http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/stor...-state-warriors-better-portland-trail-blazers Now what are these tools smoking?
Based on the quoted part of your post they actually make a decent case, so I wouldn't just totally dismiss it.
The crux of their argument is that GSW is 15-3 when healthy, and therefore a contender. When I checked last, we were 15-3 as well, going into the OKC game at home (that we won).
Very good article with strong evidence. I agree with much of it. They are a superior defensive team to us. I think in a playoff series LaMarcus should outplay Lee by a large margin and the rest of our starters could match their teams production so I'd still rank us as a favorite. But the Warriors have one of the great starting 5's in the league and if healthy I would not be surprised to see them beat any team in the West.
I think the crux of the article was their defensive efficiency ranks as good as the Pacers when their starters are healthy. They have two defenders better than anyone on our team. Our defense is crap.
A portion I didn't like is that somehow, winning a bunch of close games is unsustainable. At the same time, point differential is used to bolster the argument for GS. That their record is worse, but differential is close, so it shows that we should be closer, and what people too often extrapolate from that is the way it would adjust is you start losing close games. I've commented on this before. But, they have a mediocre record for close games, at 8-6 I think. Let's say for arguments sake they lost all 6 of those games by a total of 18 points. There biggest win of the season was, I think, by 31 points. So a 1-6 record in a set 7 game stretch still gives them a positive point differential of almost 2 points per game. But why should stringing up a 30 point blowout and losing tight games mean that some of those tight ones will eventually go your way? I don't necessarily expect us to win at an .800 clip for games within 3, but it just seems like a poor use of the stat. I remember two seasons ago, we started off the season ok, but with a few blowouts, were relatively high in Hollinger's rankings. And a lot of national analysts would see the differential and what our projected wins should be, and kept saying oh, they're going to turn it around. But if you watched the games, you saw we weren't doing all that well, we were just boosted in that differential by a couple of big wins. We have 2 huge wins against Utah and Philly. I'd say we're more likely to finish at .800 in tight games than we are to win a bunch of games by 30, so would say that would be more sustainable.
But if this person was healthy, we'd be good.... or if that person was healthy, we'd be good..... If Brandon Roy was still healthy, the Blazers would be amazing.
The other small benefit to us in a head to head matchup in regards to their defense is that Iggy, while a very good defender, isn't going to be ideal covering Lillard all game, and having a great lock down defender to lock up Batum or Wes doesn't hurt us as much as a guy like that against, say, OKC on Durant/Westbrook, or Houston with Harden, etc.
Thats a good point. Matchups will determine a lot in the playoffs. I think Minnesota could be tough for us, their big men are so efficient inside, and their big achilies heal is being a horrific frontcourt to defend the rim. But we never attack the rim, so Minnesota's #1 weakness is irrelevant. Could Golden State put Iggy on Lillard all game and have Curry guard Batum? Batum has not been able to take advantage of short players guarding him in the past. Those type of coaching strategies and adjustments often determine who wins in the playoffs. Nate was terrible at it, but I am very excited to see what Stotts can do.
The Blazers put up 113 points on the Warriors (admittedly without Iguodala) and 106 on the Pacers. I don't think that these vaunted defenses would be the major issue in a playoff series. Whoever scores the most, wins.
It's a decent argument. But like Brian said, the Blazers were 15-3 at one point, and if you take away the 3 losses that were at the buzzer (basically) they're 25-4. And if my aunt had a beard she'd be my uncle.
Honestly don't care if were "better" then GSW. We'v proven were not a flash in the pan and we have a simply mind bogglingly good offense but our D is lacking except for certain minute stretches. Nothing we do from here on out is going to prove anything to a media that is trying to find every reason in the book to discount us over and over again. There really is only one thing you can point at that we can't prove yet and that's post season success. Until we have post season success the main stream media will find a reason to discount or overlook our success but that's fine we will show everyone what's up come playoff time. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Some aunts have beards If healthy, GS is beastly, not sure why they had to drag Portland into it though
Well 15-3 at full strength sounds impressive, until you look at who they played in those 18 games - only 5 of those 18 games were against teams currently above .500 and not single road win against a winning team. Pretty much any decent team would be able to win 15 of 18 against those cupcakes. BNM
Yes Iggy is the best defender on the Warriors so that game is a terrible example. They do have real injury concerns though, Bogut and Curry have missed serious time in prior years. But if GS happen to all be healthy at the playoffs I agree they could be exceptional. Playoff defense is different from the regular season. Both of those games you mentioned were back to backs. The Pacers and Warriors won't have any back to backs in the playoffs and will be fully rested.
Injuries are part of the game. I hate to see any player miss games due to injuries, but the fact is Steph Curry, their best player, has a history of chronic ankle injuries. He's managed to play in 30 of 33 games so far this season, but do they think his ankles are actually going to get healthier as the progresses? BNM
And if Roy and Oden remained healthy we would be better than any team in the league. I'm so SICK of this BULLSHIT argument that applies to EVERY team in ANY sport. If a main player goes down on ANY team that team will decline... sigh... :steps off soapbox:
The point stands, but I think they were talking mostly about Iggy, who's missed 30% of their games so far, and who has only missed 20% of his team's games more than once. But I agree that any team prominently featuring Steph Curry has given up the right to the "if healthy" excuse. As has been stated ad nauseum, Greg Oden and Brandon Roy, if healthy, would make us pretty good right now.
