The 2nd Season - 2019 Playoff Thread

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
You don't pay attention to much mainstream sports media then, do you? The clickbait guys are already circling Curry for going 0-9 on game-winning shots and Simmons on his podcast last night was already talking about how different things would be if the Warriors had played a healthy Cavs team in '15. They're is absolutely going to be a re-appraisal of this run in the next few months. It's part of the what have you done for me lately culture.
People need something to talk about, but this stuff all fades with time, and nobody but the diehards remembers much of any of this. But the banners hang forever.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
People need something to talk about, but this stuff all fades with time, and nobody but the diehards remembers much of any of this. But the banners hang forever.
Oh yeah, I absolutely get that and I kind of think we are in agreement here. In a decade no one will remember the the individual games and injury circumstances but they remember that it was three titles total. In that sense I think they get slotted in with the "lesser" dynasties like the Lakers and Spurs of the 2000s, or the Heat of the 2010s, and not the '90s Bulls, '80s Lakers or '60s Celtics. Maybe I'm off-base.
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,087
Boston, MA
Thompson will be out until March and Durrant the year. Golden State should take a step back, let Draymond walk, manage Curry’s minutes, and come back strong in 2020-21. Maybe see if Cousins will take another 1 year deal, add some role players for the MLE, and play for the lottery.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,848
NYC
I'm sorry the Warriors lost. I like them a lot and was rooting for them. It's probably an awful feeling knowing your team wasn't close to peak form when it counted most. But imagining they would have beaten some team from thirty years ago seems like a tortured way to console yourself.
Lol, I'm not the one who brought it up — just making (silly) conversation, not trying to "console myself." I actually feel a lot more awful about about the long recovery process ahead for Klay and KD than I do about the Warriors winning or losing a fun, hard-fought series to a pretty likable opponent. Whether they're 3-2 or 4-1 during their historic run doesn't bother me too much. The latter would obviously have been cool since it's unprecedented in the modern era, but five straight Western Conference championships is ridiculously cool either way (esp. given that the first 20+ years of my fandom even making the playoffs was often unthinkable). I also think "getting it back" as opposed to "defending it ... again" makes the offseason and build-up to the season more dramatic and fun. And we'll find out soon enough, but I think (as in 2016) losing clears the way for KD to sign in a way winning would not have.

Anyway, the "which champ would kick which other champ's ass" topic is hearty perennial that crops up every year around this time. Whether the Warriors win the finals, lose the finals, or don't participate, my general take is that (1) people tend to idealize the old and downplay the new, particularly with respect to players' physicality and toughness; and (2) the whole topic is silly and ultimately unanswerable. That said, the Warriors would have crushed that team from 30 years ago in four. I feel better now. :)
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
Thompson will be out until March and Durrant the year. Golden State should take a step back, let Draymond walk, manage Curry’s minutes, and come back strong in 2020-21. Maybe see if Cousins will take another 1 year deal, add some role players for the MLE, and play for the lottery.
You'd trade Draymond rather than let him walk if you're tanking, no? He's insanely valuable to any team that already has scorers--he'd make Portland or Denver championship contenders, just off the top of my head.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Oh yeah, I absolutely get that and I kind of think we are in agreement here. In a decade no one will remember the the individual games and injury circumstances but they remember that it was three titles total. In that sense I think they get slotted in with the "lesser" dynasties like the Lakers and Spurs of the 2000s, or the Heat of the 2010s, and not the '90s Bulls, '80s Lakers or '60s Celtics. Maybe I'm off-base.
They do have the regular season wins record, which adds to the legacy. 12 years later, people don’t doubt how great the 2007 Pats were. Dubs will have 3-4 HOF players and maybe a HOF coach. I think their legacy as a Tier 1 NBA dynasty is secure.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
1980s Celtics:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- An all-time, inner circle legend (Bird)
- 5 HOFers (Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton, Johnson)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Bird, McHale, not to mention Len Bias' death)

2010s Warriors:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- 2 all-time, inner circle legends (Durant, Curry)
- Possibly 3 HOFers (Durant, Curry are locks, Klay a possibility, and I know some here have argued for Iguodala)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Durant, Klay)

Right now, I think this is the best parallel.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
1980s Celtics:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- An all-time, inner circle legend (Bird)
- 5 HOFers (Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton, Johnson)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Bird, McHale, not to mention Len Bias' death)

2010s Warriors:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- 2 all-time, inner circle legends (Durant, Curry)
- Possibly 3 HOFers (Durant, Curry are locks, Klay a possibility, and I know some here have argued for Iguodala)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Durant, Klay)

Right now, I think this is the best parallel.
I agree. The Celtics got 3 titles in six years while the Warriors got 3 (unless they rally yo win more) in five. Very similar overall and you also have the '86 Celtics and '17 (or '16 I guess) Warriors that are in the pantheon of all-time great teams. Not quite '60s Celtics or '90s Bulls in terms of dominating a decade, but definitely on that next tier. The '80s Lakers would be in their sights in KD and Klay come back and they notch another title or two.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,500
Hmm, you mean all the standard stuff Curry encounters every game, especially in the playoffs? Those dudes weren't tougher, stronger, or more willing to play physical, grabbing, clawing defense than Pat Beverley, PJ Tucker, Jrue Holiday, Rondo, Eric Gordon, Kawhi, Paul George, Marcus Smart, et al.
The issue is not that Beverly , Tucker, etc. aren't tough and physical. The issue is that they are not allowed to play defense the way they used to. (I can only imagine how good Beverly's defense would be if he was allowed to hand check.) I mean it's the actual name of the rule: "freedom of movement".

