Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

Jim Barnett is as knowledgeable a broadcaster of basketball as you will find. He played in the NBA and really understands the game. He is not flashy or the most exciting, but if you care about just basketball and not pet phrases and unsolicited opinions, then Jim is better than most and nowhere near the worst.

 

I've had the pass for over a decade so I've heard them all, but I have lived in the Bay Area for 20+ years so I know the W's guys well. Besides being an original Blazer famous for shooting the shot that Schonz first proclaimed "Rip City!" when it went in, Barnett is a ridiculous homer douchebag of an announcer... the absolute worst. Between him and Bob, I have to watch their games with the sound off & music on to enjoy the action. Their specialty is getting an initial call of the game wrong (without fail in the W's favor) and then still claiming their initial call was correct when the slow-mo replay shows without question whats what.

Fucking shame that scab Bob undercut the great Greg Papa when his contract was up at the start of Cohan's ownership. On the positive, the W's radio tandem is top notch.

STOMP

 

while teams match up differently and individual games create independent results with players getting hot and whatnot, check out the season stats. They speak for themselves.

STOMP

 

Drexler, Carr, and Murphy are bigger biased homers, IMO. Three guys who I respect greatly for their NBA careers, yet can't stand to hear comment about the game. It appears that this is all a matter of opinion on who is the shittiest of announcers so we shall politely agree to disagree, if that is fine by you.

Cheers

 

Very odd to me that somebody who generally strikes me as a free market-type thinks that a league gets less competitive with vastly more money involved and a much larger pool of competition.

I can't think of another industry where that happens.

 

If it's really just about a lack of fundamentals, well, given the financial rewards of dominating in the NBA, shouldn't big men mimic Hakeem? After all, he knew nothing about the game at age 15, hadn't even played it, and within 8 years he was widely esteemed for his skills. Do people think it's never occurred to guys like Javale McGee to try to do that again, no matter what they learned at AAU? As bad as McGee is, he still had a much better starting point at 22 to learn some fundamentals than Hakeem had at 15.

I think the league is going away from low post game not because of a misunderstanding of the fundamentals, but because they just don't work anymore in the modern NBA. Just look at the way the Spurs have completely reinvented themselves around cutters, movement and three pointers. Pop has them playing so much differently than they did back in the early 2000's. Probably the best traditional center in the league, Cousins, has never even made the playoffs. If you put Patrick Ewing on that Kings team, they still don't make the playoffs. You put Cousins in New York in the mid 90's, and you win some games (well, at least until Spree and Boogie go toe-to-toe. How fun would that be to watch?)

Personally, I think the upper tier of players are on the same echelon of past eras. They play differently, the three pointer is obviously much more valued, but great players are going to be great.

The big difference is that lower echelon players are just flat out better:

As one example, 17% of all 7 footers in America have played in the NBA. That's the real-world premium the league places on height. As the talent pool grows, you get more 7 footers. A lot of those guys aren't very good, but they replace 6'9 guys who also weren't very good.

But you see this in other desirable traits in role players--you can find a pass-first distributor like Ricky Rubio (who is a role player, despite what he may think) now who wouldn't have even tried to be in the league 15 years ago.

A role player defensive center like Bismack Biyombo is easier to identify now in Africa thanks to more adventurous scouting--20 years ago you were pretty much stuck with the Chris Dudleys of America. Biyombo may not wind up vastly superior to Dudley, but he certainly raises the bar of what's acceptable among those kind of guys.

Just look at this chart and tell me it doesn't matter:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/4mlggl/

I also think travel is easier, coaching and management is much more sophisticated with much better analytics, nutrition is better, training is better, and teams have gotten much more sophisticated at injury prevention and management.

There are a lot of real-world facts that point to a more competitive league. Most of the counter arguments revolve around airy stuff like "fundamentals" and "Jordan would dominate today!" and "You just didn't see Magic on the break or you'd understand" and "AAU ruins guys" sort of stuff that make people feel good about the past, but aren't really convincing.

In the end, there's too much money at stake for teams NOT to get the most competitive team possible out there on the court.

 

That the best stars in the world play in the NBA, a few of them from Europe (Dirk, Porzingas, the Gasols, Parker, Gobert, etc). And role players from the world over now scratch and claw to play in the NBA, whereas 20 years ago guys like Chris Dudley only had to be a little better than the next American stiff.

Anyway, I don't think you have a beef with Europeans.

I just wonder how you reconcile the massive cognitive dissonance of these two facts you believe:

1. More competitors and higher returns tends to generate greater competition in a market.
2. Except in the NBA because, uh, I say so.

 

Couldn't you say that abotu the NBA as well? How many stars vs mediocre players are there? I bet the % is roughly the same as the Euro league.

It seems like your trying to make it sound as if our end of bench players on teams are still better than anyone in the Euro league and Thats where I disagree.

For every star in ANY league, there will be a bunch of mediocre players.

 

What if the legends of old looked better because the overall level of talent of yesteryear isn't as good as it is now?

 

I think another factor to consider, is that euro ball is different than nba basketball. I think it's probably easier to transition from being an American born college player, than being an international player.

 

The percentage is probably a lot higher in America, because we have so many more people that play.

 

Also the debate of talent dilution in terms of expansion kind of changes the argument in terms of strength of teams generationally. Take for example the comparison of the current Warriors to the Showtime Lakers. At the time of the Lakers there were 23 teams not 30 or 7 less rosters of 15, 105 less players. You could essentially bump the bottom 3 guys off each roster and filter 35 starters out to the remaining 23 teams. Take a starter from say Charlotte and add him to the Warriors, then how do the Warriors compare to Showtime?

 

In terms of talent, Magic Kareem and Worthy obviously take the cake. But I'd say the heat come in second. And I don't consider the heat to be an all time great team.