It’s become ‘cool’ to say the Warriors won’t win the NBA title

Sure, there's always other reasons to anything, but when we have 4-5 instances out of almost 70 years, that's pretty glaring, and several of those times the players aren't playing like elite players, which is rare for any title team. Also, the only small in NBA history to be considered amongst the top elite(top 15ish) is West. There's a few mid-size players in there, but mostly bigs. It's a 'big' league. I can't remember a time when the truly best player in the league was a small. Curry won 2 MVPs, but nobody's taking him over James or KD. He just happened to be the best player on the best team, which was a great story, and he's a media darling. Once KD joined GS, we clearly see who's better between them. Very rarely do we not see the truly elite players not leading teams to titles. In recent memory, we have Kobe, James, Duncan, and Shaq really standing out. Throw in Dirk, KG, KD, and maybe Wade. All of these guys sustained themselves at the top of the game for many years. Nash/Paul, to name 2 guys, clearly don't fit in here. I don't know what you mean by 'the way the game has changed,' but it seems to be easier for smaller perimeter guys to excel with some of the recent rule changes. I didn't argue that Curry wasn't the best player on 2015 GS, but we need perspective. His cast was ridiculously great and easily the best cast in the league that year. He also was just the 3rd best player in the Finals and wears down regularly in the playoffs. He was an elite player that year, but given similar casts to James or KD, Curry's not winning. Dr. J did win, but wasn't the best player on that title team. He had a few great runs in the ABA though. Nobody's saying Thomas wasn't the best player on his DET title teams, but he was never a serious MVP candidate during his career, and no longer even an all-nba performer in 1989 or 1990, even on very successful teams which usually helps your case to make all-nba teams. He gets credit as the best player on 2 title teams, but his teams were stacked. Jordan was greatly superior to him in the ECF. Dumars was outplaying him at times, too. He had Rodman coming off the bench often, too. I'd say better than Billups or Wallace, whoever you like for 2004 DET, but again, none of these guys were true elite or MVP-candidate players. Someone has to be deemed 'best player' on these title teams though, but definitely not your typical 'best player on a title team.' And not denigrating anything, but when the opposing team's best player was substantially hobbled and who is normally much better than you, it deserves mentioning.

That's not what I'm doing at all. And I'm looking at the every title team in history, not just the last 10 years. But, just looking at the last 10 years highly supports what I'm saying that size matters a lot. This isn't a new concept either. What you're saying about the game changing lately might be true, but then we should see more smaller guys leading title teams, which we aren't. There's a lack of great centers today(which has little to do with how the game has recently changed or not), but there's more quality large mid-size players or PFs today, so there's still lots of quality bigs out there. Look at RW, for example. He's a great player, but made only 1 Finals with KD, and needed Harden, too, then. And now so far as his team's undisputed #1 option, he's won 1 playoff game combined in 2 seasons(2015, 2017). Already talked about Paul/Nash. They were each regarded as the league's top player for a time by many, and had several years of quality casts, but neither have made the Finals. There's actually just 3 groupings of players: smalls, mid-size, and bigs. Usually, there's a big leading a title team. KD is listed 6-9 at bkref, but there's reports of him being 7-0, and I never hear him being shorter than 6-11. James might be 6-8, which is a large mid-size, but he's more-or-less a big, too. Kawhi emerged in the playoffs in 2014, but he wasn't really SA's best player and not even in AS that year either. That title team was more of a 'team' than any one individual though. The mid-size players breaking through usually are large mid-size players bordering on bigs like Bird/Magic/James. There's very few instances when true mid-size players really excel like Kobe/Jordan continuously. Dr. J even never won an NBA title. I can't think of any dominant center in NBA history that didn't go on to win titles. There isn't anyone who fits that category today though. Cousins might be the best center today and puts up great stats, but that's about it and he's a headcase. Rarely do we see a title team not have an elite(top 5-6ish) player. And even rarer do we see a title team's top player not excelling in the Finals. This is the recipe for success more than anything else. It's not just size alone, but size definitely helps. If KD was only 6-3, he'd probably still be very good, but nowhere near his current status. Not sure about anyone on 2008 BOS fitting this, but Pierce/KG were close, and that team was stacked. Nobody was close to elite on 2014 SA, but again, more of a team thing, and Kawhi really emerged in the Finals outplaying James. Curry is the outlier here. Other than KD in 2017 joining Curry and maybe 2008 BOS, Curry had by far the best cast of any recent title team. Overall, he did well in 2015 Finals, but had a ton of help and needed Iggy outplaying James as well. Except for maybe Wade/Curry, whenever we see a small leading a title team, it's either a down year in the NBA and/or that player isn't really an elite player. The years Thomas/Billups won titles, neither of them even made 3rd team all-nba. This is very aytpical. This wasn't a one-guy leading a team thing, but more of a team concept. And 2004 LAL was injury ridden and depleted. Magic was hobbled in 1989 Finals, too. Special circumstances are also usually needed. Weird comment about narrative, especially since the evidence highly supports what I'm saying. There's a reason tall/big people play basketball.

I agree winning MVP 'suggests' you are the best player for the 'regular season' for that particular season; however, it's a highly subjective award voted on by non-experts(journalists), and often the wrong guy wins. Nash goes from a distant 2nd best player on 2004 DAL in his prime at best losing badly in 1st round to suddenly the MVP the next year with only slight stat improvements, which are the result of a system. Huh? Nash was deemed the hypothetical 'best player' by journalists who mostly voted for him because he was a 'good story.' In hindsight, he clearly didn't elevate his team more than several other players did, and we now know his MVPs were bogus. He was never a better all-around player as guys like KG, Dirk, Duncan, and Kobe, and that's just the West. Like I said before, if he's truly the MVP and playing with a great cast, he should be making not just 1 Finals, but several. Nash was usually good in the playoffs while with PHO, but so were several other guys on his own team in each series as well other guys on opposing teams. I wouldn't say he was ever the best player in each of his 3 playoff series in 2006, and that's just looking at the offense side. Factor in defense, no chance. Nash was very good in 2007 vs SA, but it's really hard to put him better than 3rd best player in that series, and that's probably very generous given his defensive ineptness. You could say similar 'unlucky' things about almost any player. The great players make their own luck, too. Nash wasn't even close to the best player in 2010 WCF either, plus that game still goes to OT if Artest doesn't make that shot. To reverse things, how about how lucky Nash was in game 6 vs LAL in 2006 1st round? He misses a late wide-open 3 to tie game in final seconds, but needs Tim Thomas to bail him out. LAL was 1 defensive rebound away from winning series with a garbage roster. There's no set parameters for 'small' players probably. Height and weight both matter. I'd think we know what a small player, obviously has to be a guard, likely no taller than 6-4. Wade is borderline, so maybe. Unless I'm missing something, there's only 4-5 title teams ever being led by small players. Usually it's big players, at least 6-8 or taller, with occasional mid-size guys usually great on both ends of the court breaking through. Thomas wasn't even an all-league player in 1989 or 1990 and never a real MVP candidate. His title teams were stacked. Magic was also hurt in 1989 Finals. Billups was never an elite player, had a great cast, and LAL was suffering major injuries by the Finals. These special situations for these 2. Curry was great in 2015, but he had by far the best cast in the league and was only the 3rd best player in the Finals. He didn't play like the best player in the league in the playoffs.