I don't know who would beat whom but the biggest difference between the 90s and today is that players are allowed to be exponentially more physical off the ball than they are today and that would really impact a guy like Curry in terms of staying healthy.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
1980s Celtics:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- An all-time, inner circle legend (Bird)
- 5 HOFers (Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton, Johnson)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Bird, McHale, not to mention Len Bias' death)

2010s Warriors:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- 2 all-time, inner circle legends (Durant, Curry)
- Possibly 3 HOFers (Durant, Curry are locks, Klay a possibility, and I know some here have argued for Iguodala)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Durant, Klay)

Right now, I think this is the best parallel.
I think Klay is pretty much a HOF lock at this point, Draymond is very likely to get in, and Iggy might make it too. So they could have 5.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
The issue is not that Beverly , Tucker, etc. aren't tough and physical. The issue is that they are not allowed to play defense the way they used to. (I can only imagine how good Beverly's defense would be if he was allowed to hand check.) I mean it's the actual name of the rule: "freedom of movement".

I don't know who would beat whom but the biggest difference between the 90s and today is that players are allowed to be exponentially more physical off the ball than they are today and that would really impact a guy like Curry in terms of staying healthy.
OTOH, a lot of the trapping/overloading stuff defenses use against Curry when other shooters aren't on the floor wouldn't be allowed. That Box-and-1 Toronto rolled out to defend Curry in the Finals was illegal in the 90s. And back then just about every team still had at least one, and often two, slow, lumbering big men on the floor most of the game -- those guys would just have no chance at all at dealing with Curry in the pick and roll. Curry is almost single-handedly responsible for driving those guys out of the league.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,848
NYC
1980s Celtics:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- An all-time, inner circle legend (Bird)
- 5 HOFers (Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton, Johnson)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Bird, McHale, not to mention Len Bias' death)

2010s Warriors:
- 5 trips to the NBA finals
- 3 NBA championships
- 2 all-time, inner circle legends (Durant, Curry)
- Possibly 3 HOFers (Durant, Curry are locks, Klay a possibility, and I know some here have argued for Iguodala)
- Injuries to key players derailed their run (Durant, Klay)

Right now, I think this is the best parallel.
Biggest difference imho (without getting into who would beat whom, lol) is that the Warriors have owned this decade without a particularly close Team 1B, whereas the ‘80s Celtics were the Team 1B to the Lakers. NBA history at this point can be simplified to:

1960s: Celtics
1970s: (take your pick)
1980s: Lakers (1B Celtics)
1990s: Bulls
2000s: Spurs (1B Lakers)
2010s: Warriors

Warriors story is still being written of course, but I think you can make a case that they’re the #3 team in league history after the 60s Celtics and 90s Bulls.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,500
OTOH, a lot of the trapping/overloading stuff defenses use against Curry when other shooters aren't on the floor wouldn't be allowed. That Box-and-1 Toronto rolled out to defend Curry in the Finals was illegal in the 90s. And back then just about every team still had at least one, and often two, slow, lumbering big men on the floor most of the game -- those guys would just have no chance at all at dealing with Curry in the pick and roll. Curry is almost single-handedly responsible for driving those guys out of the league.
Curry wouldn't have been able to play PnR because once those slow guys got a hand on him, he would stop moving.

Also, as discussed in the old guys thread, I can only imagine how many times the current players would be called for traveling or palming. Spin-moves, Euro-steps, step-backs, all gone. It's a lot easier to guard people if they can't suddenly change direction when they dribble.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Curry wouldn't have been able to play PnR because once those slow guys got a hand on him, he would stop moving.

Also, as discussed in the old guys thread, I can only imagine how many times the current players would be called for traveling or palming. Spin-moves, Euro-steps, step-backs, all gone. It's a lot easier to guard people if they can't suddenly change direction when they dribble.
Or when they AREN'T dribbling.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Biggest difference imho (without getting into who would beat whom, lol) is that the Warriors have owned this decade without a particularly close Team 1B, whereas the ‘80s Celtics were the Team 1B to the Lakers. NBA history at this point can be simplified to:

1960s: Celtics
1970s: (take your pick)
1980s: Lakers (1B Celtics)
1990s: Bulls
2000s: Spurs (1B Lakers)
2010s: Warriors

Warriors story is still being written of course, but I think you can make a case that they’re the #3 team in league history after the 60s Celtics and 90s Bulls.
Well 1B for the 2010s would just be whoever Lebron was playing for. He had eight Finals appearances and three titles between Miami and Cleveland. That’s arguably more impressive than the Warriors.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Well 1B for the 2010s would just be whoever Lebron was playing for. He had eight Finals appearances and three titles between Miami and Cleveland. That’s arguably more impressive than the Warriors.
It's kind of like (different, but kind of like) Peyton Manning being New England's #1 foil during this run. Not so much the Colts or the Broncos per se, but whichever team Peyton Manning was playing for.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
The issue is not that Beverly , Tucker, etc. aren't tough and physical. The issue is that they are not allowed to play defense the way they used to. (I can only imagine how good Beverly's defense would be if he was allowed to hand check.) I mean it's the actual name of the rule: "freedom of movement".

I don't know who would beat whom but the biggest difference between the 90s and today is that players are allowed to be exponentially more physical off the ball than they are today and that would really impact a guy like Curry in terms of staying healthy.
Also.. look at the difference between flagrant fouls then and now.. and what fouls are suspend-able or not.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory