PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Playoffs - Spurs vs Warriors?



Kush McDaniels
03-06-2016, 05:56 PM
Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to disparage what the Warriors accomplished last year, and what they're accomplishing this year.

I was one of the many people that was disappointed that the Warriors (at no fault of their own) didn't get a chance to play the Grizzlies at full strength, and most of all, didn't get to play the Spurs or the Clippers in the playoffs last year.

How disappointed would you be if the Warriors don't end up playing the Spurs this year in the playoffs? Both teams are having all-time great seasons, playing great basketball on both sides of the floor. It has potential to be one of the most pleasing series from a pure basketball perspective. I hope, for the sake of all basketball fans, that we get to see this series happen. I don't want to hear the "Warriors had it easy" talk again.

Are there any other matchups that you need to see this postseason so that these playoffs aren't a dud?

kdspurman
03-06-2016, 06:16 PM
I'd definitely be disappointed if it doesn't happen. Last year didn't happen, GS did their part; we did not. Hopefully it goes down this year

CHANGO
03-06-2016, 07:23 PM
The only way this isn't going to happen is if one tam loses early, so if that happens with either one of the two teams it would be one of the greatest disappointments in NBA history. Both teams are on pace for historic records, the Spurs just aren't getting the recognition with all the Warriors 72-10 ******** but they are right there too.

I just want to see Warriors vs OKC, Warriors vs Clippers, Warriors vs Spurs and then Warriors vs Cavs (HEAT would make me happier tho :D).

COOLbeans
03-06-2016, 07:41 PM
I'd like to see the above matchups as well

Dubs vs OKC, Warriors vs Clippers, Warriors vs Spurs, Warriors vs Heat

Chronz
03-06-2016, 08:30 PM
They fixed the seeding issue so that we dont get a Clips vs Spurs in R.1 ever again. It doomed both franchises last year.

Kush McDaniels
03-06-2016, 10:23 PM
They fixed the seeding issue so that we dont get a Clips vs Spurs in R.1 ever again. It doomed both franchises last year.

Game 7 was one of the most exciting games I've seen in a long time. It kind of gets lost in the discussions because it happened in round 1.

nastynice
03-06-2016, 10:30 PM
I just want to see Warriors vs OKC, Warriors vs Clippers, Warriors vs Spurs and then Warriors vs Cavs (HEAT would make me happier tho :D).

How would that even be possible? That means one of those squads has to slip to 7th or 8th seed, and im sure if any of those teams struggle that bad this late to slip that far, it probably won't seem as exciting a series since said team would be struggling so bad

Kush McDaniels
03-06-2016, 10:33 PM
How would that even be possible? That means one of those squads has to slip to 7th or 8th seed, and im sure if any of those teams struggle that bad this late to slip that far, it probably won't seem as exciting a series since said team would be struggling so bad

Matchups matter a lot, and how hot you are come playoff time. Record isn't the biggest deal.

nastynice
03-06-2016, 10:37 PM
I think Spurs dubs is probably the top of most people's list. It was already HIGHLY anticipated last year, and now both squads are having historical seasons. Its gonna be nuts, hope they all stay healthy

For all the people wanting to see the Warriors fail, dubs vs okc should prob be top of ur list, they've played us really well in every game this year

kdspurman
03-06-2016, 10:45 PM
I think Spurs dubs is probably the top of most people's list. It was already HIGHLY anticipated last year, and now both squads are having historical seasons. Its gonna be nuts, hope they all stay healthy

For all the people wanting to see the Warriors fail, dubs vs okc should prob be top of ur list, they've played us really well in every game this year

That doesn't mean anything though. I've seen SA lose reg season series and flip the script come playoff time and vice versa.

Okc lacks late game execution and discipline. So unless theyre blowing out GS, they'll struggle to win in a close game. SA wouldn't have that issue.

nastynice
03-06-2016, 11:22 PM
That doesn't mean anything though. I've seen SA lose reg season series and flip the script come playoff time and vice versa.

Okc lacks late game execution and discipline. So unless theyre blowing out GS, they'll struggle to win in a close game. SA wouldn't have that issue.

Let me clarify. Spurs dubs is THE top of the list, period. We're looking at almost guaranteed two 65 win teams, possibly 70 win teams, both putting up historic team numbers, as far as it stands today this is everybody's dream matchup. The tried n true vs the up and comers

What I meant was AFTER this clearly best matchup, then okc should be high up on people's list.

CHANGO
03-06-2016, 11:59 PM
How would that even be possible? That means one of those squads has to slip to 7th or 8th seed, and im sure if any of those teams struggle that bad this late to slip that far, it probably won't seem as exciting a series since said team would be struggling so bad

Where I implied that would be possible?

That's the matchups me and probably every other non Warriors fan wants.

CHANGO
03-07-2016, 12:09 AM
BTW looking at the records and the possible scenarios, maybe I'm the only one that prefer a Jazz vs Warriors 1st round matchup instead of a Rockets vs Warriors matchup, I don't care if Harden is a superstar and most peple think Jazz would be easier and boring. Rockets don't stand a chance against the W's, at least the Jazz can defend and are a grind out team. They have player well against the W's.

The other and better matchup would be Blazers vs Warriors.

Perfect (most realistic) 1st round scenario IMO;
Warriors vs Blazers
Spurs vs Mavs
Thunder vs Rockets
Clippers vs Grizzlies

Bostonjorge
03-07-2016, 12:47 AM
I want the clippers to get the 3rd spot and rematch the Spurs in the 2nd round.

kobe4thewinbang
03-07-2016, 02:28 AM
That doesn't mean anything though. I've seen SA lose reg season series and flip the script come playoff time and vice versa.

Okc lacks late game execution and discipline. So unless theyre blowing out GS, they'll struggle to win in a close game. SA wouldn't have that issue.I'll say that Iguodala was not fouled and that Curry shot OMG should not have happened, i.e. no overtime to start with.

kobe4thewinbang
03-07-2016, 02:29 AM
I'm starting to doubt the Spurs, despite them being on GS's heels the whole season. Has there been a game when Aldridge, Kawhi & Parker or another duo/trio on the Spurs has had a good game together? It seems like they rarely do that, and I think they'd need to in order to really challenge the likely Klay/Curry/Draymond downpour.

kdspurman
03-07-2016, 08:38 AM
I'm starting to doubt the Spurs, despite them being on GS's heels the whole season. Has there been a game when Aldridge, Kawhi & Parker or another duo/trio on the Spurs has had a good game together? It seems like they rarely do that, and I think they'd need to in order to really challenge the likely Klay/Curry/Draymond downpour.

There's been several where kawhi and lma have. Not that I think that's important lol. It doesn't matter who plays well for them. I mean parker struggled in the 2014 finals, but mills stepped up. Parkers role is different these days.

Jay 20
03-07-2016, 03:44 PM
I think it would be a historic Western Conference Finals with the seasons these two teams are having. They have only faced off once so far this year and GS dismantled the Spurs by 30 at Oracle. They still have to play 3 times (2 in SA and 1 at Oracle).

With all this 73-9 potential that the Warriors can go, they may HAVE to break the all time record just to get the 1 seed in the West. That's how close the Spurs are to them this year. If somehow there could be two 70 regular season win teams in the WCF, that would be something else!!

mngopher35
03-07-2016, 04:53 PM
My hope is that the Thunder drop to 4 and we get OKC/Warriors and Clips/Spurs rematch in the semi finals. Then likely Warriors/Spurs and Warriors/Ceveland if they move on each round as expected. Warriors/Spurs would probably the best series of the bunch though as both have had incredible seasons so far.

tredigs
03-07-2016, 05:22 PM
Both the Clips and OKC could upset the Spurs though. The Clips have the added confidence in a Spurs rematch in knowing/proving how to beat them in a 7 game series, and OKC's length + athleticism has always given them trouble. That said, the Spurs are the Warriors kryptonite and after they likely win both matchups versus GSW at home to close the season (both road b2b's for GSW that I don't see them winning), they'll have added confidence there. And OKC also plays the Warriors incredibly closely, if they were to steal a game in Oracle, who knows what happens.

Bottom line, I still see these playoffs as being very tough. We'll have a surprise or two.

kdspurman
03-07-2016, 05:31 PM
^you always slide that b2b comment about your guys in whenever you talk about their future matchups with us haha. Spurs won in Oracle on the 2nd night of a b2b last year, and won against the Clips the night before. Nothing is guaranteed...

SA doesn't need any sort of confidence from regular season wins, theyll either be able to execute their game plan and make more plays or they wont. They aren't a young team who needs signature wins to feel good come playoff time.

Either way, it should be fun. Still long ways to go before we even know standings. I try not to speculate on future matchups cause who knows what can change from now till then

tredigs
03-07-2016, 05:46 PM
^you always slide that b2b comment about your guys in whenever you talk about their future matchups with us haha. Spurs won in Oracle on the 2nd night of a b2b last year, and won against the Clips the night before. Nothing is guaranteed...

SA doesn't need any sort of confidence from regular season wins, theyll either be able to execute their game plan and make more plays or they wont. They aren't a young team who needs signature wins to feel good come playoff time.

Either way, it should be fun. Still long ways to go before we even know standings. I try not to speculate on future matchups cause who knows what can change from now till then

Well I mention it because the road b2b is the highest predictor of a loss in the NBA. Especially when we're talking about a team who hasn't lost at home. Of course it's not guaranteed (wouldn't be shocked at all if GSW steals one, though I expect two L's). Just saying, it's a confidence boost after the early season game for them to finish on a high note (even the Spurs are not devoid of confidence swings. I think after a first round exit last year and a 30 point drubbing by GSW, the players would very much like to finish their spectacular season on a good note, and not start giving up home losses).

Agreed that there's no use in speculating this particular matchup, that's why I brought up the teams that could very well take this out of being a possibility.

Vee-Rex
03-07-2016, 05:52 PM
Rooting for the Spurs to go to 7 games in the semi-finals and conference finals vs. the Warriors. 10 total overtimes in the conference finals with game 7 going to quadruple overtime.

Then I'd like to see the worn-out Spurs face a 12-0 Cavs in the finals. Of course, I'd rather face the Clippers or Thunder but it would be nice payback for the '07 finals if we got the Spurs and beat them.

Vee-Rex
03-07-2016, 05:53 PM
Also, Spurs still got a good shot at taking the #1 seed in the West as crazy as that sounds. If the Dubs drop a few more games then lose their games vs. the Spurs they could drop to #2, which would be HUGE if they met in the conference finals.

Scoots
03-07-2016, 06:05 PM
With the way things are right now we are looking at a pretty entertaining playoffs.

BUT ... if this year the Warriors face the Spurs in the WCF people will say "but they didn't have to face OKC", if they face "OKC" people will say "but they didn't have to face the Spurs", if the Clippers and OKC swap places then the above sentences can be amended. I don't really understand the "didn't have to face" thing. The Warriors were there to play whoever came to get them. The Spurs lost to the Clippers, the Clippers lost to Houston, and Houston lost to the Warriors ... just like the playoffs are supposed to work. In a 7 game series the better team wins. How is any of that a knock on the Warriors?

