|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 12:32:16 GMT -5
seeing that most of the core group, Curry, Thompson, Green, Iggy(I realize Durand was the key addition,) have now won 2 of 3, they should be considered with the Celts of Cooz, Heiny, Russ, as well as the Bird, McHale, Chief teams, the Lakers of Wilt, West, Baylor, and Magic, Kareem, Worthy, and the Knicks of Frazier, Bradley, DeBusschere and the Bulls of Michael and Scotty.
i realize that they do not have the high number of rings of many of these champions, at least yet, but in caIber of play, I think they are in the discussion,
i believe that they are at least better than any team since those Bulls.
here come those Celts fans
|
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jun 13, 2017 12:41:34 GMT -5
Durand?
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 12:44:17 GMT -5
I believe he is listed. I did not put him with the core since he was not there in '15.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jun 13, 2017 13:38:42 GMT -5
The Warriors are all you said this season (and two seasons ago), but they still have a way to go before I would put them ahead of Boston's record of championship after championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 13, 2017 14:11:27 GMT -5
One tough thing with comparing teams from different eras is that the teams competed in leagues of different sizes. The Celtics won their first championship when there were 8 teams in the league. Now the NBA (which I do not follow very much) has 30 teams. So it is much harder to win a championship now than it was 50 years ago. I was once in a discussion about great sports dynasties when one of the group suggested that the Montreal Canadiens of the 1950's had to be considered the best sports dynasty as they won so many championships. I offered the same thing for consideration, that there were only 6 NHL teams, so it was easier to win the Stanley Cup then. The person responded---"that made it harder because all the best players were concentrated on fewer teams". Okay..........
Thought you all might find this diversion amusing....
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 14:46:26 GMT -5
Another factor is that even the old timers agree that today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic
The argument about skilled remains
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 13, 2017 15:03:59 GMT -5
Another factor is that even the old timers agree that today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, stronger. The argument about skilled remains Yes-- That's why I think one should always evaluate athletes against their competitors from their own era. |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 15:09:44 GMT -5
Another factor is that even the old timers agree that today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, stronger. The argument about skilled remains Yes-- That's why I think one should always evaluate athletes against their competitors from their own era. Well even if the Jordan teams are considered the same era, I believe that this Warrior team is better. And the best since then. |
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jun 13, 2017 15:34:03 GMT -5
The lack of defense and physicality in today's NBA makes the product unwatchable for those who want more than a combination of a 3-point and dunk contest. The game has devolved into the team who can make the most 3's winning the game.
I looked at three random Bulls championships, as well as the Celtics championship from 2008, and the PPG, 3FG Made, 3 FG Attempts in the NBA finals for the Bulls and C's in those year were:
1993 Bulls: 106.7 / 5.3 / 11.5
1996 Bulls: 93.0 / 6.0 / 22.8
1998 Bulls: 88.0 / 4.3 / 14.7
2008 Celts: 102.2 / 8.7 / 20.2
This year's Warriors:
PPG: 125.8
3FGM: 14.2
3FGA: 37.2
The number of 3FG attempts is up 85% over the 2008 winner, 154% over 1998, 63% over 1996, and 224% over 1993.
Hard pass from me on this current brand of "basketball."
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 16:43:13 GMT -5
The Warriors are the second best passing team in NBA history.
They are also a great defensive team, using traditional as well as advanced stats(see SI last month)
The fact that teams shoot so well these days is a credit not a weakness.
I agree that most teams are unwatchable, but certainly not the Warriors with their finishing 5 all able to pass, shoot and defend with no one over 6'8"
|
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jun 13, 2017 16:53:53 GMT -5
The Warriors are the second best passing team in NBA history. They are also a great defensive team, using traditional as well as advanced stats(see SI last month) The fact that teams shoot so well these days is a credit not a weakness. I agree that most teams are unwatchable, but certainly not the Warriors with their finishing 5 all able to pass, shoot and defend with no one over 6'8" Passing is easier when opposing teams are playing minimal defense and/or don't want to/aren't allowed to play physical defense. I find it impossible to watch much of the NBA these days, but my hunch is that their "great" defensive statistics are in large part due to the pressure that their high-scoring 3-point barrage of an offense puts on teams to take quick shots to try and catch up. Similar to a football team that scores a lot of points also having a tendency to give up a lot of yards on defense because their opponents are forced to throw the ball a lot more to keep pace. I suppose the Warriors are entertaining if you're interested in watching a team score at will and pour it on, but I do not think it is interesting to watch in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 17:30:23 GMT -5
Neither game 4 nor 5 was a blow out.
They do not score at will, but rely on passing and are effective even against good defensive teams like San Antonio, who has played good defense for ten years under Popovich.
They are as good a passing and unselfish team since the 70s Knicks.
