PDA

View Full Version : Warriors 70+ wins...



LOb0
01-18-2016, 08:37 PM
They have to play OKC and SA a total of 8 times still. They play Cleveland tonight and they still have nearly half a season to go. People were writing them in to beat the Bulls record, do you think all the talk was stupid and premature or do they still have a shot?

Scoots
01-18-2016, 08:41 PM
I wouldn't say "stupid" ... More optimistic.

tredigs
01-18-2016, 09:08 PM
Well, up until a week ago they had the best start to a season in NBA history despite battling through a lot of injuries. And we're midway through the season. Obviously there's nothing stupid about folks asking the question of whether or not they could approach/eclipse 72. I don't think anybody "wrote them in" to beat the Bulls record. I've been pretty consistent in thinking they'd win 68-72, and barring an injury to Draymond or Curry, I still think that's about their range. Maybe 66-72 is more appropriate. But they still do have an outside shot at the record.

sf-fanatic
01-18-2016, 09:21 PM
No one wrote them in to beat the record. They just had a reasonable chance and still do although its a little less likely now.

kdspurman
01-18-2016, 09:35 PM
^idk, I felt like early on a lot of folks were sure they would. It's still possible, but not likely imo.

tredigs
01-18-2016, 09:40 PM
^idk, I felt like early on a lot of folks were sure they would. It's still possible, but not likely imo.

I definitely never got that impression. Certainly not on the Warriors board or among my friends at home. Media's going to push that theme obviously, but nobody denies how incredibly difficult breaking 72 would be. Still though, they're technically on pace to do it. 37-4 at the exact halfway mark = 74-8. Both their games against San Antonio in San Antonio are b2b's though. That hurts 'em. Likely 2 L's there. And the Spurs games in GS are them coming in well rested. Also a bad break for GS there. I could realistically see SA taking 3 of 4.

HandsOnTheWheel
01-18-2016, 09:49 PM
Yeah I thought there were a bunch of people saying they would beat the Bulls record.

Can they still do it? Of course.

Is it still probable? No.

kdspurman
01-18-2016, 09:57 PM
I definitely never got that impression. Certainly not on the Warriors board or among my friends at home. Media's going to push that theme obviously, but nobody denies how incredibly difficult breaking 72 would be. Still though, they're technically on pace to do it. 37-4 at the exact halfway mark = 74-8. Both their games against San Antonio in San Antonio are b2b's though. That hurts 'em. Likely 2 L's there. And the Spurs games in GS are them coming in well rested. Also a bad break for GS there. I could realistically see SA taking 3 of 4.

Maybe media driven, you're right. It wasn't a lot of warriors fans I guess pushing that, but lots of I guess neutral fans who thought they would.

But yea, SA in 2/3 games last year against you guys were on b2b's as well and we won 2/3. Both games it was vs the Clips the night before before travelling to Oracle. So who knows what kind of factor that plays.

HandsOnTheWheel
01-18-2016, 09:58 PM
Cavs are getting destroyed atm though :)

Bostonjorge
01-18-2016, 11:01 PM
cavs are getting destroyed atm though :)

lol

Scoots
01-19-2016, 12:03 AM
Even with 4 SA/GSW games left in the season ... both teams may well play those games totally vanilla to not show anything since the odds of the meeting up in the playoffs seems so high.

Emotionally it seems the Warriors need to win vs SA more than the other way around.

Other than Stylez most of the Warriors forum seemed to think beating 67 wins was unlikely even though we thought the team would be significantly better this year.

tredigs
01-19-2016, 12:11 AM
Even with 4 SA/GSW games left in the season ... both teams may well play those games totally vanilla to not show anything since the odds of the meeting up in the playoffs seems so high.

Emotionally it seems the Warriors need to win vs SA more than the other way around.

Other than Stylez most of the Warriors forum seemed to think beating 67 wins was unlikely even though we thought the team would be significantly better this year.

Eh, I don't know about that. I don't think there's too many secrets to how they're going to try to play one another, and frankly the games will mean way too much with HCA implications to do anything but go all out.

Scoots
01-19-2016, 12:59 AM
Eh, I don't know about that. I don't think there's too many secrets to how they're going to try to play one another, and frankly the games will mean way too much with HCA implications to do anything but go all out.

If it gets to the last week of the season and the Warriors have a 4.5 game lead those games will likely be meaningless and it's not a reach to think they could have a 4+ game lead

tredigs
01-19-2016, 01:05 AM
If it gets to the last week of the season and the Warriors have a 4.5 game lead those games will likely be meaningless and it's not a reach to think they could have a 4+ game lead

That would still only be the case in 1 of the 4 games they play. All the others are early enough where that would not be a possible scenario.

likemystylez
01-19-2016, 01:15 AM
If it gets to the last week of the season and the Warriors have a 4.5 game lead those games will likely be meaningless and it's not a reach to think they could have a 4+ game lead

Im not sure which is a bigger accomplishment at this point- winning 72 games or having a 4+ lead on the spurs (after playing against them 4 times)

Scoots
01-19-2016, 01:30 AM
That would still only be the case in 1 of the 4 games they play. All the others are early enough where that would not be a possible scenario.

No. They play on April 7th (Game 79) AND April 10th (Game 81). Those games may well be meaningless.