I was looking forward to seeing Clippers or Spurs vs the Warriors last year, but those 2 teams didn't make it.

As for this year, I don't care at all about any regular season records ... I want home court advantage for the Warriors and a healthy and ready squad going into the playoffs, and we can see if any opponent can take 2 of 4 games at Oracle, because that's what will be needed to win.

phantasyyy
03-07-2016, 06:06 PM
I'd love to see Utah/Warriors too but I think down the stretch its just going to be too hard for them to overtake Houston for that final 8th seed. It would be interesting to see if their defense can slow the down the warriors to steal a game or so but.. just being real its going to a 4-0 sweep for the defending champs no matter who they play.


1st round matchups I'd love to see:
Warriors/Jazz
SAS/Dallas - always a fun series between the two, with two great coaches going at one another, Dirk/Duncan-for the last time?
OKC/Portland - offensive fireworks series
Grizz/Clippers - loses some spar with Gasol being out for the year but a sort of renew rivalry between the two as things could still get testy with their previous matchups they've had. Not to mention the Green/Stephenson trade

If things fall into place this way, it sets up an exciting 2nd round series as well with SAS/OKC and Warriors/Clippers... two great series for the second round as well.

The east playoffs loses some excitement as Cleveland is pretty much all but guaranteed a slot to the NBA finals. One matchup I'd love to see is if Bosh does return healthy a second round matchup with the Heat/Cavs.. I think it would be pretty competitive especially with the addition of Joe Johnson

phantasyyy
03-07-2016, 06:12 PM
Both the Clips and OKC could upset the Spurs though. The Clips have the added confidence in a Spurs rematch in knowing/proving how to beat them in a 7 game series, and OKC's length + athleticism has always given them trouble. That said, the Spurs are the Warriors kryptonite and after they likely win both matchups versus GSW at home to close the season (both road b2b's for GSW that I don't see them winning), they'll have added confidence there. And OKC also plays the Warriors incredibly closely, if they were to steal a game in Oracle, who knows what happens.

Bottom line, I still see these playoffs as being very tough. We'll have a surprise or two.

This playoffs though they have the ability to have Aldridge check Griffin now, opposed to the slower-footed Duncan, or undersized Diaw, not to mention David West. Which should allow them to slow Griffin down from going beast-mode on them again.

Would be an entertaining series no matter which whey they it went though assuming no first round upsets. The quartet of Spurs/Warriors/Clips/OKC is exciting no matter which matchups emerge from it.

CHANGO
03-07-2016, 06:37 PM
My hope is that the Thunder drop to 4 and we get OKC/Warriors and Clips/Spurs rematch in the semi finals. Then likely Warriors/Spurs and Warriors/Ceveland if they move on each round as expected. Warriors/Spurs would probably the best series of the bunch though as both have had incredible seasons so far.

IMO I would love the W's/Clippers rivalry to continue. I'm fine with the Spurs/Mavs Texas rivalry to continue too. Also because the Mavs always plays great against the Spurs.

Vee-Rex
03-07-2016, 06:48 PM
With the way things are right now we are looking at a pretty entertaining playoffs.

BUT ... if this year the Warriors face the Spurs in the WCF people will say "but they didn't have to face OKC", if they face "OKC" people will say "but they didn't have to face the Spurs", if the Clippers and OKC swap places then the above sentences can be amended. I don't really understand the "didn't have to face" thing. The Warriors were there to play whoever came to get them. The Spurs lost to the Clippers, the Clippers lost to Houston, and Houston lost to the Warriors ... just like the playoffs are supposed to work. In a 7 game series the better team wins. How is any of that a knock on the Warriors?

I was looking forward to seeing Clippers or Spurs vs the Warriors last year, but those 2 teams didn't make it.

As for this year, I don't care at all about any regular season records ... I want home court advantage for the Warriors and a healthy and ready squad going into the playoffs, and we can see if any opponent can take 2 of 4 games at Oracle, because that's what will be needed to win.

From what I've seen, people (rightfully so) don't feel that the Warriors faced off against the best of the west. It's not a knock, it's opinion that is generally agreed upon.

Warriors fans seem to be aghast that anyone would feel that they haven't faced the best competition in their run to finals last year.

Everyone's Dubbing (pun intended) them as a possible best-ever team... like, that's a pretty incredible title to go by, so I think it's fair that others feel it necessary to bring up their playoff scenarios of last year.

Doesn't mean the Warriors wouldn't have won anyway.

CHANGO
03-07-2016, 06:53 PM
Yeah, I mean, you can't deny the W's didn't faced the best teams and also that they faced injured teams. That's reality and an old discussion. Also no one can put an asterisk to the ring for that reason. They played against the team who got in their way, they won, injured opponents or not, they won the games they had to.

Vee-Rex
03-07-2016, 07:02 PM
Yeah, I mean, you can't deny the W's didn't faced the best teams and also that they faced injured teams. That's reality and an old discussion. Also no one can put an asterisk to the ring for that reason. They played against the team who got in their way, they won, injured opponents or not, they won the games they had to.

Definitely no asterisks. People trying to devalue their ring are just jealous fools. They earned every bit of it.

phantasyyy
03-07-2016, 07:06 PM
From what I've seen, people (rightfully so) don't feel that the Warriors faced off against the best of the west. It's not a knock, it's opinion that is generally agreed upon.

Warriors fans seem to be aghast that anyone would feel that they haven't faced the best competition in their run to finals last year.

Everyone's Dubbing (pun intended) them as a possible best-ever team... like, that's a pretty incredible title to go by, so I think it's fair that others feel it necessary to bring up their playoff scenarios of last year.

Doesn't mean the Warriors wouldn't have won anyway.

Its kind a contradictory statement since the playoffs is all about the best possible team advancing further in the playoffs. The Clippers showed they were better than the Spurs, and the Rockets better than them.. so its not a knock against the Warriors that they played the Grizz/Rockets in the 2nd and WCF.
I mean at the end of the day it is a 7 game series, not like a one-and-done in college. They best teams will ALWAYS prevail and that shouldn't be something that can be argued against.

The only real case that can be made is OKC whom missed the playoffs entirely but with their injuries it really is a moot point after-all. Sure the Clips/SAS spurs eliminated a championship contender in the first round and you can make a case that after defeating the Grizzlies in the first the Spurs could have knocked off GSW in the second round as GSW did trail 2-1 to Memphis after 3 games but imo with Parker struggling I think they still would have succumb to the eventual champions.

Sportsguy9695
03-07-2016, 07:08 PM
I would love to see this match up. personally I dont know who I would root for. I love curry but I also so love coach pop

CHANGO
03-07-2016, 07:13 PM
Its kind a contradictory statement since the playoffs is all about the best possible team advancing further in the playoffs. The Clippers showed they were better than the Spurs, and the Rockets better than them.. so its not a knock against the Warriors that they played the Grizz/Rockets in the 2nd and WCF.
I mean at the end of the day it is a 7 game series, not like a one-and-done in college. They best teams will ALWAYS prevail and that shouldn't be something that can be argued against.

The only real case that can be made is OKC whom missed the playoffs entirely but with their injuries it really is a moot point after-all. Sure the Clips/SAS spurs eliminated a championship contender in the first round and you can make a case that after defeating the Grizzlies in the first the Spurs could have knocked off GSW in the second round as GSW did trail 2-1 to Memphis after 3 games but imo with Parker struggling I think they still would have succumb to the eventual champions.

This isn't true, sometimes it's all about matchups. Sometimes a good high seed team will lose a series against a "lesser" team who just can matchup well against them.

Vee-Rex
03-07-2016, 07:23 PM
Its kind a contradictory statement since the playoffs is all about the best possible team advancing further in the playoffs. The Clippers showed they were better than the Spurs, and the Rockets better than them.. so its not a knock against the Warriors that they played the Grizz/Rockets in the 2nd and WCF.
I mean at the end of the day it is a 7 game series, not like a one-and-done in college. They best teams will ALWAYS prevail and that shouldn't be something that can be argued against.

The only real case that can be made is OKC whom missed the playoffs entirely but with their injuries it really is a moot point after-all. Sure the Clips/SAS spurs eliminated a championship contender in the first round and you can make a case that after defeating the Grizzlies in the first the Spurs could have knocked off GSW in the second round as GSW did trail 2-1 to Memphis after 3 games but imo with Parker struggling I think they still would have succumb to the eventual champions.

I 100% disagree. That's a very narrow way to approach it. Sometimes matchups are key.

No one would argue that the "We Believe" Warriors were a better and more threatening-to-the-entire-league team than the 2006-07 Dallas Mavericks. However, they matched up and played really well against them, and were better than THAT Dallas team.

So simple matchups could be a determining factor, however, that wasn't even the case with the playoffs last year. Here's the case:

1. The Spurs dropped to the 6th seed on the very last game of the year.
2. The Spurs/Clippers 1st round matchup was distasteful in the sense that it's messed up Portland got a better seeding with a worst record. This was corrected this year. It shows that everyone believed the prior design was flawed.
3. The Spurs lose on the last play of a 7 game series.
4. The Clippers appeared to be the better team than the Rox but choked the entire series.

With all of the above combined, it's a fair enough position for people to believe that the Clips and Spurs were the best teams of the west (other than the Dubs).

If the Clippers swept SA or won in 5 or even 6 games, people wouldn't care. If the Rox swept the Clips or won in 5 or even 6 games, people wouldn't care. It's the fact that the stars seemed to align (so to speak) that effectively kept the Dubs from facing the 2 teams that everyone agreed would probably be their biggest challenges (maybe not with the Clippers, but definitely with the Spurs).

The whole 'well A beat B and B beat C and C beat D and D beat E so that's the order of best to worst' is extremely limited in scope, and it saddens me to see people still making that argument.

NO ONE (especially not Dubs fans) want to see the Warriors make the finals without playing the Spurs, Clippers, or Thunder again. And that's saying something.

SPURSFAN1
03-07-2016, 07:38 PM
Spurs easily.

Kush McDaniels
03-07-2016, 08:43 PM
Its kind a contradictory statement since the playoffs is all about the best possible team advancing further in the playoffs. The Clippers showed they were better than the Spurs, and the Rockets better than them.. so its not a knock against the Warriors that they played the Grizz/Rockets in the 2nd and WCF.
I mean at the end of the day it is a 7 game series, not like a one-and-done in college. They best teams will ALWAYS prevail and that shouldn't be something that can be argued against.

The only real case that can be made is OKC whom missed the playoffs entirely but with their injuries it really is a moot point after-all. Sure the Clips/SAS spurs eliminated a championship contender in the first round and you can make a case that after defeating the Grizzlies in the first the Spurs could have knocked off GSW in the second round as GSW did trail 2-1 to Memphis after 3 games but imo with Parker struggling I think they still would have succumb to the eventual champions.

