I think contribution to the team is important but comparing and contrasting two players contributions to the same team isn't.

???

If one player contributes more to a team, he is more valuable to the team. That's extremely important, it doesn't matter if they're on the same team.

Every role obviously has it's own duties....Saying that, "Oh, obviously a point guard is going to affect the offense more than a small forward" is such a weird assumption. The reason a point guard generally has that affect is because they are the best at handling the ball and leading the offense. If a small forward, like Lebron, is amazing at it, it doesn't matter what position is played. Leading an offense is a skill. It's not inherent to the position of a point guard. It is just expected of them. If Kevin Durant could lead the offense better than Steph, why would Kerr not delegate this duty to KD? This speaks more to the ability of Steph to be a floor general, to playmake, create open shots for his teammates, etc.

I mean Draymond and Iggy are literally the two other dominant ball-handlers and they're not even point guards. They're delegating this duty because they have the ability to lead the offense.

And I think I take exception to your claim that offense is absolutely more important than defense but if you explain your reasoning then I might understand better

The ruleset and the way games are officiated just lend itself to the offensive player rather than the defense. With the three ball becoming more and more prominent, defensive schemes haven't yet caught up to this evolution. In today's NBA, offense is just at an advantage. This is why we see so many offensive savants coming out in contrast to great defensive players...It's just harder. In the modern era, really only one team won a championship with a defense better than the offense -- the 2004 Pistons.

To clarify, are you saying that Curry's offense is better than KD's to the degree that KD's defensive contributions are essentially irrelevant?

Well I never said his defensive contributions weren't relevant. Just that the net impact of Steph is greater than KD's net impact. The way I rationalize this argument is that, through the eye-test and stats, Steph's offensive contributions are so great that they result in more winning than Kevin's defensive and offensive contributions. For that reason, I find that Steph is the better player, because of his otherworldly offense.

but it's just a reminder that Curry and KD on other teams might produce different results.