A former Golden State Warriors player argues that the team’s championship success would have been similar even without Steph Curry. The claim appears in coverage of commentary about Curry’s role, including an assertion that replacing Curry with another player would not have materially changed the Warriors’ outcomes.
The outlets present the same core idea but with different phrasing and emphasis. Yahoo Sports frames the remarks as a blunt or controversial assessment of Curry’s value to the Warriors, referencing Curry’s tenure with the franchise and the team’s sustained competitiveness. The New York Post similarly highlights the former teammate’s view, quoting or paraphrasing the idea that the Warriors would still have won championships under a hypothetical lineup change.
Neither source, based on the provided excerpts, offers detailed statistical evidence or a broader breakdown of Curry’s individual contributions. Both focus on the interpersonal claim from a former teammate rather than on independent analysis of the Warriors’ performance with or without Curry.