That is not necessarily true. I still think that Spurs team was better than the Clipps, and I think those Clipps were better than those Rockets. Things just work out funny sometimes. Matchups, freak plays, injuries, guys not showing up - they all affect outcomes of series.

phantasyyy
03-07-2016, 09:00 PM
I 100% disagree. That's a very narrow way to approach it. Sometimes matchups are key.

No one would argue that the "We Believe" Warriors were a better and more threatening-to-the-entire-league team than the 2006-07 Dallas Mavericks. However, they matched up and played really well against them, and were better than THAT Dallas team.

So simple matchups could be a determining factor, however, that wasn't even the case with the playoffs last year. Here's the case:

1. The Spurs dropped to the 6th seed on the very last game of the year.
2. The Spurs/Clippers 1st round matchup was distasteful in the sense that it's messed up Portland got a better seeding with a worst record. This was corrected this year. It shows that everyone believed the prior design was flawed.
3. The Spurs lose on the last play of a 7 game series.
4. The Clippers appeared to be the better team than the Rox but choked the entire series.

With all of the above combined, it's a fair enough position for people to believe that the Clips and Spurs were the best teams of the west (other than the Dubs).

If the Clippers swept SA or won in 5 or even 6 games, people wouldn't care. If the Rox swept the Clips or won in 5 or even 6 games, people wouldn't care. It's the fact that the stars seemed to align (so to speak) that effectively kept the Dubs from facing the 2 teams that everyone agreed would probably be their biggest challenges (maybe not with the Clippers, but definitely with the Spurs).

The whole 'well A beat B and B beat C and C beat D and D beat E so that's the order of best to worst' is extremely limited in scope, and it saddens me to see people still making that argument.

NO ONE (especially not Dubs fans) want to see the Warriors make the finals without playing the Spurs, Clippers, or Thunder again. And that's saying something.

Yeah I get what you mean and that "we believe" Warriors teams are some of the exceptions to rule. But on a general basis is what I am saying is the best teams always advance further in the playoffs - Every team has certain teams that they have matchup advantages/disadvantages against but if a team beats you in a 7 games series, imo anyway, they are better than the former. Its a simplistic way of thinking of things but that's what the playoffs are all about, a 7 game series to determine the best team of that matchup, without a lucky game or two helping a lesser team advance.

Also, the Clippers choking away the final 3 games of that series is enough indication that they were NOT better than the Rockets.. I mean they had 3 chances to advance to the WCF and blew all 3 games.. especially with game 6 pretty much sealed at home nonetheless they still had a game 7 in Houston to play yet lost that game convincingly as well.

You bring up the Spurs getting unfavorable first round matchup but this largely their own doing with them losing that last and final game to the Clips. - Obviously with ruling messing up the 4/5/6 seeding - but its not like they didn't know that before that played that final game. That would have set them up with a second round war with Warriors which many have alluded to would have probably their biggest test of their championship run.

kdspurman
03-07-2016, 10:30 PM
^they lost to the Pelicans the last game of the year. The Pelicans were at home and also playing to make the playoffs. If they lost, they wouldn't have made the playoffs. Stakes were higher to them.

What really hurt the Spurs was Kawhi's injury where he missed like 15 games, not the last game of the year. That's just what people remember

Scoots
03-07-2016, 11:38 PM
Yeah, I mean, you can't deny the W's didn't faced the best teams and also that they faced injured teams. That's reality and an old discussion. Also no one can put an asterisk to the ring for that reason. They played against the team who got in their way, they won, injured opponents or not, they won the games they had to.

But isn't the chosen method for deciding who the best teams are by having the regular season determine seeding, and then have long 7 game series between those teams until there is only 1 team left? Using that method it was determined that the Clippers were better than the Spurs and that the Rockets were better than the Clippers, and the Warriors beat the Rockets.

I can buy that the Spurs/Warriors series would have been interesting, but the Warriors dominated the Clippers in the regular season so the idea that they were somehow a big challenge to the Warriors puzzles me. Add to that that the Spurs were ejected in the first round I don't think it's terribly reasonable to argue that they were one of the best teams or that had they not faced the Clippers in the first round that they would have won 2 other series to make the WCF.

Any time someone points out the things a team didn't do to win IS a knock on them. Just like when a team that loses says they missed a lot of shots is failing to credit the winning team's defense.

Stephen Jackson said that 2007 Warriors team would dominate this Warriors team ... he said "We Believe" was "better" :) Unfortunately, last year's Warriors team "ducked" the 2007 team :)

Of course matchups matter, but that's why the regular season is played ... to determine seeding. The Warriors did their job by ending with the #1 seed. The Rockets did their job by getting #2. The "right" result is that #1 plays #2 in the conference finals and that's what happened.

As they say, that's why they play the games. If it was all about internet forums the 96 Bulls would have won every title since 1996.

I'm not a homer or a fan-boy or anything of the sort, and I don't particularly care about the media narrative ... it's just that the same arguments can be made every year to some extent but they usually aren't. At least not during and just after the finals. Usually the winning team is celebrated in the media.

All that said, I don't think there is any way the same arguments can't be made this year ... but I'm looking forward to watching whoever the teams playing are.

CHANGO
03-08-2016, 01:14 AM
But isn't the chosen method for deciding who the best teams are by having the regular season determine seeding, and then have long 7 game series between those teams until there is only 1 team left? Using that method it was determined that the Clippers were better than the Spurs and that the Rockets were better than the Clippers, and the Warriors beat the Rockets.

