league-wide conversion of the three-pointer. Kawhi is the fulcrum of that ... and he’s scoring a bunch and hitting 40 percent of his threes. He’s not inspiring millions of kids to dribble two balls or practice 30-footers, but he’s leading a revolution in his own way.
Maybe we should have an actual MVP race.
FLANNERY: I will note that I offered the *first half of the season* disclaimer. We tend to get a bit ahead of our ourselves on these things. You’re absolutely right that Kawhi can insert himself into the discussion if the Spurs catch Golden State in the standings, as well as the metrics. And look, LeBron is having a hell of a season, and so are KD and Russ.
Let’s take Steph out of this for a moment. Who’s your guy if he’s out of the equation? It sounds like you’re riding with Kawhi. I think that I’d still go for LeBron at the moment, even though Russ has had the better of it numerically.
ZILLER: LeBron has been phenomenal and deserves a ballot spot every year, even though his jumper has regressed and he’s finally showing a bit of age. Westbrook has continued to be a monster, and I’m starting to wonder if that Durant injury last season -- one which sprung Westbrook into THIS -- was a small blessing in disguise.
But for me it’s Kawhi (for the reasons outlined above) and then Durant. Like Curry, KD is flirting with 50-40-90 at a high usage and he’d be the unanimous best scorer in the league if not for Curry. The problem is there is no credible case for Durant over Curry right now, plus KD has so fully alienated the media that he’s getting no benefit of the doubt in the end. But man. This is the best Durant’s ever been in my opinion, and he already has an MVP and multiple scoring titles on real good teams.
I’m intrigued by your inclusion of Draymond in this conversation.
FLANNERY: (Obligatory Durant and the media digression: I don’t think it really matters what KD says about the media since most of the media just roll their eyes when he gets going on this tangent. Plus, a number of prominent national writers have really good relationships with him. It sure is a convenient excuse, though.)
Okay, Draymond. He is the quintessential player for whom the words “Most Valuable” cause sportswriters of a certain vintage to race to their dictionaries and reinvent the words. By that, I mean that he checks all the boxes across the board for a great team and offers a crapload of intangibles. What do we mean by most valuable, etc. etc.
Normally I’d be reticent about including such a player on a MVP list because to me the MVP is the best player, and the best player provides the most value because words mean what they mean. Draymond is not even the best player on his own team.
However, he is closer to being a 1B to Steph’s 1A than a No. 2 option. There’s no way that Golden State is this good without Draymond playing this well, and that makes them a transcendent team as opposed to merely a championship one. I’m not sure he’s in the top five, but I have him in the top six and I may be underrating him.
ZILLER: I sympathize with this viewpoint and I might have him even with Westbrook and LeBron in my unofficial early race for No. 4. The defense is nearly as strong as Kawhi’s, and Green really does help allow Curry to be Curry. He’s unique, which both helps and hurts his status as a player of utmost value. There’s no one really too comparable, but it’s also impossible to separate him from his context.
This also begs a question I've been lobbed recently: has Draymond graduated from "situational superstar" to full-on, unconditional superstar? Yes, obviously. If the Warriors trade him anywhere tomorrow, he may not retain MVP candidacy, but he will absolutely be a star. Ain't no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.
Westbrook began to insert himself into the MVP race around this time last year. Is there anyone who can do the same this season? I always look to Chris Paul as a dark horse MVP candidate, and he's been great. I don't think there's a credible case, though, given the others. Jimmy Butler has a shot at a ballot spot, though.
FLANNERY: Chris Paul should absolutely be in this discussion and it will be very interesting to see where Blake Griffin ends up at the end of the year because he was also having a great season before he got hurt. But you're right, given the other names we've already discussed, neither of the Clippers are in the top five.
Jimmy Butler has been great. He's surpassed Paul George in my mind as the second-best player in the East and you know how much I love PG. I wouldn't count George out of that mix either. He'll figure out his shot and get his legs back in the second half of the season. Butler, though, has been absolutely tremendous and he's in a very difficult spot as that team transitions from one era to the next.
We need to talk about Anthony Davis here because while I still think he's a top-10 player, this season has been a huge disappointment. It's not a case of too much, too soon -- many players have taken a step back at similar junctures -- but I do think it's obvious the Pels absolutely have to change their personnel, because this just isn't working. I've been resistant to the idea of AD playing center full-time, but I don't think there's any choice now.
ZILLER: We could do 2,000 words on what ails New Orleans -- we have, actually -- but you're right that change is necessary. I've been an Alvin Gentry backer forever, but his offense isn't putting any Pelican in good spots consistently and I have no idea how it's possible a defense that bad regressed further.
Not to absolve AD of responsibility for the Pelicans' shortcomings. He hasn't been anything like an MVP this season. At least he's not James Harden, though.
FLANNERY: ANYWAY.
Do you think this is ultimately a wrap for Steph? I lean yes, but the fact so many superstar players are having transcendent seasons leads me to think there will be a re-evaluation at some point this season.
Another thing about this little exercise: Any concern on your part that all these great players are lumped together on the handful of great teams we have this season? The whole thing is wonderful, but there’s an entire league out there swimming against this overwhelming tide. I worry about the wake.
ZILLER: Yes, Steph and/or the Warriors will need to have a serious downturn for him to lose. I think the media is now accountable enough, though, to ensure Kawhi, Durant and the others get a fair hearing if circumstances disrupt the current narrative.
On that latter point, I disagree with the premise a bit. Because our definitions of value are so inherently tied to wins, the majority of MVP candidates will always come from really good teams. And that’s probably how it should be in a broad sense, with allowances for exceptions (like AD last year).
But the inventory of stars is deep and broad, right? John Wall, Kyle Lowry, DeMarcus Cousins, Carmelo Anthony, Butler -- they're all having All-NBA level seasons outside the core group of the five title contenders. (Including the Clippers in there because why not? We might need to elevate Lowry's Raptors into that club, as well, pretty soon.)
My position on this is that while team quality is highly polarized, there is some solid star parity. No team has more than two true superstars right now, and most teams have at least one top-40 player.
FLANNERY: Hmmmmm. Perhaps the real grist for this particular conversation is in the murky depths of the also-rans. But I suppose we’ll have to save that for another week.
ZILLER: The murky depths of the also-rans, better known as THE ONLY TEAMS THAT CAN BEAT GOLDEN STATE, apparently.
* * *
SB Nation presents: Stephen Curry is literally a video game
See More:
