Playoff Game Thread
- Thread starter ElUno20
- Start date
Good on the Spurs fans cheering Manu, Manu at the end here. If this is it, props on an amazing career.
Its a good bet. They are going to destroy the Cavs imho. The matchups aren't favorable for Cleveland.
Edit: And Cleveland still has to win two more games against a tough competitor before that bet can even be possible.
He can do whatever he wants but it will be pretty laughable if the media tries to portray it as a star player finally getting over the hump.
Personally I don't have a problem with Durant going to GS. We make such a big deal for our stars winning championships that we shouldn't be surprised when someone goes to the situation that will best bring them a championship.
As a fan, it sucks. Durant's decision to go to GS made the league less fun for everyone except GS fans. In a perfect world the best 8 or so players would have an unspoken agreement that they would all forge their own teams and avoid playing with other all-NBA players, but that isn't going to happen. We are too obsessed with winning to do that.
As a fan, it sucks. Durant's decision to go to GS made the league less fun for everyone except GS fans. In a perfect world the best 8 or so players would have an unspoken agreement that they would all forge their own teams and avoid playing with other all-NBA players, but that isn't going to happen. We are too obsessed with winning to do that.
I still think the timing of the league is making this seem worse than it is. We were all annoyed with LeBron's move to Miami because there wasn't a real challenger. The old Big 3 Celtics team fought hard but they were outgunned. The Bulls clearly were never talented enough. And there wasn't anyone else. If LeBron's move had been 3 years earlier, you'd have 2 elite teams duking it out and it would have been great.
I think the same thing applies for the Warriors. The biggest problem is that they have no real challengers. Obviously, Durant's decision took out one of them. The Spurs won 60+ games but they clearly weren't as good as some of the Spurs teams with Duncan. Had Kawhi not gotten hurt, they probably take this series to 6 or 7 but still fall short. The Clippers have regressed. The Rockets are a one star team. The Jazz have some nice pieces but clearly were lacking elite scoring. The Lakers are a hot mess. And the Blazers have a great backcourt but are in cap hell.
End of the day, I don't have any issue with the Warriors. They drafted 3 of their 4 stars and opportunistically got their 4th by making sure they had the cap flexibility. There's nothing different from what they're doing than what we hope the Celtics can achieve starting this summer.
The problem isn't the super team concept, it's that there aren't more of them.
The old saying, "Don't hate the player, hate the game" applies here. I don't hate Durant for his decision, nor do I hate GS for making smart moves. But the product and the overall system is horrible, and as a result, these unwatchable playoffs are what the league deserves.
The other thing with super teams is that while we have had three over the past decade, they are rare. Furthermore, they don't always work or endure. This Warriors team maybe has another few seasons together and then some guys will leave while others fall off. Meanwhile the Celtics may be on the cusp of building the next iteration, especially if Danny makes a shrewd move or two with existing personnel.
The league tried to phase in the salary cap increase gradually but the players union wouldn't accept it. This particular superteam was the result of serendipity, not poor decision making. Still, get rid of the max contract and superteams would be impossible unless multiple players took Brady-esque hometown discounts.
That's 12-0 for the Warriors, but even more impressive is the 16.3 point differential. They've only played one close game (Game 1 against the Spurs).
That's why I don't think changing the rules to prevent the next Warriors super-team makes sense, it's a total one-off. The Curry contract aspect in particular is almost impossible to replicate -- there isn't going to be another MVP for a long time with an $11 million cap hit.
I think so too, but I said the same thing last year, and we all know how that worked out. But this year's Warriors are playing much better in the playoffs than last year's team was going into the Finals, although they haven't played anyone as good as last year's Thunder team either.
Building these Warriors required a lot of luck. First, they had to draft three all-stars without any top-5 picks. Then, they had to sign a top-5 player to an extreme below-market contract -- they don't have the cap space to sign Durant if Curry isn't on that crazy 4/44 deal. Then, they had to get lucky that that Durant became available in the only season during this team's run when they would have had the cap space to sign him, due to the contracts they already had/could offload and the sudden rise in the cap (although to their credit the team saw it coming about 18-24 months out and was actively planning to go after Durant for years). Then, they had to convince Durant to actually come.