They score so well because they have 3 all time great shooters: Curry, who VanGundy says is the best he has seen, Thompson and Durand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jun 13, 2017 17:32:56 GMT -5
Another factor is that even the old timers agree that today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, stronger. The argument about skilled remains Yes-- That's why I think one should always evaluate athletes against their competitors from their own era. I agree, KY.....but I feel like if generations must be compared, then you need to add in some type of evolution/nutrition/training factor when evaluating the old timers. For example, if Bill Russell was 25 years old today, maybe he would be 7-1, 250 instead of 6-10 220. But all in all, imho it's kind of a silly exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 17:48:19 GMT -5
Russell might be 250, but since height is mostly determined by genetics, doubtful he would be 7'1", though better nutrition, etc. could have made his parents and grandparents at least a bit taller and thus he also
|
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jun 13, 2017 19:00:27 GMT -5
Today's NBA game is so different from the game played by the great Celts teams. Hard to compare. The Celt's "Big Three" game was totally different from today's game with its great reliance on the 3 pt shot. One could say the Celts were still in the George Mikan Era.
|
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jun 13, 2017 19:25:21 GMT -5
Neither game 4 nor 5 was a blow out.They do not score at will, but rely on passing and are effective even against good defensive teams like San Antonio, who has played good defense for ten years under Popovich. They are as good a passing and unselfish team since the 70s Knicks. They score so well because they have 3 all time great shooters: Curry, who VanGundy says is the best he has seen, Thompson and Durand. Game 4 was a blow out -- just in the opposite direction -- in which the Warriors defense allowed 86 points in 24 minutes of basketball. San Antonio is the only team who plays an enjoyable brand of true basketball, yet they have no chance against a Super Team like the Warriors the way the league is currently set up. No offense to VanGundy (obviously a very smart basketball guy), but NBA announcers have almost morphed into WWF announcers in the way that they try to sell the game and make every play sound spectacular. Unfortunately, instead of the NBA being enjoyable for all fans of basketball, it has turned into a "different strokes for different folks" situation, just like how some find the Kardashians and Real Housewives to be entertaining TV shows while others find it unwatchable. My only hope is that the NCAA never allows itself to be tricked into thinking it needs to adopt a 24 second shot clock and rules against playing defense like the NBA. |
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Jun 13, 2017 19:46:39 GMT -5
Without a hard salary cap, get ready for the same finals matchup for the next few years at the very least.
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 20:29:13 GMT -5
Without a hard salary cap, get ready for the same finals matchup for the next few years at the very least. Is that necessarily a bad thing ? If they are the 2 best teams ? The league thrived with rivals: Celtics-Lakers, Bulls- pistons, Knicks, knicks-Lakers. This three year run is now 2-1 Warriors. If they remain the two best, would not it be a budding rivalry between the two best teams ? |
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Jun 13, 2017 21:08:28 GMT -5
Without a hard salary cap, get ready for the same finals matchup for the next few years at the very least. Is that necessarily a bad thing ? If they are the 2 best teams ? The league thrived with rivals: Celtics-Lakers, Bulls- pistons, Knicks, knicks-Lakers. This three year run is now 2-1 Warriors. If they remain the two best, would not it be a budding rivalry between the two best teams ? Hoops - the NBA was is in a much different spot when Bird & Magic came into the league in '79. Attendance was dismal, interest was very low, some squads were hanging on by a thread then. The NBA desperately needed that player and team rivalry then to stay relevant, and it gave the league a much needed shot in the arm. The NBA today doesn't need what it needed 37 years ago. The Warriors-Cav's rivalry is certainly good for TV ratings and social media, but I don't think it's good for the other 28 teams and their cities who realize they have almost no shot of getting to the finals anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 13, 2017 21:28:54 GMT -5
Is that necessarily a bad thing ? If they are the 2 best teams ? The league thrived with rivals: Celtics-Lakers, Bulls- pistons, Knicks, knicks-Lakers. This three year run is now 2-1 Warriors. If they remain the two best, would not it be a budding rivalry between the two best teams ? Hoops - the NBA was is in a much different spot when Bird & Magic came into the league in '79. Attendance was dismal, interest was very low, some squads were hanging on by a thread then. The NBA desperately needed that player and team rivalry then to stay relevant, and it gave the league a much needed shot in the arm. The NBA today doesn't need what it needed 37 years ago. The Warriors-Cav's rivalry is certainly good for TV ratings and social media, but I don't think it's good for the other 28 teams and their cities who realize they have almost no shot of getting to the finals anytime soon. Many valid points but there have been other rivalries than Bird- Magic, that have been good for the league -Wilt-Russell teams, Knicks-lakers.. tha Spurs had a very good season and if they had not lost Leonard, I think they could have given the Warriors a challenge. If Chris Paul signs there, they will be formidable next season. One never knows what will happen from year to year was the Russell Celtics dynasty bad for the NBA ? |
|
