Warriors better without Curry
It might be hard to believe, but your Golden State Warriors are a better team when Stephen Curry isn’t on the court.
I can hear Warriors fans right now calling that statement blasphemous. I can’t believe I’m buying this either.
But as Merc columnist Tim Kawakami points out, the Warriors have a better record when Curry plays less. [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/timkawakami/status/179245270377316352″] [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/timkawakami/status/179245865351909376″]
It’s a small sample size, and the numbers aren’t all that eye-popping, but it’s something to keep an eye on.
And it poses an interesting situation for the Warriors to at least ponder.
Curry hasn’t been able to put his best foot forward this season, plagued by a recurring ankle injury. While he’s trying to play through the injury, maybe he’s hurting the Warriors by playing. I imagine it demoralizes the team when they have to watch Curry leave a game after re-aggravating his ankle.
But more importantly, he’s hurting himself. That ankle injury wont heal itself overnight. And he’s probably making it worse. He needs to rest it. His injury isn’t allowing him to give the Warriors the full Stephen Curry.
If the Warriors are playing well without him, wouldn’t it be more beneficial if they shut him down for the season?
Hard to imagine, I know. But why risk further injury to one of your leaders? Why not let him come back healthy next season?
Warriors management needs to discuss it. They need to think about Curry’s future. And they need to think about the production of the team. A healthy Curry in 2012-13 is more valuable than an ineffective Curry this season.