Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 333 of 451 FirstFirst ... 233283323331332333334335343383433 ... LastLast
Results 4,981 to 4,995 of 6757
  1. #4981
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Are people still hyping up that 73-9 record?

    It's weird, because it's the same people that talk about records in older eras with less teams, but at the same time they ignore that this was possibly the worst RS in the 30 team era.

    I wonder what Valade's position on this 73-9 record team is.
    Well first, the only reason you think it was the worst RS is because it's recent. But even if that were the case, the stronger conference by far (as you're fond of mentioning regarding LeBron) was the West. But even if you restrict their record to simply all the teams that finished with 50 wins that year, it was 14-1. So the idea that their win total was somehow inflated by facing a ton of bad teams is just complete garbage.

    Now that we got that out of the way, I think a lot of the times records such as this happen because a team catches the league unaware with some new strategy or technique or philosophy that the league is unprepared for and it takes time for the league to catch up.

    A great example is the Oregon Ducks football team under Chip Kelly. When Chip Kelly instituted his no huddle, fast paced, zone read option offense, nobody in college football had ever seen anything like it and he caught everyone unprepared. He went 46-7 in 4 seasons (36-4 his final 3) and played for a national title, something Oregon had no business doing with the talent we pulled down from a recruiting standpoint.

    I think this is what happened with Golden State. They were one of the first teams to really adopt the proliferation of 3-point shooting (along with Houston) to the point where they took the most 3's that year at 31.6 (which would only be 20th in the league this season). The difference between them and Houston however was Houston did it based on the premise that even a bad percentage from 3 will still yield more points than a decent one from 2, so they were not very accurate, which is why they made their 3's at about a 35% clip on tremendous volume.

    Golden State was different. They not only took a lot of 3's, but they were extremely accurate. They led the league in 3pt % at 41.6%. That is just an insane efficiency. The reason they were able to shoot so efficiently was the passing offense Steve Kerr implemented, where the ball was always moving, forcing the defense to constantly adjust leading to defensive gaps that Golden State would exploit with open looks. Golden State led the league in Assists that season by over 3 per game (28.9 to 25.6).

    This led to not only a plethora of wide open 3's, it also led to a wide open court as defenses constantly had to guard the entire 3pt line. This is why GS also led the league in 2pt% (52.8%). When defenders scrambled around to stop the 3's, they snuck a player inside and he was many times unaccounted for and so they could dish to him for an easy shot inside the arc. In fact, they had the highest % of their 2pt shots assisted in on in the league by a massive amount (62.6% to 58.2%).

    This insane efficiency came while also having an insane pace (2nd fastest in the league) and a great defense (5th in Drtg).


    I think if you just took some team from the 90's or 80's or whenever and they magically transported to game time, Golden State would probably kill them because the other team would have never seen anything like the offense and 3pt shooting Golden State was using. I think if they got a chance to actually see how the game is played they'd do a lot better (or if it were a 7 game series I think you'd see the older team get blown out Game 1 before adjusting and stopping Golden State).

    But if you look at SRS, Golden State's was 10.38, which is very good. However San Antonio that year was 10.28, so even during that season, statistically, SRS felt San Antonio was nearly their equal. If you look historically, The 96 Bulls and the 72 Lakers and Bucks had a higher SRS, meaning those teams were more dominant against their competition than even the Warriors were that year despite a worse record.

    As for what teams do I think could beat them? I don't think the Kings could, because the Kings played a very similar game to Golden State with all the passing but they weren't as good defensively and they weren't taking enough 3's to keep up with Golden State's scoring. I think the teams that would give Golden State problems are teams that had a massive, dominating Center. The problem is the Center would have to be athletic enough to also guard the pick and roll on the perimeter, so a guy like Gilmore would not be effective at all.

    I think the best team to match up with them would be the Magic Lakers because they were good enough in the open court to match Golden State's pace, had enough shooters and scorers to match their efficiency and had a Center that would give their defense problems.

  2. #4982
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,795
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Sorry but pau was a top center. Being a superstar has nothing to do with it. Point is no other team in the league boast Odom, Pau, Bynum. Lakers front court in addition to Kobe is the reason Lakers won. Without Pau/Odom chemistry Lakers were not going to win even with a insane performance from Kobe. you would not survive a 7 game series playing hero. That is called a first round exit team at best.

