Jump to content

NBA Finals 2019: Can the Raptors Claw Out a Win?


Maithanet

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

But you did. We just gonna act like the 7 game series against Houston last year never happened? Or the 6 gamer this year that could've easily swung had literally a couple shots gone differently. Not to mention we have no idea how this Raptors series would've gone. And who knows what happens if Kawhi doesn't get injured in 2017. 

The funny thing about all the Warriors coronation talk to me is that whenever a team actually did go all in to try to beat them (instead of waiting this superteam out like most of the league did), they gave them everything they could handle. They were overwhelming on paper, not in practice.  

I don't know about that.  The Warriors had Durant for three playoff years.  The first year they rolled everybody and only lost one game all playoffs.  Yes, they would have lost game 1 to the Spurs if not for injury, but I'm EXTREMELY skeptical that the Spurs would have actually been a true test over the whole series.  The second year they rolled everybody except the Rockets, who maybe (but by no means certainly) could have closed them out in game 7 if they'd had Paul.  But they didn't, and they lost.  This year the Rockets were not nearly as close, they didn't have home court advantage and got eliminated at home to a Durant-less Warriors squad.  I have no patience for the idea that the Warriors are worse with Durant than without, instead I think it's just that the Warriors figured the Rockets out and would have dispatched them even more easily if they'd had Durant.  The Raptors would have given the Warriors a good series, but it's hard to come away thinking that the Raptors emerge victories over 7 games.  The one quarter they had Durant they looked like the better team (really the only time I would say that in the whole series). 

So really, you have two series in three years that had a real possibility of defeating a healthy Warriors.  Of those, one got derailed by the Chris Paul injury so we'll never really know.  The other got derailed by the injury to Durant, so we'll never really know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

But you did. We just gonna act like the 7 game series against Houston last year never happened? Or the 6 gamer this year that could've easily swung had literally a couple shots gone differently. Not to mention we have no idea how this Raptors series would've gone. And who knows what happens if Kawhi doesn't get injured in 2017. 

The funny thing about all the Warriors coronation talk to me is that whenever a team actually did go all in to try to beat them (instead of waiting this superteam out like most of the league did), they gave them everything they could handle. They were overwhelming on paper, not in practice. 

Exactly. And people always overlooked that despite how top heavy they were, their bench was trash. They were beatable, even at full strength. I said the Bucks would get them in six. Right result, wrong team. I also said in the preseason that we shouldn’t coronate them because we can never know a team’s health. So I’ll just cap off this season with one of my favorite characters of all time from my favorite movie ever:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. And people always overlooked that despite how top heavy they were, their bench was trash. They were beatable, even at full strength. I said the Bucks would get them in six. Right result, wrong team. I also said in the preseason that we shouldn’t coronate them because we can never know a team’s health. So I’ll just cap off this season with one of my favorite characters of all time from my favorite movie ever:

 

You're taking the fact that you predicted the Bucks in six as evidence of you being right all the time?  Wow.  A champion in your own mind.  Perhaps you should look for work in the White House? 

Also "you can't assume the Warriors will be healthy" isn't exactly rocket science.  Everyone knows that any claim on the Warriors being undefeatable was contingent on the Warriors actually being the Warriors and no some MASH unit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And Klay wasn’t as hot in those games as he was last night. He was clearly the best player on the court, and when he went down it was game over. I’m actually amazed that the Warriors stayed in it to the end.

Look, Raptors fans have every right to be overjoyed by this, and the league is probably excited that it just massively expanded its fan base, but from a basketball purest standpoint, this is not how a dynasty is meant to die. I wanted to see a team overcome them, and I predicted that it would happen, but not this way. Not having three starters, including possibly the best player in the world, suffer devastating injuries. It makes their defeat feel hollow, and the fact that the Raptors still struggled suggests that the Warriors at full strength would have crushed them.

:rolleyes:

Yes, the series was deflating with the injuries, but shit happens. If we're discounting beating teams with injuries to key players how many championships aren't "hollow"? Would you like to start with that first year the Warriors beat the Cavs without Love and Irving? 

