Playoff Game Thread
- Thread starter ElUno20
- Start date
Would it really be that strange to see Durant win a title with his super team then decide to opt out and sign a mega deal with a team that he feels he can build to a championship squad?
It's foolish to compare the Warriors to any team of the past. I saw a debate about the Warriors vs '86 Celtics and it is like, the Celtics took under 200 threes as a team that year and GS shot just under 1000. The game has opened up and maximized the talents of players like Curry and Thompson.
Really is remarkable to think that Curry took almost as many 3's the past 2 years as Bird and MJ did in their entire careers.
"Who would beat whom?" is a fun but unanswerable question. Going by Basketball Reference's Simple Rating System ("a team rating system that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule"), the 2014-17 Warriors are the more dominant team relative to their era, and it's not close.
1999-2002 Lakers: +8.41 / +3.74 / +7.15
2014-2017 Warriors: +10.01 / +10.38 / +11.35
By 538's ELO system, the Warriors of the last three years have been three of the top five teams NBA of all time, along with the 1995-96 and 1996-97 Bulls. (The 1985-86 Celtics are currently #6). This year's version currently ranks #2, with a chance to rise to #1 or slip to #5, depending on how the next two playoff rounds play out.
None of those three-peat Lakers teams even crack the top 20.
Fwiw, going by ELO, the top five all-time Lakers teams are:
1. 2008-09 (#7 overall)
2. 1984-85 (#16)
3. 1971-72 (#20)
4. 2000-01 (#22)
5. 1986-87 (#24)
Very strange, to the point of shocking. He's pretty clearly signaled that he's re-signing at least for another season. He's almost certainly going to opt out; only question is whether he takes a new deal at the max or just re-ups with his "non-Bird rights" 20% raise (which would entail a ~$4M haircut from his true max.) Recent comments suggest the latter, which would allow the Ws to retain their cap holds on Iguodala and Livingston and re-sign them to any mutually agreeable amount. (My sense is that Iguodala will stay, but that they may let Livingston walk if he gets an overly generous offer from another team).
This is where I'm completely out of my league. So I'll concede. But to me, there is no stat(s) that can ever capture the brutal physicality of a prime Shaq and the demoralizing impact it had on opponents. Shaq's 25 ppg felt like 50 at times
It felt that way because it could and did happen all the time! Shaq could turn that 25 into 35, 45, 50 or even 61 (with 23 boards btw). There was something inevitable about him backing down some poor (only 7' 275lb) slob; it was like watching a cloud bank roll in. Still not the same way MJ's energy could take over a whole game though.
It always stood out to me just how much Hakeem dominated Shaq. Too bad a lot of his career was overshadowed by Jordan.
This seems almost solely based on their meeting in the 1995 Finals, when Hakeem was in his prime and Shaq was 22 and still pretty raw. The only other time they met in the playoffs was 1999 and Shaq abused Hakeem, outscoring him 118-53 in a 3-1 series win. Also Shaq won 14 of their 20 head to head regular season meetings, but really their primes barely overlapped if at all.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=Shaquille+O'Neal&player_id1_select=Shaquille+O'Neal&player_id1=onealsh01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2=olajuha01&idx=players
Regular season stats underrate the 2001 Lakers. They went 15-1 in the playoffs, with the one loss in OT, with a 12.75 point differential, sweeping a strong Kings team that would push them to 7 the next year and demolishing Duncan's Spurs (winning the final two games by 39 and 29) in the conference finals.
Shaq averaged 30.4/15.4/3.2 apg/2.3 bpg; Kobe averaged 29.4/7.3/6.1, and those numbers were at the much slower pace of the era. Shaq averaged 37.6/19 per 100 possessions.
Those Laker teams are a good lesson though. At the time, everyone thought they were going to win 5-6 titles in a row -- they had two of the league's three best players (Duncan being the third) They probably would have too if Shaq and Kobe hadn't fallen out.
Shaq averaged 30.4/15.4/3.2 apg/2.3 bpg; Kobe averaged 29.4/7.3/6.1, and those numbers were at the much slower pace of the era. Shaq averaged 37.6/19 per 100 possessions.
Those Laker teams are a good lesson though. At the time, everyone thought they were going to win 5-6 titles in a row -- they had two of the league's three best players (Duncan being the third) They probably would have too if Shaq and Kobe hadn't fallen out.
