Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by Stevenson, May 23, 2016.

?

Are the Warriors overrated?

  1. Yes

    25 vote(s)
    52.1%

  2. No

    23 vote(s)
    47.9%
Moderators: 7

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
  7. Strenuus
Page 11 of 14
  1. BonesJones

    BonesJones https://www.youtube.com/c/blazersuprise

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    44,537
    Likes Received:
    38,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Sure, bring up the 2 most overrated players in the game.

    Theres still the same amount of great players (that are way better shooters but not quite as fundamental), but there's also more teams, so you have more teems that don't have a great player.
     
    BonesJones, Jun 8, 2016
    #201
  2. VanillaGorilla

    VanillaGorilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    12,073
    Likes Received:
    4,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Was Clyde Drexler a star? His stats are extremely similar to Harden's across the board.
     
    VanillaGorilla, Jun 8, 2016
    #202
    BonesJones likes this.
  3. Bandwagonfansince77

    Bandwagonfansince77 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yes, Drexler was a star.
     
    Bandwagonfansince77, Jun 8, 2016
    #203
  4. blue9

    blue9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    10,729
    Likes Received:
    7,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did Drexler make a mockery of the game?
     
    blue9, Jun 9, 2016
    #204
  5. blue9

    blue9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    10,729
    Likes Received:
    7,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then name them. You and Nate keep trying to make this argument but have yet to give us any evidence to support your claim. Provide the names of all of today's great players.
     
    blue9, Jun 9, 2016
    #205
  6. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is an interesting point that is basically being ignored. If the talent level of the top 50 guys is basically comparable, but the ability of the next 200 is significantly less in one era than in the other, then it will make the top 50 in the era with lesser role players look better by comparison because of the talent gap between the stars and the bourgeoisie. I think there's absolutely a valid argument to make that the Kurt Rambis's and Jon Koncack's of yesteryear made the Kevin McHale's look better then than they would now.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jun 9, 2016
    #206
    BonesJones, riverman and BBert like this.
  7. blue9

    blue9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    10,729
    Likes Received:
    7,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, there hasn't been any evidence to support the initial premise.

    Second, even if we're to believe that the lesser role players are better today than they were in the 80s/90s (I'm not so quick to believe that) the fact that hand-checking was allowed back then and isn't allowed now is a pretty good equalizer to negate the idea that offensive players had it easier back then.

    Third, stars almost exclusively play against the other team's stars/starters - not their scrubs.
     
    blue9, Jun 9, 2016
    #207
    BBert likes this.
  8. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Uh huh!
     
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #208
  9. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, there hasn't been any evidence to support which initial premise? The arguments in this thread are so widespread, it's tough to know which of the myriad points any individual person is arguing.

    Second, hand-checking isn't the only difference in physicality. Offensive role-players were also allowed to set much harder/more vicious screens back in the 80s/90s than they are now, so one could be freed from hand-checking more easily. Not to mention that much more sophisticated team defensive schemes are available and permissible now than were then. It's easy to shout "hand-checking!", but let's not ignore recent defensive advancements.

    Third, stars are playing against other teams stars and role players, unless you somehow believe that there are 150 stars in the league. Most team's starting 5 contains 3 or more role-players; these are the players I would contend are of higher caliber now than in the 80s.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jun 9, 2016
    #209
    BonesJones likes this.
  10. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Jon Koncack is starting at C for the Knicks.
     
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #210
  11. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Unless those "scrubs" are starters on today's rosters.
     
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #211
  12. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You go ahead and continue to tell yourself that.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jun 9, 2016
    #212
  13. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    C'mon. Robin Lopez? He always was a scrub.
     
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #213
  14. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #214
  15. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the second time you've brought out Diana Taurasi's stats. I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with that. That one of the greatest WNBA players ever was better in her league than 2nd-tier stars are in the NBA?
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jun 9, 2016
    #215
  16. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    You compare stats of players of different eras, regardless of the competition. Why not hers?

    My point is you're doing the equivalent.
     
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #216
  17. blue9

    blue9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    10,729
    Likes Received:
    7,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The initial premise is that today's top talent is as good as it was in the 80s/90s. Anything that follows is moot because the initial premise is wrong.

    The secondary premise (that role players are better now) also hasn't been substantiated with any evidence.

    If you, Nate, or Bones really want to continue to argue the point list up today's stars and today's role players. Let's see how they stack up.

    There's been plenty of evidence (names) to support the fact that the top talent of the 80s/90s was better. And a strong theory (1-year rule) has put forth to explain why this is. To this point the other side of the argument has relied only on conjecture and deflection. I'm done with this until someone can actually make a compelling argument...I won't be holding my breath.
     
    blue9, Jun 9, 2016
    #217
  18. blue9

    blue9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    10,729
    Likes Received:
    7,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And there are a lot of starting scrubs in today's NBA...which kinda flies in the face of the idea that today's lesser players are better than those of the past.
     
    blue9, Jun 9, 2016
    #218
  19. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Exactly my point.
     
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #219
  20. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    The CBA kind of forces teams to settle for lesser talent, especially in the starting lineups.

    The Celtics lineup of McHale, Bird, Parrish, DJ, and Ainge would have put them over the LT by a lot. So they'd have shed two or three of those guys and used their bench players instead. Like OKC did when they got rid of Harden and Reggie Jackson.
     
    Denny Crane, Jun 9, 2016
    #220
Page 11 of 14

Share This Page