Scoots
01-19-2016, 01:31 AM
Im not sure which is a bigger accomplishment at this point- winning 72 games or having a 4+ lead on the spurs (after playing against them 4 times)

My point was that they will have only played them 2 times to that point in the season.

LOb0
01-19-2016, 01:41 AM
Even with 4 SA/GSW games left in the season ... both teams may well play those games totally vanilla to not show anything since the odds of the meeting up in the playoffs seems so high.

Emotionally it seems the Warriors need to win vs SA more than the other way around.

Other than Stylez most of the Warriors forum seemed to think beating 67 wins was unlikely even though we thought the team would be significantly better this year.

Why is that?

Scoots
01-19-2016, 01:43 AM
Why is that?
Because in recent years the warriors have been able to beat everybody regularly except the spurs.

Quinnsanity
01-19-2016, 01:46 AM
If they go 4-4 against the Spurs and Thunder, then they'd only need to go 30-4 the rest of the way to get to 70. That's obviously tough, but it's entirely doable considering they've won 24 in a row already at one point this season, are still very healthy, wouldn't have any games left against the Spurs, Thunder or Cavs, and 30-4 stretches while difficult happen pretty much at some point every year. So yea, still very doable.

Gander13SM
01-19-2016, 06:47 AM
Warriors are 38-4. Bulls were 39-3 at this point. So its only a 1 game difference.

Still possible. Even if they split the Spurs series (win 2, lose 2) and by some miracle lose 2 against OKC (and win 1). They would need to make sure they dont lose more than 3 other games to tie the record.

So excluding OKC and Spurs, they would need to go 30-3. 17 homes games, 16 road games. Toughest teams are Clippers, Miami, Dallas and Chicago.

If you think a team that went 37-3 can't go 30-3 when you take out the top 3 teams in the league (Cavs,Spurs,OKC) I don't know what to tell you.

It's possible.

Phantom Dreamer
01-19-2016, 07:24 AM
If they go 4-4 against the Spurs and Thunder, then they'd only need to go 30-4 the rest of the way to get to 70. That's obviously tough, but it's entirely doable and 30-4 stretches while difficult happen pretty much at some point every year. So yea, still very doable.Is this true?

Scoots
01-19-2016, 11:19 AM
Is this true?

Probably not. But some team will win 10-13 in a row then lost 1 then win the next 5 etc ... so while a team may not go 30-4 over 34 games every year some team has a ridiculous hot streak every year.

Sanjay
01-19-2016, 08:24 PM
If they go 4-4 against the Spurs and Thunder, then they'd only need to go 30-4 the rest of the way to get to 70. That's obviously tough, but it's entirely doable considering they've won 24 in a row already at one point this season, are still very healthy, wouldn't have any games left against the Spurs, Thunder or Cavs, and 30-4 stretches while difficult happen pretty much at some point every year. So yea, still very doable.

The Warriors only play the Thunder three times this season (two of them at home) so they should go at least 2-1 there. The last two games against the Spurs are in the last five days of the season when San Antonio will most likely have locked up the 2 seed and be resting players, while Golden State will probably still be chasing 70+ wins. I think the Dubs go 3-1 against SA. This would mean they would have to go 27-6 (4.5 wins for 1 loss) to get to 70-12 or 30-3 to have a single-digit loss regular season.

I think it is not so much about how their games against the Spurs and Thunder, but about how they mentally prepare against the other teams on the road (three of their four losses have come against sub .500 teams away from Oracle). Also, I do not think you can put Oklahoma City in the same tier as Golden State and San Antonio (personally I would place these three teams in their own tiers). Obviously, I hope the Warriors get 70+ wins.

Quinnsanity
01-19-2016, 08:45 PM
Is this true?


Probably not. But some team will win 10-13 in a row then lost 1 then win the next 5 etc ... so while a team may not go 30-4 over 34 games every year some team has a ridiculous hot streak every year.

Just after a cursory check, it's happened at least once in the last five years:

'14-15: Hawks from game 14-48

'13-14: Spurs from game 46-80

'12-13: Heat from game 45 on (they only lost twice)

'11-12: Spurs from Game 40 through Game 2 of the WCF

'10-11: Bulls from game 51 through Game 3 of ECQF

Don't wanna keep researching, but yea, it seems like it happens most years. Plus, the Warriors have already done it once this year, so a precedent has been set.

KnicksorBust
01-20-2016, 12:53 PM
Well, up until a week ago they had the best start to a season in NBA history despite battling through a lot of injuries. And we're midway through the season. Obviously there's nothing stupid about folks asking the question of whether or not they could approach/eclipse 72. I don't think anybody "wrote them in" to beat the Bulls record. I've been pretty consistent in thinking they'd win 68-72, and barring an injury to Draymond or Curry, I still think that's about their range. Maybe 66-72 is more appropriate. But they still do have an outside shot at the record.

That's the sick part. I feel like when this comes up in football people always point to the inevitable injury. Everyone in Golden State's starting 5 has missed at least 1 game. Curry/Klay/Barnes/Green/Bogut. Iggy is the only one to have played in all 42. Yet they are still 38-4. That is incredible. This truly is a historic team and one of the greatest of all-time. I have no problem putting them in conversations with the all-time Lakers/Bulls/Celtics teams.