That's why I don't think changing the rules to prevent the next Warriors super-team makes sense, it's a total one-off. The Curry contract aspect in particular is almost impossible to replicate -- there isn't going to be another MVP for a long time with an $11 million cap hit.
Stay in OKC, or go to another team to fight the bully.
KD is entitled to do what he wants. He chose bro-dom and funzies. He's probably happier for it, so good for him. I'm trying to picture Michael Jordan leaving the bulls to join the pistons and I'm not seeing it.
1996; he signed a pair of one-year $30+ million deals (present value of $70M/season).
Durant gave the first *nine years* of his career to Seattle/OKC. By his ninth year, Jordan had already won three straight titles and the Pistons were crap, so that's not a particularly good analogy. (Edit: plus, as Devizier notes, he wasn't a UFA until 1996). Also Chicago is not to Detroit what OKC is to the Bay Area.
I think you're right that he chose bro-dom and funzies (he has said that he was impressed at how ardently Dray, Andre, Steph and co. text-wooed him throughout the decision process). I think he also chose the Bay Area over OKC; a new adventure over same old same old same old; and an enviable team culture and style of play (bred by Steve Kerr, Ron Adams and co.) that emphasizes selflessness, ball movement, and "the beautiful game" over the your-turn my-turn hero-ball that he mostly played with Westbrook in OKC.
In case anyone missed it, "Game of Zones" broke the decision process down pretty well...
As others have noted here, the biggest issues from a structural standpoint are (1) the max salary, which forces guys like Durant and LeBron who should be making $50-60M based on their impact on wins to make roughly the same max salary as guys like Melo and DeMar DeRozan; and (2) the huge, "unsmoothed" jump in salary cap in 2015-16 that gave pretty much every team in the league, including the great ones, a full max salary slot. I can definitely see being pissed off at those things.
Still, a lot of stuff had to swing right (i.e. wrong) for these playoffs to be as uncompetitive as they've been. If Kawhi, Parker, Lowry, IT, Griffin and co et al. hadn't been hurt; or if (ugh) Durant's or Love's knee injuries had been season-enders (team doctors initially thought KD had fractured the knee and ended this season, which made soft old KD cry); or if teams like the Clips and Raptors had built their rosters a bit better; or if a couple of the stars on middling teams had joined forces (Butler and George, e.g.) etc. etc. I suspect we might have seen a lot more hard-fought battles. Going into the season obviously most people expected Cavs-Ws Part Trois, but I don't think anyone thought their runs would be as easy as they have been.
And hey, Avery Bradley, Marcus Smart and co. could still shock the world...
Durant went to GS because he wanted to win and they give him the best chance to win. What pisses me off about it is that we all know this, yet Durant refuses to admit that GS gives him a better chance to win than OKC. All the other stuff might be ancillary reasons, but if GS was a 35 win team but they had great chemistry and a cool system, Durant wouldn't have gone there. I don't understand why he doesn't just admit that.
Do we really care if he admits it or not? We all know he chose the path of least resistance. I think the part that confuses me is that his OKC team was right there to win a title. They took a 73 win team to the absolute brink and could have won it. Given another shot, they very well could have done it this year. I think his Westbrook relationship had to have played a role. There have long been rumors of tension there. I'm wondering if Westbrook's ball dominant style simply wore on Durant. Golden State's offense is far more equitable and, quite frankly, more fun to watch and certainly participate in.
I mean, none of us actually know the details of his decision process, so it's sort of silly to conjecture about it. Heck, even KD himself may not be fully aware of all the factors and exactly how they broke down. It's reasonable to assume that, as BSF says, he "took the path of least resistance" — but that's obvious, since we mammals are hard-wired to opt for pleasure over pain, given the choice. But I think it's presumptuous and simplistic to assume "best chance to win" is his only or overriding source of pleasure.
For what (little) it's worth, I could definitely imagine a scenario where he'd opt to sign with a marginally less likely champion that had a cooler vibe, a more philosophical coach who preaches stuff like "compassion" and "the beautiful game," more selfless and fun teammates, in a much richer, more diverse and more interesting place to live (with the promise of deep-pocketed Silicon Valley connections to boot). For all we know, the 73-win thing was just gravy, or even a negative. But again ... conjecture.
Haha, people have said the same about SF Giants fans, Red Sox fans, Pats fans, etc.
I work in NYC, and I remember having a conversation with a colleague a several years back where I told him that I grew up in the Boston area but moved to the Bay Area at 17 so by the mid-80s my teams had somehow ended up the Sox, Pats, Cal Bears and Warriors. His response: "Jesus, Boston and the Bay Area — the two most annoying fanbases in the world!" ;-P
The eyerolls I get at water coolers and sports bars these days when I fess up to being a Pats/Warriors fan are hilarious. Needless to say, it was not always thus...
I work in NYC, and I remember having a conversation with a colleague a several years back where I told him that I grew up in the Boston area but moved to the Bay Area at 17 so by the mid-80s my teams had somehow ended up the Sox, Pats, Cal Bears and Warriors. His response: "Jesus, Boston and the Bay Area — the two most annoying fanbases in the world!" ;-P
The eyerolls I get at water coolers and sports bars these days when I fess up to being a Pats/Warriors fan are hilarious. Needless to say, it was not always thus...
The other team you describe is basically the Celtics (going into this year) and Durant spurned them for Warriors. I live in SF, and it is awesome (albeit ungodly expensive).
I get the Bay Area appeal. But based on KD's decision it definitely seems like he just wanted to win (and I don't really blame him).
He could have everything GS offered from a basketball perspective in Boston except being the prohibitive favorite to win it all.
He came damn close to picking Boston, apparently — though when a drooling Bill Simmons recently asked him "how close" he said something like "I'll just let you use your imagination."
But again: we don't know that championship odds per se were the deciding factor in picking GS over Boston. KD was tight with Andre, Steph, Dre and Klay from their Team USA stints; no one on Boston is in that clique (which also meant the guys on the Cs probably didn't have his cellphone #). Brad Stevens shares a lot of the philosophy and style of Kerr, but doesn't have quite the aura of NBA Legend of Kerr, a Popovich/Jackson-disciple and former MJ teammate. Etc.
Also: KD loves Oakland and says it reminds him of "Chocolate City" (DC/Baltimore) where he grew up, while Boston, fairly or not, still carries the racial stigmas and scars (occasionally reopened) of the Yawkeys, segregation and slow desegregation, etc.
From a pure hoops and competitive balance standpoint, though ... man, KD to Boston would have been perfect (though it likely would have made Simmons and Boston sports fans even more insufferable than they are). The Cs built around a healthy KD, Bradley and IT could give the Cavs and KD-less Warriors serious problems.
But again: we don't know that championship odds per se were the deciding factor in picking GS over Boston. KD was tight with Andre, Steph, Dre and Klay from their Team USA stints; no one on Boston is in that clique (which also meant the guys on the Cs probably didn't have his cellphone #). Brad Stevens shares a lot of the philosophy and style of Kerr, but doesn't have quite the aura of NBA Legend of Kerr, a Popovich/Jackson-disciple and former MJ teammate. Etc.
Also: KD loves Oakland and says it reminds him of "Chocolate City" (DC/Baltimore) where he grew up, while Boston, fairly or not, still carries the racial stigmas and scars (occasionally reopened) of the Yawkeys, segregation and slow desegregation, etc.
From a pure hoops and competitive balance standpoint, though ... man, KD to Boston would have been perfect (though it likely would have made Simmons and Boston sports fans even more insufferable than they are). The Cs built around a healthy KD, Bradley and IT could give the Cavs and KD-less Warriors serious problems.
Would have been interesting for a couple of years, but KD / Al / Jaylen / Fultz / Porter / etc. would have dominated the NBA for a good long while.
Plus Golden State has the whole Silicon Valley/venture capital/start up culture thing that a lot of famous Bay Area athletes (Steve Young, Ronnie Lott, Brent Jones, etc., plus Kobe Bryant) have gotten into as their playing careers end. Iguodala is supposedly positioning himself that way, and that ability to extend his brand and commercial possibilities could also have been a selling point for Durant.
Would Boston still have signed Horford if they had gotten Durant? Also IT would be a lot less valuable on a team with Durant. His shot creation and crunch-time scoring wouldn't be so important, which would make his defensive liabilities harder to ignore.
Would Boston still have signed Horford if they had gotten Durant? Also IT would be a lot less valuable on a team with Durant. His shot creation and crunch-time scoring wouldn't be so important, which would make his defensive liabilities harder to ignore.
Even without the Warriors, the formula for winning championships in the modern NBA is to get two or three max contract superstars. The max contract means that stars don't choose teams based on money, but on non-monetary factors such as lifestyle, good weather, low taxes, good coach, and chance to win a championship.
I think the Celtics are in reasonably good shape in these terms. And even if they weren't, LeBron did leave Miami for Cleveland. But I submit that the lack of parity is bad for the game.
- It increases inequality between the good teams and the bad teams.
- It discourages fans of even pretty good teams from thinking they have a realistic chance to win
- Increases the incentive to tank for one of the few transcendent players.
- Decreases the importance of the regular season. It's all about being fresh for the finals.
- Puts a huge premium on winning the offseason
How much better do you think Cleveland is than GS is this year? Because GS is significantly better than they were during last year's finals. Cleveland narrowly beat GS last year and it took Draymond getting suspended for a key closeout game at home, Curry's balky ankle plus GS having to really tax themselves to get past OKC. This year they added a top 3 player, Curry is playing his best ball of the season and they went fo' fo' fo' to the finals.
Honestly, I think they're about the same. The west and the east were both inflated garbage all year and the playoffs proved it out. So I put about as much stock as the warriors going undefeated as the cavs breezing through the trash East. Hell, I'd even say the Celtics are by far better than any team the warriors have played in the playoffs
The point isn't that the Warriors have gone undefeated because they are super good, it's that when they play Cleveland this year they will be a lot more rested than they were last year when they had to go through an absolute war with OKC.
Plus Bogut blowing out his knee in Game 5 (when he game was close) and missing the rest of the series; and 2015 Finals MVP Iguodala throwing out his back in Game 6. That forced Kerr to give actual minutes in Games 6-7 to gimpy Ezeli and (ugh) Anderson Varejao.
Now in place of gimpy Ezeli, no Bogut, and Andy V, the Ws can run out Zaza, JaVale and David West. And of course: KFD in place of MIA Harry Barnes (who was asked only to hit wide open shots in that series, and failed to do even that).
There are no sure bets when you're talking about top-level LeBron, but on paper, the Warriors have a pretty significant advantage, imo. The Cavs have an elite offense and mediocre defense. The Warriors have an even more elite offense and an elite defense. The Cavs had a point differential this season of +3.2; the Warriors were +11.8, in a tougher conference. That's a gaping difference, even given the "LeSwitch" that seems to appear every May. 538 currently has the Warriors as a 93% shot and the Cavs at 7%. Again, they're obviously underrating the degree to which the Cavs tank the regular season, but that's a huge gap.
Beyond the aggregate advantage, I'd say the specific matchups favor the Ws as well. Draymond typically nullifies Love; and in general the Warriors core of speedy wings tends to make slowpokes like Korver, Frye and Deron Williams somewhat unplayable. The Cavs' biggest offensive strength — raining threes — is also the Warriors' biggest defensive strength (best 3 pt defense in the league). Of course, LeBron is a nightmare matchup for anyone, but I'm not sure anyone has as many credible defenders to throw at him as the Ws. Durant, Green, Iguodala, Thompson, Livingston, MBarnes — that may be more length, athleticism, toughness and defensive IQ at the 3-4 spots than the Pacers, Raptors, and Cs have combined.
If there's any physical mismatch in the series, I'd say it's the crazy length the Ws can throw out with Durant and McGee — the latter for only 10-15 minutes max, but that risks being a devastating 10-15 minutes against a defense whose tallest rotation player (TT) is under 6'-8" in bare feet. The Cavs still have yet to be punished for the lack of length they ended up with after the Larry Sanders bust and the Bogut injury (and heck, even Edy Tavares, the third "designated tall guy" they added is out). But that's partly because none of Indiana, Toronto or Boston has a 7'-6" wingspanned freak like McGee, and obviously no one has a 7'-5" wingspanned freak like KD.
TLDR: Warriors are longer and faster, have a better core 5 and a better bench. LeBron will have to have one of the greatest playoff series of all time, the Cavs will have to be lights-out from 3, and the Cavs will have to absolutely kill the Warriors on the glass. All of which could happen, but I don't really see how it's better than a 15-20% shot. (Knocking wood, of course!)
Not to mention GS really went hard through the end of their season last year to break the regular season win loss record. They didn't go into the playoffs refreshed and it showed against OKC and Cleveland. They missed their shots, especially against Cleveland, probably due to fatigue. This year, they are ridiculously rested and fresh. It's a different team.
The Spurs were primed to make that a real series it was a shame. I can't imagine the Warriors coasting past Cleveland and can certainly see them getting beat.....the Cav's aren't going to fall asleep for half of games like they did against the Celtics. I'm really excited for this series.
Oh, I agree — Spurs with Kawhi and Parker would have definitely made the WCF a battle royale. But then, I think the Spurs with Kawhi and Parker are a significantly better team than Cleveland (somewhat contingent on Pop learning to go small more with Kawhi at the 4 and Simmons/Green at the 3, but I think he would have done that more against the smallish Cavs).
Is the Warrior love on this site really that "unreal," though? I get the sense it's just me, DeJesus, maybe Al Zarilla, and couple of others. And of that group I think I may be the only one who doesn't want a competitive series. But wanting a competitive series and thinking it's likely to happen are two different things. Stuff happens, of course, but the Warriors are clearly the favorites. Trying to be as unbiased as I can, I just don't see the evidence for the two teams being "about the same."
Last edited:
When the Cavs are shooting like they've been in this series, they can hang with GS. Factor in officiating, no Kerr, Cavs advantage on the boards, and you got a close series.
It's a common thing. Was chatting with a Cubs friend who is incredibly upset about their not great start -- whatever happened to "just once dear god?" Sox fans can answer that (in an undoubtedly obnoxious way). But, in re the Bay area, I don't find Bay Area fans to be obnoxious in general -- 9ers fans have always been great, Raiders fans are...well....Raiders fans and both have had championshiops. Giants had a great fan base back in my day in the Bay Area, and the few who show up for the Athletics are cool, too. Bay Area baseball fans are a tough crew given the weather.
But there's something about the high school level hysteria for the Warriors, though, that drives me up a wall. Not sure if it's the Boy Band fan-level screaming at the games or the defensiveness about anything negative being said about the team, or what -- maybe both of those things. It's weird, because generally I like the Bay Area teams (in a "they're not my team, but if my team doesn't win then I'm happy if they do" sort of way), I love the Warriors' system/style of play and find their players to be generally classy with the obvious exception of Zaza (and Green, but I still kind of like Green). And I think Steve Kerr is from a God-like family and more class than he has does not exist. But those fans, man....smh...they really make that a tough team to root for, at least in my book.
Oh, in re Durant, I like what his move does for NBA competitiveness. Yes, the playoffs have sucked, but the finals should be pretty epic and I personally love the idea of super-teams going at it -- if GS and the Cavs play 5 straight finals series vs each other, I think that'd be awesome. I really think he's hurt only himself by signing with the Warriors. If they lose, he'll get a ton of criticism and if they win he'll get no credit since they won without him and would likely be even money w/out him to win, anyway (hard to say who they'd have with his money -- but can assume that money would have gone to some good purpose). And, in the long term, assuming the goal is recognition as a great player, he basically took himself out of that conversation: couldn't win with Russ W and a decent supporting cast and didn't try to be lead dog in building a championship team.
Of course, if you're Durant you might think that fate is better that than being Chris Paul. Still, hard not to wonder why he wouldn't have embraced the challenge of joining a team like Washington. A lot more glory in pushing that sort of team to the top over joining a club already at the top as the cherry on the Warriors' sundae.