    Remarkable how this applies to all players bar Lebron.

  3. #4983
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    46,954
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    KD differed and shared the spotlight I would ave to say Green was the alpha of GSW.
    Lol


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  4. #4984
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,795
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well first, the only reason you think it was the worst RS is because it's recent. But even if that were the case, the stronger conference by far (as you're fond of mentioning regarding LeBron) was the West. But even if you restrict their record to simply all the teams that finished with 50 wins that year, it was 14-1. So the idea that their win total was somehow inflated by facing a ton of bad teams is just complete garbage.
    The West was the best conference yet:

    #8 seed of the East 44-38, which would be the 5th placed team in the West.
    #8 seed of the West 41-41, aka 0.500, which would be the 10th placed team in the East.

    6 teams had 30 wins or less. 4 of them were in the tougher West.

    So what exactly did we get out of the way? I only see yourself chasing your tail trying to make an argument out of a non-factor situation.


    As for GSW torhcing the 80s and 90s up, you obviously keep forgetting that NBA basketball was not the same. You keep showing me and everyone else that bothers that you do not understand what context is and how it can be applied to a discussion.

    The GSW is a face up shooting team. Do you think teams didn't want to play face up basketball in the 80s and 90s? Everyone loves that, it makes things too easy. But they couldn't. You were usually marked tighter, had a hand on your waist and you were forced out of making the best possible decision. Would the GSW struggle? Sure. That does not mean they wouldn't be a good team, they'd still be a solid team, but their effect wouldn't have been much more significant than the Denver Nuggets for example who were an offensive juggernaut that barely bothered to play any D. The GSW would also have to sacrifice D if they wanted to be able to pull off their offensive game. And "defense wins championships" wasn't just a saying back in the day...

  5. #4985
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    But your banking on them slowing it down. I am just saying they can play in the half court but make no mistake they will push the ball. Even in half court with so many ball handlers thats also great shooters it easy to run plays and get looks.
    Yes, for any team to beat the warriors they would have to slow it down. They were the best team probably ever at playing that style of play, so no one is going to beat them playing a run and gun style like that. I do think that a veteran disciplined team that knows how to win titles and can execute at a high level in the half court would be able to slow it down though, but that's what the question comes down to. We'll never know because they never played a team like that during their run (the spurs were the closest that came, but KL got hurt in game 1 and Parker was out). Now the team is disbanded so we'll never know the answer for sure.

  6. #4986
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,795
    Why do you have such a fascination about alphas and dogs and leaders and whose team it is. It's a bloody team, it's everyone's team. If there's two great player, both can be "alpha", it's not a freaking wolfpack.
    Whether it's Kobe and Shaq, Stockton and Malone, Wade and Lebron, Curry and Durant, Duncan and Robinson, West and Baylor, Magic and Kareem, Bird and McHale, Shaq and Penny...

    Stop trying to make things so bloody simplified all the time. It's a team sport!

    The only time this can be applied is when an organization is forced to decide between one of its two stars and there's only room for one max contract and I daresay that both have to be in their prime in order to even insinuate this.

  7. #4987
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Why do you have such a fascination about alphas and dogs and leaders and whose team it is. It's a bloody team, it's everyone's team. If there's two great player, both can be "alpha", it's not a freaking wolfpack.
    Whether it's Kobe and Shaq, Stockton and Malone, Wade and Lebron, Curry and Durant, Duncan and Robinson, West and Baylor, Magic and Kareem, Bird and McHale, Shaq and Penny...

    Stop trying to make things so bloody simplified all the time. It's a team sport!

    The only time this can be applied is when an organization is forced to decide between one of its two stars and there's only room for one max contract and I daresay that both have to be in their prime in order to even insinuate this.
    It does matter if the defense is focused on stopping you and treating you different. That can open it up for teammates scorers (like a young Kobe next to Shaq, KD next to Curry and Thompson/Green/already proven system, Kyrie next to Lebron etc.) next to them taking off in part due to lack of attention that can now be put on them without completely breaking. It will help one of said teammates that the defense is playing this way while their main goal is to stop the other. That is what happens when people say rings and ignore who the secondary guys are not proving they can actually take a defense down without someone else like that taking said attention too and being the one to break it down.