Ryan, believe what you want about MVP voting. But, I think it's pretty foolish to think Nash winning as many MVPs Shaq/Kobe combined doesn't make nba historians scratch their head all day long. Just like Iverson wasn't better than Shaq in 2001, there's endless examples. And I'm still waiting to hear what times Nash was the best player in the series loss he had with PHO. If he's truly the MVP(2x), then he needed to play like it, and I certainly didn't see that. Bad luck? Really? That's a pretty simple copout explanation, especially with lots of years of evidence saying otherwise.. DAL gets better without Nash, and pretty much makes the Finals immediately after he leaves. In all of his series losses, guys like Dirk, Duncan, and Kobe are substantially outplaying Nash, and Stoudemire is outplaying Nash at times, too. That's a lot of years of bad luck. At some point, I expect the MVP to play like the MVP, but I guess you don't. He played with great players most of his career, can't say he didn't have a lot of help. Back to the height argument. NBA history doesn't backup your theory of height not mattering. There's a reason tall people play and are better at basketball. We have Thomas leading DET 2X, maybe you could say Billups for 2004 DET though that was more of a team effort and Billups was never an elite player, and then Curry in 2015, though we're seeing Curry wear down a lot in the playoffs(which his smaller size causes some of that), only be 3rd best player in the Finals, and needing bench player Iggy to be the best player in the Finals. That's 4x in 68 years of the NBA. Maybe Wade should be included 1x, too, but I still thought that was Shaq's team.Do you honestly think if someone like James was 6-1, that he'd be anywhere near as good as he is?

Swampy, you continue to see the flaw in your logic. I'm not the one saying whoever wins Finals MVP means they're their team's best player, that's you. I don't consider Iggy the best player on 2015 GS. But, if you think Parker was 2007 SA's best player because he won Finals MVP, then you can't say Curry was 2015 GS's best player. Please think this through more. I've never heard anyone think Parker was the 2007 SA's best player let alone their leader. Have you? Parker didn't even make 3rd team all-nba in 2007. Duncan was 1st team all-nba and 1st team all-defense in 2007. I'll say it again, Nash had multiple AS teammates on multiple teams and never made 1 Finals. Think about that a little and all the help he had. Most love him which is why he gets a pass often for that. If he was the best player in the series he lost with PHO, I could see your point a little, but he wasn't, and often not even the 2nd best player in those series losses. PHO wasn't robbed in 2007. Their bench players made a bad mistake, that's their own fault going onto the court

I concur Ryan. I guess we are all welcome to our opinions. This is what the site is for.

He is better than Griffin, Green & Thompson and has played only 4 less games than Steph Curry and you can't tell me he wouldn't have been selected even if he'd not been voted as a starter.

You can't have your argument two ways. Either Parker lead his team to the 2007 title because he was recognised as the best player in the finals or Duncan was the team leader. If you consider Duncan was the team leader in your opinion then it is perfectly fair to point out curry is also the team leader of Golden State and has hence lead them to two titles. So whichever side you want to argue there is a recent case history of a small leading his team to a title. Not sure what you have against Nash. He was clearly a great player who made others around him much better. Perhaps you need to re-watch the spurs series 2007 (& how the Suns were absolutely cheated by the suspensions for game 7). The sun's were the best team in the nba that season and just imagine if Robert Horry attempted the assault he did on Nash in today's league! For the record I'm not a Suns fan. I used to be a big Sonics supporter (you know - Gary Payton who lead the sonics to the finals against MJ) & haven't followed a team since.

Jim, read everything first. I never said just because you're a certain size, you can't win titles. HOU looks much better than BOS right now, and the most likeliest team to beat GS, if possible, which is what I'm hearing from people, too. BOS has a fighter's chance, but I have a hard time seeing them beating CLE, and then even if they do, they'd likely have to beat TOR in the ECF, which TOR would have homecourt advantage likely. If you think they do, then great, I'd be happy with BOS could make the Finals. I'm sure Jordan could've won being 6-1. If Thomas won 2x with DET, then I'm sure Jordan wins with CHI. Size matter a lot in the nba, though. If Thomas was 6-6 like Jordan, he would've been a much better player, and vice versa. But, do you really think Jordan would've won 6 titles if he was 6-1? You all need to look at nba history. Look at who the best player was on each title team. They're almost always big players, and then there's some instances of mid-size players, and very few instances of small players(which special circumstances are always needed).

Ryan, which times was Nash the best player on teams that lost in the playoffs, particularly in the PHO's heyday from 2005-08. He wasn't even PHO's best player in their 2005 loss to SA. Dirk was better in 2006. At best, he was 3rd best player in 2007 series loss to SA. Maybe 4th best player in 2008 series loss to SA. He didn't make playoffs in 2009. He was clearly not the best player in 2010 series to LAL. Winning MVP certainly doesn't equate to 'best player in league.' Maybe some believe that, but I don't. Nash was never better than Kobe or Duncan, for example. There's weird agendas/opinions or a great story on who deserves MVP often. If Nash was truly the best player in the league playing with multiple AS teammates at multiple stops, but yet never made the Finals even once, that doesn't add up. And DAL improved once he left, too. You can win titles being a small, I've never said you couldn't. And we've seen it a few times. But, what should be obvious, is that it's much harder and almost never happens. And the best players on title teams are almost always bigs or at least mid-size players, and usually these players are great on both ends of the court. Nash/Paul are media darlings, but I'm not surprised either came close to winning a title, especially Nash, since he didn't concern himself much on defense. Jerry, Paul is playing great, but he's missed 18 games. He would've made the AS team in the East, but I don't know who you take out from the West team for him. He's also not better than Griffin, and Griffin didn't make it ether.

Swampy, more like you need to re-read. You're saying Parker led SA to a title in 2007, which I've never heard before(that was clearly still Duncan's team), just because he won Finals MVP. But, then you're saying Curry led GS to a title in 2015(which I'd agree), but he didn't win Finals MVP. You really can't see the flaw in your logic here? And not sure where I'm bashing Curry, you're reading into things a bit. Curry is a great player. Nash was 29 in his last season in 2004 with DAL(in his prime), his 8th year in the league, not exactly his rookie season. He then basically has the same stats except an increase in assists due to uptempo style in PHO in 2005. I seriously doubt Irving is 6-3, he looks much shorter. Even if he is, he's much smaller/weaker than Harden. Harden is super strong and can actually defend bigs in the post sometimes. Irving is injury prone too, which is due at least partially to his smaller frame. Nice mention of Lowry, I can't remember the last time he was considered TOR's best player. Obviously TOR needs both of them to have a chance. Neither elite players. I'm not missing the point. I started this discussion about small players, and now you've changed the parameters. And for the record, clearly no single player can lead a team to a title, I'm not disagreeing with that. Lots of players, including smalls, are the best players on good teams, but we almost never see smalls leading their particular teams to titles. It's very rare. So saying KD is the best player on GS is Curry bashing? You need to chill and quit reading into things. KD is clearly GS best player. Maybe Curry is the supposed leader, I could care less, but KD is the best player. When did Iverson lead a team to a title? That's the whole premise of what I'm saying. And look at the teams he beat in the East to reach the Finals. Not exactly great teams. He should've led his team to the Finals, since he was the best player in the East that year. And since you say no single player can win. Then, how did 2001 PHI win 56 games if Iverson had no support?

Probably need to re-read the chain properly Tex. You wouldn't be any good at interpreting contracts. Regardless, Nash was a 2-time MVP. Why bring up Dallas - he was basically a rookie there and playing behind Jason Kidd. Did you refer to Irving as mid-size like Harden, Kobe and Jordan? He's 6'3" in shoes. Nice mention of DeRozan but if you ask any Raptors fan, they don't tick without Lowry. Again with the Curry bashing - Durant leads GSW. Does he? He might well be their best player but I would say Curry is their leader. I personally am annoyed by curry and his silly dances but he has been a revolutionary player in the nba. Also a 2-time MVP. Still, you miss the overall point. You say no small player can lead a team to a title. But I say no single player can lead a team to a title. You need team mates, big and small, to help. LeBron didn't win in Cleveland in his first go because he had a cast of minor parts (though he dragged them a long way). I have one more name for you. Shoot me down by all means. Allen Iverson. He somehow dragged possibly the worst supporting cast ever to the finals (& even managed to win a game on his own). I've stood next to AI and I'm 5'11" and I reckon I had a good two inches on him (in height). Take that for data!

Just to clarify something - Paul isn't borderline All Star. Him missing out this year is one of the biggest snubs in NBA history IMO. He's a better player than at least half of the players selected, IMO.

I cant believe you think the Rockets can win a title with Harden, but the Celtics cant win with Irving, because one is 5cms taller than the other. By that logic, Jordan would never have led the Bulls to single championship, had he been 5cms shorter. Correct?