NBA 2016 Playoffs Edition: Farewell, Kobe!

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'll pick a non rematch finals of San Antonio vs (Toronto or Boston) 

[Ferrum Aeternum]

East

Cavs over Pistons in 5

Raptors over Pacers in 5

Heat over Hornets in 6

Celtics over Hawks in 7

West

Warriors over Rockets in 4

Spurs over Griz in 5

Thunder over Mavs in 5

Clippers over Blazers in 6

[Relic]

How do you figure Memphis will win a game against the Spurs, given they dont have Gasol or Connely? Wouldn't the Rockets have a  better chance of winning one against GS?

[Maithanet]

I will caveat these picks with the fact that I haven't seen that much basketball this year, particularly of the East teams. 

East - Cavs in 5

Raptors in 5

Heat in 5

Hawks in 7

West

Warriors Sweep

Spurs Sweep

Thunder in 5

Clippers in 7

[Red Tiger]

Warriors vs Cavs - Warriors in 5

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, sperry said:

 

The Warriors were already a really good team.  They were pretty clearly not far away from contending.  T-Wolves have some nice prospects, with Towns the only one who looks like a lock to be a really good player.

Naw, you just haven't been watching them. KAT, Wiggins and LaVine all look like they could be perennial all-stars. And they have a host of other young guys that are nice side pieces.

15 hours ago, David Selig said:

Not at all. The Warrirors were already a playoff team in a strong West and almost beat the Clippers with Bogut out despite having a pretty terrible coach. And Curry was a Top 10 player in the league who had scored 24 PPG on a very high efficiency and added 8.5 assists that season.

 

If you recall, two years ago Curry had his first good season after a couple seasons of chronic injury issues, Green was an average bench player and Thompson was almost traded along with Green and/or Barnes for Love.

Hell, Kerr was debating between the Dubs job and.........................the Knicks. 

Lastly, in a 3 year window, yes the Warriors were a better job, but in an 8 year window the Wolves are a much better opportunity at face value (not knowing what we now know about how the Warriors flourished under Kerr). The Wolves' oldest core player (Rubio) is younger than Curry was when Kerr took the job, and the rest of the 7 player core is younger than both Thompson and Green when Kerr took the job. Curry was 26 and Green and Thompson were both 24 when Kerr took the job. Wiggins and LaVine are 21 and KAT is 20. They're younger than the VIllanova national championships team starters. 

Besides, almost every sports commentator is on my side of the argument. 

 

[Ferrum Aeternum]

44 minutes ago, Relic said:

How do you figure Memphis will win a game against the Spurs, given they dont have Gasol or Connely? Wouldn't the Rockets have a  better chance of winning one against GS?

Oh there's no good reason for it; logically it should be an easy sweep for the Spurs. But I've watched the Grizzlies play enough this year to know that even this jumbled roster can put it all together and play a solid game once in a while (see last Saturday against the Warriors). I think they'll scrape up a win in game 3 and get blown out in the other 4.

Rockets don't play enough defense to slow down GSW for even a game in my opinion.

[Red Tiger]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Naw, you just haven't been watching them. KAT, Wiggins and LaVine all look like they could be perennial all-stars. And they have a host of other young guys that are nice side pieces.

If you recall, two years ago Curry had his first good season after a couple seasons of chronic injury issues, Green was an average bench player and Thompson was almost traded along with Green and/or Barnes for Love.

Hell, Kerr was debating between the Dubs job and.........................the Knicks. 

Lastly, in a 3 year window, yes the Warriors were a better job, but in an 8 year window the Wolves are a much better opportunity at face value (not knowing what we now know about how the Warriors flourished under Kerr). The Wolves' oldest core player (Rubio) is younger than Curry was when Kerr took the job, and the rest of the 7 player core is younger than both Thompson and Green when Kerr took the job. Curry was 26 and Green and Thompson were both 24 when Kerr took the job. Wiggins and LaVine are 21 and KAT is 20. They're younger than the VIllanova national championships team starters. 

Besides, almost every sports commentator is on my side of the argument. 

 

The NBA has by far the worst commentators out of Major League Sports. Oftentimes they're talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the game.

Like I said before, Boxscoregeeks predicted that the Warriors would be dominant.

As for the Timber Trinity, we've been hearing you say this all-star stuff for quite a while now.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Red Tiger said:

The NBA has by far the worst commentators out of Major League Sports. Oftentimes they're talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the game.

Like I said before, Boxscoregeeks predicted that the Warriors would be dominant.

And if Curry's tissue paper strong ankles didn't hold up?

[Red Tiger]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And if Curry's tissue paper strong ankles didn't hold up?

Who cares? What if LeBron's back issues stopped him in 2012, what if Duncan's knee issues came up in 2014. They made the predictions and they were true.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, Red Tiger said:

Who cares? What if LeBron's back issues stopped him in 2012, what if Duncan's knee issues came up in 2014. They made the predictions and they were true.

Yes, but everything had to go right, and luckily, it did. Look, my whole point is the Warriors of now were not the same team prior to Kerr.

[Red Tiger]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes, but everything had to go right, and luckily, it did. Look, my whole point is the Warriors of now were not the same team prior to Kerr.

Now you are changing the argument.

Your original point was that nobody could have predicted that Curry woudl get it all together that season.

Well, somebody did.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Now you are changing the argument.

Your original point was that nobody could have predicted that Curry woudl get it all together that season.

Well, somebody did.