  8. #4988
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    The West was the best conference yet:

    #8 seed of the East 44-38, which would be the 5th placed team in the West.
    #8 seed of the West 41-41, aka 0.500, which would be the 10th placed team in the East.

    6 teams had 30 wins or less. 4 of them were in the tougher West.

    So what exactly did we get out of the way? I only see yourself chasing your tail trying to make an argument out of a non-factor situation.


    As for GSW torhcing the 80s and 90s up, you obviously keep forgetting that NBA basketball was not the same. You keep showing me and everyone else that bothers that you do not understand what context is and how it can be applied to a discussion.

    The GSW is a face up shooting team. Do you think teams didn't want to play face up basketball in the 80s and 90s? Everyone loves that, it makes things too easy. But they couldn't. You were usually marked tighter, had a hand on your waist and you were forced out of making the best possible decision. Would the GSW struggle? Sure. That does not mean they wouldn't be a good team, they'd still be a solid team, but their effect wouldn't have been much more significant than the Denver Nuggets for example who were an offensive juggernaut that barely bothered to play any D. The GSW would also have to sacrifice D if they wanted to be able to pull off their offensive game. And "defense wins championships" wasn't just a saying back in the day...
    I get it now. So anytime you want to talk about how garbage LeBron is it's how much weaker the east is than the west and anytime you want to talk about how garbage the Warriors are it's how much weaker the west is than the east.

    The West had 4 teams that won 50 games, the East had 2. The West had the top 3 teams by Net Rating and 4/5 by SRS. To give you an idea of the disparity, 9 of the 10 players on the All-NBA 1st and 2nd teams were in the West (LeBron was the lone exception).

    The preseason odds for the title were:

    Cavs
    Warriors
    Spurs
    Thunder
    Clippers
    Rockets

    But even if you insist on saying the East was better than the West, the Warriors went 27-3 against the East that year. So they actually did better against the East than the West that season.

    As for your insistence that teams back then would absolutely obliterate any team from today. The only context I need is that you're a hate filled old man.

    Yeah, they would have been guarded tighter with the ball due to hand checking, but the Warriors didn't shoot 3's because they got around their defender, they shoot 3's by passing the ball to the open man. Man defense is terrible at guarding a bunch of constantly moving off ball players coming off screens. You want your defense chasing the Warriors players all over the court? Good luck.

    As for your assertion that the Warriors would have to sacrifice defense to be good at offense: why? They didn't need to do that when they were Top 5 in both. Why would they suddenly turn into a bad defensive team? It makes no sense.

    The idea that they would just punch you in the face back then tells me you believe far more of the romanticized narrative than you ever did actually watching the games or knowing what you're talking about. You are about as knowledgeable on basketball back then as someone who claims they know what WWII was like because they watched the movie Wind Talkers.

  9. #4989
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,017
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Remarkable how this applies to all players bar Lebron.
    I maintain that over the years majority of the championship teams were highly talented. i am not trying to paint this or that guy did not have a co-star etc. LOL Did i not say you can win with either if put in the right situation? Did i not ask why Lakers have a long history winning and dont fault a guy for doing it on his own because his franchise is not known for that?
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-25-2020 at 03:30 PM.

  10. #4990
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonjorge View Post
    KG was all over that championship season. Defense MVP and 3rd in league MVP. So KG would of made 2009 interesting.

    Boston did lose 2 other key players. Posey got his last big pay day for what he brought to Boston. Losing Posey on defense is a big hit. They also lost PJ Brown. Posey and Brown played 5th and 6th most mins in the championship series.

    Lakers on the other hand got their own Posey back, Trevor Ariza. Bynum also returned. The others, like Shaw call's them can swing a game in your favor. For sure that series would of been big time basketball.
    I'm still mad to this day they didn't keep Posey!! I will say though, they got a big boost back from Tony Allen. The year before Boston put together the big 3, TA tore his ACL. Once he got a second year removed from that injury he was a better contributor. You could see it in his FG% at the rim and steals on defense. Just more explosive. That help makes up for the loss of Posey. TA was on the title team in 07-08 but not a part of the playoff rotation (played a combined 65 minutes across only 15 of their 26 playoff games that year). He never replaced the shooting but he more than made up for the defense lost.

