I know you disagree DF, but the evidence just keeps on mounting. I'm not convinced KD is a better player than Curry. I know you say if you were starting a team from scratch you would pick Durant before Curry. I think the evidence suggests you should pick Curry before Durant. You say that Curry uniquely fits in with the Warriors system, but there's really no evidence to suggest that. It seems to me the spacing he creates would work on other teams as well. For KD to be an earlier pick than Curry he would at least have to have the leadership skills to carry a team. But he didn't do that at OKC, he's not doing it at Golden State. At what point does one just accept what your lying eyes tell you? Meanwhile would Curry be a lesser shooter on another team? I don't think so, he is what he is, and it's that innate ability not the system that would make him a monster threat and create the same spacing advantages he gives to Golden State. We need to accept the evidence it's right in front of us
What was Curry considered to be before Steve Kerr showed up? He was the best shooter in the league, widely recognized, even then. But he wasn't close to Durant's level as an overall player, and GSW's best achievement was an 8th seed or something. This isn't ancient history either, in the grand scheme of things.
Under Mark Jackson, the Warriors were dead last in the league in passes per possession. Under Kerr, with pretty much the same personnel (pre-Durant), they were first. Kerr revamped that team's offense in a way that brought the best out of Curry and Thompson. Of course, Steph improved, and hell, you can say he became an even better shooter, but this isn't purely in vacuum. This was the result of a system centered around ball movement and off the ball player movement that made it just impossible for teams guard the Warriors.
I'm fine with someone arguing Curry is better than Durant, but your insistence on "no evidence" for Curry being perfect for the Warriors system, and subsequently, influencing that narrative is pretty odd. What do you mean no evidence? The above is evidence. Further evidence is, you're arguing that based on how the team is performing without Curry. Don't you realize that a big reason is he's the engine that makes them tick, and without him, the whole offense isn't the same? Now, of course, that's a testament to how great he is, but simply stating he's a better player because his team is performing worse without him, while simultaneously stating that there's "no evidence" that he fits in the Warriors' system in a unique way is contradictory (and once again, further evidence is in what the Warriors were with Curry before Kerr. And I'd argue, further evidence lies in Durant clearly being their best player last season).
Also, and keep in mind, I'm not trying to be condescending here, but saying Curry would offer the same spacing to any system is an oversimplification of basketball. Yes, Curry is the best, most versatile shooter in the world. He'd clearly be the best shooter in the league on any team. But any team would not also have Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant and a bunch of role-playing shooters IN ADDITION to Curry, engineered by the Warriors' unique motion offense (and it surely is unique), further facilitated by a point-forward like Draymond. Put Curry on a stagnant offense like say, the Thunder's... you really think he'd hit as many threes and get the same types of looks when he has to constantly beat players off the dribble almost exclusively (which don't get me wrong, he's excellent at) and just run pick and rolls with Steven Adams all day?
Also, do you account for defense? Because in that case the scale clearly tips in Durant's favor. Curry is more important to the Warriors, that much, to me, is obvious. But a better player than Kevin Durant? Doubtful IMO. Also, while Curry's shooting is otherworldly, we've seen that if the offense as a whole isn't clicking, his style leaves very low margin for error and his production suffers. It happened in the 2015 playoffs, where the Warriors faced nothing but depleted teams and were very lucky Kyrie/Love went down, and especially, in the 2016 finals, where Curry was abysmal. Durant is a more versatile offensive players, who can get you buckets differently.
As far as Durant's leadership skills, I agree. Curry is clearly the leader of that team and by Durant's own admission, he's just not a leader (he literally said as much recently). But to say "for Durant to be a better player he needs to have the leadership skills to carry a team" basically means you're boiling down the debate to leadership. That's part of it. Not all of it. Draymond is more of a leader for that team than Durant ever will be. No one will argue he's a better player though. And I'm an OKC fan, meaning I'm sour on Durant as much as the next guy, but he's carried that team in the past, in key moments too. Didn't do it all the way, and that's definitely a knock on his legacy, and he was absolutely woeful in that crucial game 6 against GSW in 2016, but he's been a much better playoff performer than Curry ever was so far, unless you didn't watch Steph in 2015 and 2016. Last season was the best Steph played in the playoffs...except Durant played better.
PS: When has Steph carried the Warriors? Couldn't do it in the 2015 playoffs, failed miserably in 2016 despite an otherworldly MVP season, and nobody would seriously claim he "carried" them last season. Being instrumental to their success doesn't mean he's carrying the team. Carrying the team would be Westbrook in the regular season last year.