I can buy that the Spurs/Warriors series would have been interesting, but the Warriors dominated the Clippers in the regular season so the idea that they were somehow a big challenge to the Warriors puzzles me. Add to that that the Spurs were ejected in the first round I don't think it's terribly reasonable to argue that they were one of the best teams or that had they not faced the Clippers in the first round that they would have won 2 other series to make the WCF.

Any time someone points out the things a team didn't do to win IS a knock on them. Just like when a team that loses says they missed a lot of shots is failing to credit the winning team's defense.

Stephen Jackson said that 2007 Warriors team would dominate this Warriors team ... he said "We Believe" was "better" :) Unfortunately, last year's Warriors team "ducked" the 2007 team :)

Of course matchups matter, but that's why the regular season is played ... to determine seeding. The Warriors did their job by ending with the #1 seed. The Rockets did their job by getting #2. The "right" result is that #1 plays #2 in the conference finals and that's what happened.

As they say, that's why they play the games. If it was all about internet forums the 96 Bulls would have won every title since 1996.

I'm not a homer or a fan-boy or anything of the sort, and I don't particularly care about the media narrative ... it's just that the same arguments can be made every year to some extent but they usually aren't. At least not during and just after the finals. Usually the winning team is celebrated in the media.

All that said, I don't think there is any way the same arguments can't be made this year ... but I'm looking forward to watching whoever the teams playing are.

Well... Even by that logic they play teams that were missing some key players so automatically they are not the best teams.

Vee-Rex
03-08-2016, 01:25 PM
But isn't the chosen method for deciding who the best teams are by having the regular season determine seeding, and then have long 7 game series between those teams until there is only 1 team left? Using that method it was determined that the Clippers were better than the Spurs and that the Rockets were better than the Clippers, and the Warriors beat the Rockets.

I can buy that the Spurs/Warriors series would have been interesting, but the Warriors dominated the Clippers in the regular season so the idea that they were somehow a big challenge to the Warriors puzzles me. Add to that that the Spurs were ejected in the first round I don't think it's terribly reasonable to argue that they were one of the best teams or that had they not faced the Clippers in the first round that they would have won 2 other series to make the WCF.

Any time someone points out the things a team didn't do to win IS a knock on them. Just like when a team that loses says they missed a lot of shots is failing to credit the winning team's defense.

Stephen Jackson said that 2007 Warriors team would dominate this Warriors team ... he said "We Believe" was "better" :) Unfortunately, last year's Warriors team "ducked" the 2007 team :)

Of course matchups matter, but that's why the regular season is played ... to determine seeding. The Warriors did their job by ending with the #1 seed. The Rockets did their job by getting #2. The "right" result is that #1 plays #2 in the conference finals and that's what happened.

As they say, that's why they play the games. If it was all about internet forums the 96 Bulls would have won every title since 1996.

I'm not a homer or a fan-boy or anything of the sort, and I don't particularly care about the media narrative ... it's just that the same arguments can be made every year to some extent but they usually aren't. At least not during and just after the finals. Usually the winning team is celebrated in the media.

All that said, I don't think there is any way the same arguments can't be made this year ... but I'm looking forward to watching whoever the teams playing are.

Seeding factors in all 82 games, and teams lose and win based on a myriad of things throughout the season, including injuries.

If the 76ers acquired Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, Jimmy Butler, Chris Paul and 5 other all stars at the all-star break, their final record/seeding WILL NOT REFLECT how talented they may ultimately be. Maybe it takes them awhile to gel, maybe not. But I bet every fan would want to see them face the Cavs, rather than watching the Cavs go through the playoffs without facing them.

Likewise, some teams get hot. Maybe they have a perfect schedule in that they face a lot of teams on b2b's. Maybe they have a nice home game stretch. Look at the Hawks - do you, your mom, or your grandma actually believe that they are truly a 60-win team? I called that out early on. They weren't. Their seeding was a poor reflection on how good the team actually was.

The point on seeding is that you cannot go by final seed to determine who is the best team. That's extremely poor logic, and something I would expect most people to already know.

This is all without me even mentioning how flawed the seeding design was for last year.

The point about last year's finals run is that the collective majority wanted the Dubs to face the teams they thought were the best of the west, which was:

1. Spurs
2. Clippers
3. Healthy Thunder

(omgooses how ironic that these are the 4 teams atop the West right now!!!!!!!)

And none of it happened last year. So people, rightfully so, feel the Warriors didn't face the best of the west. I've said multiple times that gun to my head I'd have taken the Warriors over EVERY western team last year (they just looked to be the best). That STILL doesn't mean that I wouldn't have wanted them to face the Spurs.

If you take that as a knock against your Warriors then you really, really need to step back and look at it objectively, rather than as a fan.

Chronz
03-08-2016, 02:10 PM
My hope is that the Thunder drop to 4 and we get OKC/Warriors and Clips/Spurs rematch in the semi finals. Then likely Warriors/Spurs and Warriors/Ceveland if they move on each round as expected. Warriors/Spurs would probably the best series of the bunch though as both have had incredible seasons so far.
As expected?

Scoots
03-08-2016, 02:26 PM
Seeding factors in all 82 games, and teams lose and win based on a myriad of things throughout the season, including injuries.

If the 76ers acquired Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, Jimmy Butler, Chris Paul and 5 other all stars at the all-star break, their final record/seeding WILL NOT REFLECT how talented they may ultimately be. Maybe it takes them awhile to gel, maybe not. But I bet every fan would want to see them face the Cavs, rather than watching the Cavs go through the playoffs without facing them.