    Side note: It's a shame TA had that injury. Before the knee injury he was starting because Pierce and Wally Szczerbiak were out and he was really seizing his role. Once he got put into the starting lineup he was averaging 16.4 points, 5.5 rebounds, 2.6 assists, 2.3 steals on 52% shooting. He really had potential to be a legitimate 2 way player but he never FULLY got back to his peak athleticism and the situations he ended up in turned him into the more specialist role he'd go on to. If there was no injury he's probably considered a much more valuable trade chip and would have been included in either the Ray or KG deals that offseason. On those rebuilding teams I think he could have blossomed into more of a 2 way guy.

    PJ Brown made some huge contributions for Boston in that title run. But that next year was when Big Baby really emerged. He was on the title team but wasn't in their main playoff rotation. He played very sparingly that year. But in year 2 he really grew a lot and was definitely an improvement over PJ Brown on his last legs. That jump shot PJ hit over CLE in game 7 goes down in Celtics history forever though haha

    Another key factor was that title team was Rondo's first full year as a starter. He made big strides the next year and came into his own. After that title year I think Rondo became a much better version of himself and Big Baby/TA developed into upgrades over Posey/PJ. If KG were playing and at the pre knee injury Big Ticket version of himself I think that next year's team was even better than the title winning version.

    That following year, the one they made it back, they upgraded from Eddie House to Nate Robinson at the deadline which added more shot creation off the bench. Rondo had continued to improve too. And then they got Sheed to round out the big man rotation for a year. It really sucks that Big Ticket version of KG never got to play with that team. Obviously they were still great and gave LA all they could handle but a closer to prime version of KG would have really helped.

    That next year was a disaster. They added Shaq/Jermaine O'Neal who were flops. Jeff Green never fit in. Just a total mess and they got bodied by the Heat that year. But that next year I thought they had a real shot. As is, they were up 3-2 on MIA in the ECF. One big boost they got that year was Aver Bradley stepping up and actually pushing Ray Allen to a bench role. But he got hurt in the east semi-finals vs PHI and never got to play vs. MIA. Also, Jeff Green ended up missing the whole year because of a heart condition. That following year he came back and was a really good bench player behind Pierce. If BOS had Bradley and Green vs MIA I think they would have had a much better shot at holding that 3-2 lead.

    Winning that title was so huge for Boston after the forever drought. Definitely sold out for a short window and it sucks to look back and think of those little things that hurt. I definitely thing they could have squeaked out another title if they got an extra couple years of closer to prime KG.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  11. #4991
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,795
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I get it now. So anytime you want to talk about how garbage LeBron is it's how much weaker the east is than the west and anytime you want to talk about how garbage the Warriors are it's how much weaker the west is than the east.

    The West had 4 teams that won 50 games, the East had 2. The West had the top 3 teams by Net Rating and 4/5 by SRS. To give you an idea of the disparity, 9 of the 10 players on the All-NBA 1st and 2nd teams were in the West (LeBron was the lone exception).

    The preseason odds for the title were:

    Cavs
    Warriors
    Spurs
    Thunder
    Clippers
    Rockets

    But even if you insist on saying the East was better than the West, the Warriors went 27-3 against the East that year. So they actually did better against the East than the West that season.

    As for your insistence that teams back then would absolutely obliterate any team from today. The only context I need is that you're a hate filled old man.

    Yeah, they would have been guarded tighter with the ball due to hand checking, but the Warriors didn't shoot 3's because they got around their defender, they shoot 3's by passing the ball to the open man. Man defense is terrible at guarding a bunch of constantly moving off ball players coming off screens. You want your defense chasing the Warriors players all over the court? Good luck.

    As for your assertion that the Warriors would have to sacrifice defense to be good at offense: why? They didn't need to do that when they were Top 5 in both. Why would they suddenly turn into a bad defensive team? It makes no sense.