Yes, the Warriors would be favoured with KD. I've admitted as much even before the series started. 

Let's get back to how you claimed they won by only one basket without KD and Klay. Did you expect the Raptors to score 40 in the fourth or hold the Warriors to 10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the narrative of GSW as some sort of death-star, competition-ending super team is unfair to them and was mostly a convenient revisionist crutch to explain away a collective low point for some of the competition. 

Steph, Klay, Draymond and Andre weren’t superstars.  They all had limitations to their game.  None of them was close to being LeBron, Harden, Westbrook, Giannis, or any of these dominant all-rounders.  All this super-team talk ignores the fact that their real success was to create a different path to success that suited their eclectic mix of talent with no super-stars.  They won a great title, but then they also lost one to LeBron as they struggled with a post-season injury to Curry.  So they signed KD and everyone cried foul.  This was the first legit super-star they signed, even when all their opponents had at least one super-star of their own.  Like it was unfair of them to have the same advantage that every other team had on top if the unique advantage they had developed on their own. 

And even with this supposedly unsporting new advantage, they still had to struggle and strive and go deep in series in order to win their next titles, and now an unlucky injury was enough to cost them a title just like it would any other team. 

It’s not their fault that so many of their opponents were either floundering (Lakers, Celtics) or else over-reliant on a single star player to take more than half of the team’s shots (LeBron, Harden, Westbrook).  They picked a good time to peak and shock everyone with a change in tactics, but that doesn’t mean they ruined basketball.  Basketball has been infinitely better since it progressed from the eras of Kobe and LeBron bestriding the league like a Colossus and instead returned to the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Steph, Klay, Draymond and Andre weren’t superstars.  They all had limitations to their game.  None of them was close to being LeBron, Harden, Westbrook, Giannis, or any of these dominant all-rounders.  All this super-team talk ignores the fact that their real success was to create a different path to success that suited their eclectic mix of talent with no super-stars.  They won a great title, but then they also lost one to LeBron as they struggled with a post-season injury to Curry.  So they signed KD and everyone cried foul.  This was the first legit super-star they signed, even when all their opponents had at least one super-star of their own.  Like it was unfair of them to have the same advantage that every other team had on top if the unique advantage they had developed on their own.

?! :stunned:  Steph Curry isn't a superstar but Westbrook and Harden are?  Steph Curry is better than either of those guys, and he has two league MVPs, not to mention superior career stats, to prove it. 

The Warriors won 73 games with the Curry, Green, Thompson, Iguodala core.  Just to refresh your memory, that's the most in NBA history.  They were already a superteam.  And then they signed Durant.  That wasn't exactly "this will put us over the hump", it was "this winning will be easy". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

You're taking the fact that you predicted the Bucks in six as evidence of you being right all the time?  Wow.  A champion in your own mind.  Perhaps you should look for work in the White House? 

I hear they have an opening. I’m a better BSer than Sanders, but I can’t get my makeup to look like that. Care to help?

And for Christ’s sake dude, I cited Ian Malcolm. Clearly I was just poking fun. I was just highlighting the fact that the narrative you’ve all been pushing all year was wrong, capping it with the fact that I predicted the Warriors would lose in the Finals before the injuries took place.

Quote

Also "you can't assume the Warriors will be healthy" isn't exactly rocket science.  Everyone knows that any claim on the Warriors being undefeatable was contingent on the Warriors actually being the Warriors and no some MASH unit. 

That’s the point. Everyone was dismissing that this could happen. I was arguing it could. Now obviously there was a small chance, but this team does have a lot of guys with injury histories, and with a really short bench, that could become a huge problem. Combine all that with championship fatigue and Achilles’ heel is exposed. Sadly literally and not figuratively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I hear they have an opening. I’m a better BSer than Sanders, but I can’t get my makeup to look like that. Care to help?
And for Christ’s sake dude, I cited Ian Malcolm. Clearly I was just poking fun. I was just highlighting the fact that the narrative you’ve all been pushing all year was wrong, capping it with the fact that I predicted the Warriors would lose in the Finals before the injuries took place.

I'm just poking fun too man, i felt like you needed a bit of a piss taking on that one.  I'm well aware you aren't going to work at the White House.
 

Quote

That’s the point. Everyone was dismissing that this could happen. I was arguing it could. Now obviously there was a small chance, but this team does have a lot of guys with injury histories, and with a really short bench, that could become a huge problem. Combine all that with championship fatigue and Achilles’ heel is exposed. Sadly literally and not figuratively.

 

They did?  I don't remember that.  I know that during last year's regular season I said that the Warriors would win the 2018 championship, and probably 2019 as well, depend on injuries.  They were obviously a top heavy team, but the overwhelming talent advantage in their starting 5 meant that they could maybe/probably survive the loss of one of their stars, something most teams couldn't possibly afford.  But if enough injuries hit in quick succession, any NBA team can be felled in short order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They played too much basketball deep into the postseason for too many years.  They broke down beacause of how they'd broken basketball.    The basketball gods are hard, Jim.    I like to take Iguadala and break it down into two parts:   Eeeeeeee.... guadala.  Now the Warriors can feature him more!    The commentators didn't consider him a threat on offense but I always have.   And Dray didn't kick anyone in the sack this playoffs?    THAT'S why they lost.  His moms must have spoken to him about that.   "Now Dray, people deserve to have children.  You can't be taking that away from them."     Some finals are a greek tragedy- -   This one because of injury, and previous warriors finals were sad because they won.   It's all sports talk now that the sport part of the season is over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm just poking fun too man, i felt like you needed a bit of a piss taking on that one.  I'm well aware you aren't going to work at the White House.

Are you kidding me? I didn’t just major in poli sci. I also have a psych degree. It would be amazing to work in this WH, assuming I didn’t have to make any public statements that would haunt me for the rest of my career.

Think of the book deal man!!!

Quote

They did?  I don't remember that.  I know that during last year's regular season I said that the Warriors would win the 2018 championship, and probably 2019 as well, depend on injuries.  They were obviously a top heavy team, but the overwhelming talent advantage in their starting 5 meant that they could maybe/probably survive the loss of one of their stars, something most teams couldn't possibly afford.  But if enough injuries hit in quick succession, any NBA team can be felled in short order. 

It sure felt that way. I kept saying injuries can happen and people kept dismissing it. Obviously nobody could have foreseen this, but I always argued that they weren’t the favorite if they lost either KD or Steph, and it was so annoying to hear people say “but they have Boogie.”

Please…

Anyways, now comes possibly the craziest offseason in NBA history.

And in the end, Kawhi was right. The Board Man is about to get paid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

?! :stunned:  Steph Curry isn't a superstar but Westbrook and Harden are?  Steph Curry is better than either of those guys, and he has two league MVPs, not to mention superior career stats, to prove it. 

The Warriors won 73 games with the Curry, Green, Thompson, Iguodala core.  Just to refresh your memory, that's the most in NBA history.  They were already a superteam.  And then they signed Durant.  That wasn't exactly "this will put us over the hump", it was "this winning will be easy". 

Curry is a superstar now, in this GSW set-up.  That's kind of my point.  Until they innovated a new style of tactics, Curry was going to be limited by his lack of physical ability.  But they did innovate and suddenly Curry and Klay become hugely valuable in that system, and they're able to win the most games in a regular season with a cast of players who would not have been regarded as a star player by any other franchise.  They built a team and they developed a style of play that suited them, rather than the ego-heavy superman approach of most other teams.  Curry would not have been a superstar at most franchises.

When Curry was drafted, he went 7th overall.  And lots of pundits thought there were better guards available.  His lack of height, strength and ability to beat a team from many directions (look at Lebron, Harding, Westbrook, Giannis) lowered the impression of him, until the GSW style allowed him to flourish and maximize what he can do.  Even when he got his first contract extension in 2012, he still wasn't considered a superstar.

GSW took a bunch of good-but-definitely-not-super-star players and turned them into a very successful team.  They only signed one player who was viewed as a superstar outside of their system.  And then everyone hated them for signing an "objective" top tier player even though every other franchise had at least one them already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

GSW took a bunch of good-but-definitely-not-super-star players and turned them into a very successful team.  They only signed one player who was viewed as a superstar outside of their system.  And then everyone hated them for signing an "objective" top tier player even though every other franchise had at least one them already.

Lots of guys aren't superstars until they are.  Just off the top of my head, Giannis, Leonard, Curry, Ginobili, etc all got drafted outside the top 10 before blossoming until superstars.  But Curry was clearly a superstar in the 2015-2016 seasons when he won back to back MVPs.  The idea that Curry wasn't a superstar in 2015 because people didn't realize how great he was in 2012 is nonsense. 

And coming off a 73 win season, the Warriors signed another Top 5 player in Durant, which essentially killed NBA parity until two weeks ago.  A team with two top 5 players and two other top 25 players hadn't been seen since the 70s.  I understand why GSW would do that, they're in the business of winning titles.  But I'm an NBA fan and I'm not interested in dominance, I'm interested in competition and parity.  The Warriors and Kevin Durant destroyed that parity, and thus I root against them.  This isn't that complicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This isn't that complicated. 

In a way it is, and both you and @Iskaral Pust are right, albeit for different reasons. Signing Durant did mess up the competitive balance. It’s not just because they signed a super star, but because they have two cheat codes when very few teams have even one, given that there’s only at most six or seven of them in the game, and that Steph is the cheat code among cheat codes, but will touch on this again in a second.

Here is why Isk is right. Steph, Klay and Draymond on their own are role players. Steph is your sixth man shooter, like Lou Williams. Klay is a classic three and D guy. Green is your hustle player. But it just so happens that all three dudes are the very best version of each of those roles. Like best ever. Steph is the greatest shooter ever. Klay is the best three and D player ever. And Green is the best utility knife ever. And they make each other. They need one another. Without the others they’re just elite role players.

However, something changed. Klay and Green kept getting better, but Curry exploded. He broke the game’s math by being able to shoot above 50% from beyond 30 feet. That changed how they space the floor, and allowed them to take the next step beyond what the Spurs created. They’re the same systems, but Golden State’s pieces fit it better. And then Curry cracked it out.

Yet despite all of this, Curry can’t do it alone. We’ve seen it time and time again. He needs them both. Without another elite shooter, and/or an elite scorer, the cheat code doesn’t work. Steph’s spacing is worthless when no one else can shoot or score, and defenses can collapse on him, rendering the Warriors’ offense useless. And that’s why I knew it was over when Klay went down.

Curry is the most broken shooter ever, but he needs others to allow him to break out. He can’t do it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Curry is a superstar now, in this GSW set-up.  That's kind of my point.  Until they innovated a new style of tactics, Curry was going to be limited by his lack of physical ability.  But they did innovate and suddenly Curry and Klay become hugely valuable in that system, and they're able to win the most games in a regular season with a cast of players who would not have been regarded as a star player by any other franchise.  They built a team and they developed a style of play that suited them, rather than the ego-heavy superman approach of most other teams.  Curry would not have been a superstar at most franchises.

When Curry was drafted, he went 7th overall.  And lots of pundits thought there were better guards available.  His lack of height, strength and ability to beat a team from many directions (look at Lebron, Harding, Westbrook, Giannis) lowered the impression of him, until the GSW style allowed him to flourish and maximize what he can do.  Even when he got his first contract extension in 2012, he still wasn't considered a superstar.

GSW took a bunch of good-but-definitely-not-super-star players and turned them into a very successful team.  They only signed one player who was viewed as a superstar outside of their system.  And then everyone hated them for signing an "objective" top tier player even though every other franchise had at least one them already.

It does get lost a bit lost, post Durant, that the Warriors built this out of two late lottery picks (Curry, Thompson) and a 2nd rounder (Green). And there was no guarantee these guys would've reached this level of success on a different franchise between Steph's ankles, Thompson's hilariously awful handle and Green being a classic tweener who couldn't shoot. They did so much right both taking guys who had ability far beyond their draft position but also developing them and figuring out a unique style of play that would maximize their talents. It was so successful that a semi elite star was convinced to join (Iggy) and then a top 3 guy (Durant). 

I mean compare that to Sam Presti who was perfection drafting 3 MVPs in 3 successive drafts but still wasn't able to build a team that reached the heights the Warriors did. He's the Robb Stark of GMs, won every battle and lost the war. 

Proves there's a critical element here beyond assembling talent. Need player development and a really good training staff and a system that maximizes what the players do well. Basically need to be elite organizationally. The Raptors getting a title is only proof of this. 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

And coming off a 73 win season, the Warriors signed another Top 5 player in Durant, which essentially killed NBA parity until two weeks ago.  A team with two top 5 players and two other top 25 players hadn't been seen since the 70s.  I understand why GSW would do that, they're in the business of winning titles.  But I'm an NBA fan and I'm not interested in dominance, I'm interested in competition and parity.  The Warriors and Kevin Durant destroyed that parity, and thus I root against them.  This isn't that complicated. 

NBA parity has never really existed. This isn't the NFL. There's always been superteams and dominance. The best NBA eras, like the 80s, just had two equally matched superteams. But we spent the whole 90s wondering who could compete with the Bulls (spoiler: no-one) and the 2000s were supposed to be a Lakers 10 year Reich except Kobe and Shaq ending up beating themselves. (The Spurs won the title virtually every time there was a transitional period in the league but never became their own true dynasty.) Then the 2010s and the Heat were supposed to be the next not one, not two, not three...but Lebron/Wade didn't build one as durable as they were hoping. And then the Warriors came along and their improbable success snowballed.

All that said, you might get your wish now Maith. The Warriors total collapse due to injury is setting up the rare power vacuum in the NBA. There is no obvious top contender at this point, especially as it's unclear whether a title is enough to get Kawhi to re-sign. And we're going to have 5-6 top 20 players switch teams. 

Could be the rare NBA season with 4-5 legit contenders and no favorite. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect NFL level parity where every season 5 teams have a real chance and another 10 squads could maybe pull it together if things break their way.  What I want is for each offseason to have at least 2-4 teams that are real contenders if they stay healthy, and maybe another 2-4 teams on the second tier that could maybe pull it together if things break thier way.  If you look at the NBA landscape this year and you assume that the Warriors DON'T have Durant, then I'd say it looks perfect:

Clearly contenders if healthy - Warriors, Rockets, Bucks, Raptors

Maybe contenders, maybe pretenders - Sixers, Celtics, Nuggets, Blazers

That's ideal.  Some years it doesn't work out that way, because the top 2-3 teams are just WAAY better than everyone else, and we're really just waiting for the Finals.  But when it's the #1 team and then a huge gap, that's just boring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

I mean compare that to Sam Hinkie who was perfection drafting 3 MVPs in 3 successive drafts but still wasn't able to build a team that reached the heights the Warriors did. He's the Robb Stark of GMs, won every battle and lost the war. 

 

I get the feeling Danny Ainge is the Late Lord Frey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Clearly contenders if healthy - Warriors, Rockets, Bucks, Raptors

Maybe contenders, maybe pretenders - Sixers, Celtics, Nuggets, Blazers

That's ideal.  Some years it doesn't work out that way, because the top 2-3 teams are just WAAY better than everyone else, and we're really just waiting for the Finals.  But when it's the #1 team and then a huge gap, that's just boring. 

Yeah but it's so tough to say where we stand now. The Raptors probably fall out as a contender if they lose Kawhi. Celtics probably aren't one in my mind unless they make a big move with Kyrie likely to leave. But if the Lakers get AD, they become one. And depending where Kawhi goes, that could be another one.

There's a good chance KD, Kawhi, AD, Kyrie, Chris Paul all change teams. Perhaps Butler, Beal, Conley, Kemba, Harris too. 

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I get the feeling Danny Ainge is the Late Lord Frey...

And he seemed like Tywin up until this season too.

ETA: Fuck, that should say Presti, not Hinkie. Sam Hinkie is the Qyburn of the NBA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...