The thing is, the Lakers didn't have 2 of the best 3 players during their run. Kobe didn't really have any claim to top 5 status until a few years after their title run. And that is a big difference between those LAL teams and this GSW team.
The LAL team had the best player, and then a top 10'ish player in Kobe, and then a whole bunch of decent role players. This GSW team may have claim to 4 top 15 players in the league. With their top two being easily top 5 players. There hasn't been this loaded of a team, in terms of talent since...well, I'm not sure since when.
Who was better than Kobe at that time? Shaq and Duncan, yes. Garnett, maybe if you really value interior defense. Iverson, arguable but I'd lean toward no, Iverson was never efficient and Kobe was better defensively. Kidd, Webber, Carter, McGrady? Not for me.
Probably the 80s and 90s with teams like the Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, etc), or the Celts (Bird, McHale, Parrish, Maxwell), or Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, etc), Sixers (Dr. J, Barkley, Moses). Those teams were truly stacked. I mean Walton coming off the Bench?
But also.. by what metric is Klay a top 15 player? I can see arguments for Durant, Curry and Green.. but I think it would also be a stretch that two of those players are top 5.. top ten maybe.. but if you look at pure counting stats or ppg this year GS players don't rank in the top 5 in most.
I also think you're drastically discounting Kobe while allowing recency bias for GS.
I think it's kind of dumb because of the enormous difference in league style, obviously the shooting but the change in the way they call screens and hand checking, which has allowed a guy like Curry to really flourish. However, the Lakers would be able to play defense as well as I think possible against GS and they just wouldn't have an answer for Shaq inside. 2001 finals Shaq who ate Dikemebe Mutombo would annihilate whoever GS would throw at him, if he was making his free throws (a big IF) they could beat GS.
30-16 Spurs after the 1st Quarter.
Jackson and Van Gundy can never resist taking a jab at analytics with regards to a 2 for 1 at the end of a quarter.
Jackson and Van Gundy can never resist taking a jab at analytics with regards to a 2 for 1 at the end of a quarter.
I sometimes think the Warriors get bored and make poor decisions as a unit. The problem is that you cannot do that against a Pop coached team. He lives to exploit that stuff.
In their defense, that was a terrible shot by Curry. When analytics guys say you're better off getting two bad shots than getting one good one, they're not talking about off-balance 35 footers.
Spurs up by 15, and Coach Brown sticks with his rotation, and has Curry and Durant watching from the bench at the same time. The Spurs could pull this out to 20+ quickly if he isn't careful.
I actually think the bigger rule change was the change in the illegal defense rules. That made it much harder to feed the low post. Remember when the Warriors beat Memphis in the playoffs by just refusing to guard Tony Allen so that they could play 3v2 down low against Gasol and Randolph? That kind of thing wasn't allowed under the old rules. You didn't used to need shooters to create spacing. Teams now would just double Shaq before the catch to deny him the ball and dare someone like Horace Grant or Ron Harper to make jump shots. Those Laker teams wouldn't have nearly enough shooting to succeed against modern defenses.
Of course Curry and Durant are both top 5 players, they've won the last three MVP awards between them. I think they're probably the 2nd and 3rd best players right now, behind LeBron, ahead of Westbrook and Harden and right there with Kawhi. Thompson's maaaybe not top 15, but he's in the ~12-20 range. He was all-NBA 3rd team the past two seasons.
This just happened a few weeks ago...only for them to comeback and beat the Spurs. It's early
I'm not so sure the Spurs are playing well (although they are) as the Warriors are just playing like total crap on offense. They aren't running any motion on offense, taking a bunch of long twos after isos, throwing no-look passes to guys who aren't ready for the ball, etc.
Warriors haven't gone small at all. I know Green's had some fouls, but I don't understand that. Green at C is their best lineup.
Can the Dubs' small lineup compete on the boards with the Spurs? Because they've done an OK job in the first half, that one memorable breakdown late in the half notwithstanding.
The Dubs shooting 34% isn't entirely due to good D by SA; there's some shot luck involved.
They're getting rebounded already, and their bigs have struggled to guard LMA. Might as well go small, get your spacing on offense, and live with what happens on the other end.
It happened opening night too by these same Spurs......and the 2nd half was no better for them.
This is a series.....so long as the Warriors win one of these first two games.