    The idea that they would just punch you in the face back then tells me you believe far more of the romanticized narrative than you ever did actually watching the games or knowing what you're talking about. You are about as knowledgeable on basketball back then as someone who claims they know what WWII was like because they watched the movie Wind Talkers.
    I said the entire Regular Season was the worst ever in a 30 team setup. I didn't talk about the conference until you said it was the better one.

    You have shown total inconsistency and an evident lack of applying context so all you can do is take me in circles whilst you're chasing your tail. I played at the beginning but I won't anymore. You will have to start replying directly to my posts otherwise you'll be going on these circles on your own from now on.

    Now you're suggesting that passing the ball to the open man is something the GSW did as some sort of innovation?

    Dude, we've been doing that in Europe since the 60s and 70s because we copied the NBA. Half of the teams you're dismissing played the same way, minus the three.

  12. #4992
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yep, we agree. Bradley Beal, much like Pau, is not a superstar lol
    Well that not superstar Beal is 30/4/6. when Lebron joined banged up Wade he was 26/4/6 the season before. Wade only ave 30ppg in 1 season same is beal. So to say Pau is not a star is not a true statement. Maybe he was not considered the best star but he was a star.
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-25-2020 at 04:19 PM.

  13. #4993
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I said the entire Regular Season was the worst ever in a 30 team setup. I didn't talk about the conference until you said it was the better one.

    You have shown total inconsistency and an evident lack of applying context so all you can do is take me in circles whilst you're chasing your tail. I played at the beginning but I won't anymore. You will have to start replying directly to my posts otherwise you'll be going on these circles on your own from now on.

    Now you're suggesting that passing the ball to the open man is something the GSW did as some sort of innovation?

    Dude, we've been doing that in Europe since the 60s and 70s because we copied the NBA. Half of the teams you're dismissing played the same way, minus the three.
    So if they played that way by passing the ball worked back then for those teams, why wouldn't it work for the Warriors?

    It's just complete old man yells from porch nonsense to act like teams from today couldn't play with teams from back then. Heck, watch any old games (because clearly you don't), defenders would routinely let offensive players settle for 3 pointers, particularly if they were a step or two behind the line (which they rarely did).

    A defender from back then would let Curry take a 28' 3 pointer because he'd think Curry taking it would be a bad shot, right up until he realized Curry can drain those at above a 40% clip. Yeah, eventually he'd close out on him and deny him that shot, but he'd have to adjust (or have known going in he could do that).

    Not a single team played remotely like Golden State in terms of their 3 point attempts or offense designed to get 3 point shots consistently. The difference between us is you think that was because though they thought of doing that but couldn't because of the defense back then and I think nobody had thought to do that and them not doing it was definitely not because they couldn't do it, it's because they didn't think to do it.

  14. #4994
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,017
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I said the entire Regular Season was the worst ever in a 30 team setup. I didn't talk about the conference until you said it was the better one.

    You have shown total inconsistency and an evident lack of applying context so all you can do is take me in circles whilst you're chasing your tail. I played at the beginning but I won't anymore. You will have to start replying directly to my posts otherwise you'll be going on these circles on your own from now on.

    Now you're suggesting that passing the ball to the open man is something the GSW did as some sort of innovation?

    Dude, we've been doing that in Europe since the 60s and 70s because we copied the NBA. Half of the teams you're dismissing played the same way, minus the three.
    What was worst about it?

    The NBA revolve around stars hardly pass it around. Stars take the bulk of the shots. At the end of each game the top performer get interviewed and its 85% on the time the star player. Leading scorer dont go from game to game
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-25-2020 at 04:26 PM.

  15. #4995
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,003
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Well that not superstar Beal is 30/4/6. when Lebron joined banged up Wade he was 26/4/6 the season before. Wade only ave 30ppg in 1 season same is beal. So to say Pau is not a star is not a true statement. Maybe he was not considered to best star but he was a star.
    It's not just about stats. Wade is one of the top 20-30 players of all time. Pau was an awesome player, but go through history and Pau Gasol types don't win titles as top options. They're #2 options on normal title teams, #3 on stacked teams.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •