Warriors-Nuggets Summary

As the 2013 playoff series unfold, the old box score stats may not tell the whole story. These summaries will look at each series from the perspective of plus/minus. With an adjustment for minutes played, Oden's Knee will identify the players that stood out in each series, for good and bad reasons alike.

Best Plus Minus / Most Valuable Player: Steph Curry (+52 and Net +22.5 in 240 minutes). For every person who said Steph Curry would be a good pro, who defended him against those (read: me) who said he'd be a tweener offensive player who couldn't guard any position... take a bow. This series is one you can hold up anytime someone tries to question your brilliance. The Nuggets certainly play into Curry's ideal style, and the lack of Gallinari probably prevented Denver from playing several of its most-used and most productive lineups. But the Warriors were missing Lee for the whole series, so it's all a wash. Curry is a cyborg Reggie Miller with a handle, plus the shot-making creativity of Pistol Pete. There's no such thing as hyperbole until Game 1 against the Spurs.

Worst Plus Minus / Least Valuable Player: Ty Lawson (-53 and Net -28 in 237 minutes). This looks like a classic plus/minus head-fake, right? Of all the players I watched for Denver in this series, the two that seemed the most indispensable to my eye were Lawson and Iguodala/Faried, depending on the game. How, then, did this happen? Look at the per-game comparison of Lawson and Curry over the series:

Curry: 40 minutes, 24.3 points, 47% fg, 44% 3fg, 4.3 rebounds, 9.3 assists, 3.3 turnovers, 2.2 steals
Lawson: 39.5 minutes 21.3 points, 44% fg, 19% 3fg, 3.3 rebounds, 8.0 assists, 2.2 turnovers, 1.7 steals

This is a legitimate question that I can't answer. They were clearly on the floor at the same time, their individual stats are slightly in favor of Steph, and yet plus/minus sees them completely differently. Honestly, how is this possible?

Reverse Jerome James Award: Unconventional teams. At almost every turn, I've pointed out how the only teams that win NBA championships feature at least one All-NBA player (1st or 2nd team), and that competing without one just doesn't seem smart. I have also been rooting for the Nuggets to break that rule. Why? First of all, the style of play they always create (high-pace, aggressive/reckless plays, with a focus on getting to the rim) is easily the most enjoyable form of the game to any casual fan.

Second, and more important, it was far easier strategy to duplicate than the accepted model (acquiring one of the ten best players on the planet). It was a strategy that any GM could follow. Look at the Denver roster: not a single player drafted in the top 5 of any draft (as in, every team could likely build a roster like this if they wanted to). Their devotion to their style of play and roster construction didn't jive with the rest of the basketball world, and the skepticism of their postseason prospects feels similar to what the Steve Nash Suns faced (the anti- "defense wins championships" team). But, in the NBA, there's one ingredient you can't avoid if you want to win it all, and despite Denver's best efforts, that adage is true for yet another season. And the NBA is just a little less interesting than it could be as a result.