Fine. Almost nobody could have predicted it. Happy?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

In other news, Klay Thompson just made the third most three pointers in a single season in NBA history. But nobody cares because Steph made 126 more.

[David Selig]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Naw, you just haven't been watching them. KAT, Wiggins and LaVine all look like they could be perennial all-stars. And they have a host of other young guys that are nice side pieces.

If you recall, two years ago Curry had his first good season after a couple seasons of chronic injury issues, Green was an average bench player and Thompson was almost traded along with Green and/or Barnes for Love.

No, at this point Curry's had two great seasons in a row where he played 78 games in each. Thompson was so good that he wasn't traded for Love who was considered a borderline superstar. Barnes was considered one of the brightest youngest prospects in the league. Bogut was known as one of the best defensive centres in the league and of course they had Iguodala too. And David Lee had been an All-Star very recently in the stacked West and finished 2013/14 with 18/9 averages.

Quote

Lastly, in a 3 year window, yes the Warriors were a better job, but in an 8 year window the Wolves are a much better opportunity at face value (not knowing what we now know about how the Warriors flourished under Kerr). The Wolves' oldest core player (Rubio) is younger than Curry was when Kerr took the job, and the rest of the 7 player core is younger than both Thompson and Green when Kerr took the job. Curry was 26 and Green and Thompson were both 24 when Kerr took the job. Wiggins and LaVine are 21 and KAT is 20. They're younger than the VIllanova national championships team starters. 

Maybe, but no NBA coach thinks that far ahead when picking his new team. Chances are they will be fired or leave way before these 8 hears are over.

[sperry]

Also, Curry didn't find the "cheat code" until this year. He was really good in '14-'15, but not historically great. In fact, he didn't really improve too much from '13-'14 to '14-'15. This was the year it got stupid.

[Fez]

4 hours ago, Relic said:

So apparently Charles Barkley thinks that the Clippers will upset the Warriors in round 2. I don't know why but i had a similar thought about two weeks ago. Not sure it is based in any rational line of thinking, more of a gut feeling that if Blake is 100%, then the Clippers can give the Wars everything they can handle. Other potential upsets - Thunder over Spurs, Boston over Cavs, Hornets over Raptors. 

That said, it's very hard to look ahead and not predict a Finals rematch. 

 

 

Charles Barkley has been all-in on the idea that the Warriors are not really a good team for years now ("jump shooting teams can't win championships"). One would think he'd shut up about it after getting proven so wrong last year, but he's still at it.

I generally really like Barkley as a commentator, but he's absolutely one of those old-time guys that thinks the Warriors aren't playing the game the way its meant to be played and that any good team that plays a style that would be mostly recognizable 10 years ago could easily beat them.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Charles Barkley has been all-in on the idea that the Warriors are not really a good team for years now ("jump shooting teams can't win championships"). One would think he'd shut up about it after getting proven so wrong last year, but he's still at it.

I generally really like Barkley as a commentator, but he's absolutely one of those old-time guys that thinks the Warriors aren't playing the game the way its meant to be played and that any good team that plays a style that would be mostly recognizable 10 years ago could easily beat them.

To be fair, he was right about jump shooting teams until the Kerr-era Warriors which combine elite outside shooting with shut-down defense, a combo that had never quite taken shape before. Point still stands though - he should admit that the jump shooting model can work so long as the team also defends both the paint and perimeter at a high level.

Of course, it's also wise to take sports TV personalities with a grain of salt. Who knows how much of what he's saying is just to play devil's advocate and keep the discussion going.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Charles Barkley has been all-in on the idea that the Warriors are not really a good team for years now ("jump shooting teams can't win championships"). One would think he'd shut up about it after getting proven so wrong last year, but he's still at it.

I generally really like Barkley as a commentator, but he's absolutely one of those old-time guys that thinks the Warriors aren't playing the game the way its meant to be played and that any good team that plays a style that would be mostly recognizable 10 years ago could easily beat them.

I have no problem with people saying that the 90s Bulls or 80s Lakers or whatever could beat GSW if they played in their era.  I generally assume that the teams were dynasties for a reason, and that coaches and players were just as smart back then as they are now.  But the idea that the Bulls could beat the Warriors if the Bulls were playing in today's NBA with today's refs is a joke.  I don't even think that game would be particularly close. 

I see no reason to think that the Clips can hang with the Warriors in a 7 game series.  They'll take one game, maybe two if they are really at their best. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, David Selig said:

No, at this point Curry's had two great seasons in a row where he played 78 games in each. Thompson was so good that he wasn't traded for Love who was considered a borderline superstar. Barnes was considered one of the brightest youngest prospects in the league. Bogut was known as one of the best defensive centres in the league and of course they had Iguodala too. And David Lee had been an All-Star very recently in the stacked West and finished 2013/14 with 18/9 averages.

Yes Curry had put together two nice seasons after any injury prone start to his career, but he wasn't Cheat Code Curry yet, and almost nobody thought he'd ever be a top 5 player, let alone the best player on the planet. 

Thompson wasn't so good he wouldn't be traded for Love, the proposed deal was Klay, Lee and either Green or Barnes for Love. Klay was a nice young talent, but he wasn't what he is now. 

Green was a bench play who averaged 6 points a game before Kerr came in and totally changed how he was used.

Look, it's hard to look at those three players stats/careers leading into last season and argue that they were more intriguing for a potential coach than KAT, WIggins and LaVines' young careers. And it's just not those three. This team is loaded with young talent.