Likewise, some teams get hot. Maybe they have a perfect schedule in that they face a lot of teams on b2b's. Maybe they have a nice home game stretch. Look at the Hawks - do you, your mom, or your grandma actually believe that they are truly a 60-win team? I called that out early on. They weren't. Their seeding was a poor reflection on how good the team actually was.

The point on seeding is that you cannot go by final seed to determine who is the best team. That's extremely poor logic, and something I would expect most people to already know.

I didn't say that regular season seeding determine's who is the best team ... but the system the NBA has in place is the have 30 teams play 82 games to determine seeding ... following up that grind by declaring that the results of 1230 regular season games and as many as 105 post season games to determine the "best team" is false because a different team had a better metric somewhere or that there were changes during the season just doesn't matter. That is a very comprehensive system to determine who is "best", and they are always looking to make it a better show. But the NBA has a very rigid system in place to determine "best" every year and I think they do a pretty good job of it.

It's possible to nitpick every single champion in NBA history about the challenges they didn't face or the rules benefits they may have had, but what's the point? There is a system in place and at the end there is one "best" team and a bunch of also-rans. Why say "but" at all unless you are bitter about the result?

I completely understand the point that the Warriors didn't face every team in the playoffs and that the fans (and I) wanted them to face the Spurs.

Vee-Rex
03-08-2016, 02:48 PM
I didn't say that regular season seeding determine's who is the best team ... but the system the NBA has in place is the have 30 teams play 82 games to determine seeding ... following up that grind by declaring that the results of 1230 regular season games and as many as 105 post season games to determine the "best team" is false because a different team had a better metric somewhere or that there were changes during the season just doesn't matter. That is a very comprehensive system to determine who is "best", and they are always looking to make it a better show. But the NBA has a very rigid system in place to determine "best" every year and I think they do a pretty good job of it.

It's possible to nitpick every single champion in NBA history about the challenges they didn't face or the rules benefits they may have had, but what's the point? There is a system in place and at the end there is one "best" team and a bunch of also-rans. Why say "but" at all unless you are bitter about the result?

I completely understand the point that the Warriors didn't face every team in the playoffs and that the fans (and I) wanted them to face the Spurs.

I agree with you, I'll address the bolded and the only times I'll say "but" (and it has nothing to do with bitterness):

Personally I feel the Dubs earned it and will only mention the specific 'circumstances' of their championship for 2 reasons:

Someone is already talking about it and I feel like clarifying and contributing something (which is what I did or attempted to do in this thread).

Or, if people label the Warriors as the best-team ever. We'll all know soon if that's true or not, but I feel, in our limited scope of things as they are today, the circumstances of the Warriors championship last year can't simply be ignored if we want to say they're the best ever right now.

I realize that the 2015-16 Warriors are on a different level than the 2014-15 Warriors, but the playoffs are where everything matters and until I see how today's Warriors perform in the playoffs, the only thing I have to go by is last year's.

Jay 20
03-08-2016, 03:05 PM
An interesting fact about the teams the Warriors faced in the playoffs.

Here was NBA 1st Team Last season

Steph Curry
James Harden (WCF)
LeBron James ( Finals )
Anthony Davis (1st Round)
Marc Gasol (2nd Round)

I agree the Warriors may not have went through the toughest teams but they played who was in front of them and they also played every other NBA 1st teamers team. Nobody that has made NBA 1st teams has had to face the other 4 players teams in the playoffs like that.

Scoots
03-08-2016, 06:01 PM
I agree with you, I'll address the bolded and the only times I'll say "but" (and it has nothing to do with bitterness):

Personally I feel the Dubs earned it and will only mention the specific 'circumstances' of their championship for 2 reasons:

Someone is already talking about it and I feel like clarifying and contributing something (which is what I did or attempted to do in this thread).

Or, if people label the Warriors as the best-team ever. We'll all know soon if that's true or not, but I feel, in our limited scope of things as they are today, the circumstances of the Warriors championship last year can't simply be ignored if we want to say they're the best ever right now.

I realize that the 2015-16 Warriors are on a different level than the 2014-15 Warriors, but the playoffs are where everything matters and until I see how today's Warriors perform in the playoffs, the only thing I have to go by is last year's.

Well said. There is no way this years Warriors are the best ever without a title so we've got some waiting to do on that if nothing else.

Last year's Warriors were the class of the NBA but people didn't like the way they played so they were slighted all year by analysts and retired players. I think maybe they thought it would end after a title, but it just got louder. This Warriors team is full of players who were told they couldn't make it ... too small, too slow, too injured, too old. Right now they are not playing angry, they are waiting. I wonder if they will be able to turn it on when it REALLY matters.

kobe4thewinbang
03-09-2016, 01:35 PM
There's been several where kawhi and lma have. Not that I think that's important lol. It doesn't matter who plays well for them. I mean parker struggled in the 2014 finals, but mills stepped up. Parkers role is different these days.Well, I watched that Pelicans game and the 12-0 run to win it, so I'll shut up now. I think they're ready. I was feeling they needed another year to break LMA in, but with Martin signed, I think they're gunning for the best shot. I hope Duncan sticks around one more season, though. He still amazes me. Do you think Manu will be ready to go?

nastynice
03-09-2016, 02:15 PM
I just read this in a article, so not 100% sure if its true

Of the Warriors’ six losses, only two have come against playoff teams, and Golden State is undefeated against teams that are at least three games over .500. San Antonio has only lost to two non-playoff teams, suffering losses to the NBA’s top five teams.

Its nothing huge, but definitely something I like to see as a dubs fan.

kdspurman
03-09-2016, 02:21 PM
Well, I watched that Pelicans game and the 12-0 run to win it, so I'll shut up now. I think they're ready. I was feeling they needed another year to break LMA in, but with Martin signed, I think they're gunning for the best shot. I hope Duncan sticks around one more season, though. He still amazes me. Do you think Manu will be ready to go?

Manu has looked great all year. And his first game back he put up 22 points in 15 minutes. That month off could work wonders in the end

nastynice
03-09-2016, 02:29 PM
If you take that as a knock against your Warriors then you really, really need to step back and look at it objectively, rather than as a fan.

What UR saying is totally fine, the warriors didn't play the spurs last year and that was the matchup everyone wanted to see (I call bs on all the clippers talk because they were getting blasted left and right for their lack of depth towards the end of last year and into the playoffs). But I don't know if u forgot, but people weren't just saying oh the warriors didn't have to go through the spurs. People were discrediting the warriors left and right, even asteriks talk was being brought up, so obviously people are gonna get defensive when this kinda stuff is being said 24/7.

If people were saying oh they missed the spurs, and missed kyrie in the finals, sure, that's all good. But people were just pouring it on, and all this clipper talk is a perfect example of that cuz you know damn well the warriors would not have gotten any credit for beating a 6 deep team in the clippers, but since they didn't face them all of a sudden people want to act like they were some sort of powerhouse that the warriors didn't have to play, lol, like c'mon, does no one remember how much the clippers were getting blasted for their lack of depth, and doc getting blasted for destroying his bench? And Conley misses one game, and its some kind of game changer, then Tony Allen goes down and misses 2 even tho he was a MAJOR LIABILITY for the grizz at the time he got injured, tryina pour stuff like that on, that's just hatin and of course dubs fans are gonna respond to that nonsense

Missing the spurs and missing kyrie, sure, no argument there, chips fell in our favor regarding that. All these other things tho, sorry but none of it was major or game changing, teams get that type of luck all the time on title runs. And tbh, its not like the spurs were some kinda unstoppable powerhouse, they were right there in the pack with the rest of the west, they just happened to be the dubs worst matchup and the dubs avoided it. But how many times to title teams avoid having to go through their WORST matchup for their title? I mean again, its stuff that happens pretty frequently, but dubs just caught flack because they were way better than anyone expected

Scoots
03-09-2016, 09:25 PM
Manu has looked great all year. And his first game back he put up 22 points in 15 minutes. That month off could work wonders in the end

IIRC he had a terrible game the next game though :)

The Spurs don't need to rely on the previous generation anymore ... but when they come to play the Spurs are just that much tougher to beat.

kdspurman
03-09-2016, 10:05 PM
IIRC he had a terrible game the next game though :)

The Spurs don't need to rely on the previous generation anymore ... but when they come to play the Spurs are just that much tougher to beat.

He had a terrible shooting game, but with Manu, I'm more concerned with how he's moving around out there. And physically he looks great. (for his age/mileage)

CHANGO
03-10-2016, 02:27 AM
I really would like to see a Jazz vs Warriors 1st round playoffs matchup. They play them very close and they can defend and be a pest.

tredigs
03-10-2016, 02:57 AM
I really would like to see a Jazz vs Warriors 1st round playoffs matchup. They play them very close and they can defend and be a pest.

Very close might be a stretch. They're 0-7 against the Warriors the last 2 seasons and all but one have been double-digit losses. Last couple ~20 points.

CHANGO
03-10-2016, 01:38 PM
Very close might be a stretch. They're 0-7 against the Warriors the last 2 seasons and all but one have been double-digit losses. Last couple ~20 points.

That's enough to me, that can be said about almost 80% of the teams that played against the W's. W's in the 4th pull away and that's it. But there's a difference with the way W's play against the Jazz, it's more disruptive. I would prefer them over the no defense Rockets.

tredigs
03-10-2016, 01:55 PM
That's enough to me, that can be said about almost 80% of the teams that played against the W's. W's in the 4th pull away and that's it. But there's a difference with the way W's play against the Jazz, it's more disruptive. I would prefer them over the no defense Rockets.

I think Portland would be the most fun for a lot of fans. That's actually their next game. And in the last h2h Portland smoked them.

The Jazz run such a grinding, slow, drawn out style that you don't get the excitement from those games that the Warriors have to offer, but you still get the 10-20 point losses. That said, they're a legit PG away from being a pretty legit team. They could do damage next year if they get that + stay healthy. Maybe Exum will be that guy.

Scoots
03-10-2016, 03:39 PM
Exum is a ways away from running a team ... but no doubt they miss him.

Mike Conley would be PERFECT.

CHANGO
03-10-2016, 09:15 PM
I think Portland would be the most fun for a lot of fans. That's actually their next game. And in the last h2h Portland smoked them.

The Jazz run such a grinding, slow, drawn out style that you don't get the excitement from those games that the Warriors have to offer, but you still get the 10-20 point losses. That said, they're a legit PG away from being a pretty legit team. They could do damage next year if they get that + stay healthy. Maybe Exum will be that guy.

Oh I agree, that's my dream matchup right there, a 1. Warriors vs 8. Blazers matchup would be very entertaining.

I just think some kind of defense will be better against the W's than 0 defense. :D
And the Jazz seems to have bad luck with PG's they either have defensive minded PG's or offensive minded PG's. Exum was a defensive PG, same now with Neto. I'm not that high on Exum TBH.