Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

[blue9]

We definitely differ in how we think of the talent in the league. I think the league now is more talented then it has ever been if you look at young up and coming talent. We are in a league where yes this year a few times shined but there is a wealth of talent spread around the league where in years past, especially the 90's, the league was more top heavy then in any time before. Yes there were tons of stars but after you get passed those stars it dried up rather quickly.
Also I think we as a basketball culture tend to remember the 90s and remember it being more physical and equate that to it being harder to play in. The 90's were more physical but the defense was in general atrocious, nowhere near the level of D that is being played in todays league. The one place i'll give the D of the 90's more credit is that one on one D was better but a lot of that has to do with the rules from then and now, but team defense was almost nonexistent.

After reading this I don't know that we disagree all that much. Yesteryear's stars were, IMO, much better players. But today's role players are much better than yesteryear's role players. The ceiling has come down, but the floor has come up.
You may be right about the defense - I'd have to go back and re-watch to confirm for myself, but I'm willing to believe you.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

90's defense was actually pretty good. It was the 80's defense that sucked. Teams regularly put up 140 points ore more on an opposition. Heck, one year I think the Nuggets averaged that many points a game in a running system.

 

[Mediocre Man]

no

 

[stampedehero]

I keep hearing GS referred to as the best team in NBA history, based solely on winning 73 regular season games. I must disagree with that "analysis", and concur with those who believe several NBA teams of yesteryear would have their lunch, especially if the games were played under the older rules and guidelines.

BBert Sixties>> Celtics. Need we say more?

 

[stampedehero]

Sixties>> "THE" Celtics. Havelchek and Cousy. Without their accomplishments point/shooting guards would have no idols.

OFF Subject >>> but got to say it. Memorial day weekend steak with Root Beer barbecue sauce (ref. G.F. on D,D,D. aka> traveling chubby food explorer and food mooch legend.)

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Without actually delving into history I'd guess that there are roughly 20 teams that would mop up this GSW team in a PO series.
They hold the record for most-winning season - can't deny that - but I don't think that's an adequate measure for the best team of all-time.

Does "mop up" mean sweep? Seems like a similar phrase. Since you admit you're guessing, care to guess up 5 champs from yesteryear that would sweep the Warriors? If you can come up with 5 without the help of others scouring their memory banks then perhaps you might be right. If you can't easily, then it's doubtful with the help of a crack team of forumites to be able to come up with 15 more teams that would sweep the Warriors in a 7 game series. If "mop up" merely means beat in a 7 game series, then _perhaps_ you could make a case for that, but that is certainly not what your hyperbolic statement implied.

What if the GSW won every game during the regular season, do you think that might be a reasonable barometer of how good the team is? How many games does a team have to win in this "watered-down era" in order to get respect from the old guard? Honestly, what sort of unbiased measurement would you like to use other than your opinion? I agree that one must drill down deeper than one stat to compare something as nuanced and impossible to verify as "best team of all time", but if you have a team that wins 89.02% of the time there is something special there.

It very well may be the case that the players of this era, whatever length of time we can agree upon is "this era", are not as fundamentally sound and skilled as players of some bygone era, but considering the pool of players around the world that have a desire to make it to the professional league is seemingly higher than it has ever been [ basing my assumption on economics/salaries, increasing world population and the opening of the game to international talent and not to actual firm data ], it stands to reason that the actual physical talents and skills of the players will naturally be higher in the aggregate. Or at least roughly the same. So, if a team ends up with a winning percentage of 89% over the course of 82 games, that is probably a good indication of their strength in any similarly structured era.

Yes, great regular season success does not guarantee playoff success, which is the real test of how good a team is, but at least in this case the final four teams standing were the 1 and 2 seed in the east, and the 1 and 3 seed from the west. Regular season record _does_ give some indication of strength of the team. It's not the whole story, but once you consider the other factors for the Warriors team such as the various records this year, their championship in 2015, their obvious improvement as a team this year over their championship season, coming back from a 1-3 deficit over a team that is unarguably more physically talented from top to bottom, it seems to me that this warriors team is possibly, at the very least, better than you are giving them credit for.

Without league assistance and special rules they are nothing special, a .550-.600 team without the depth or defense to win in the playoffs.

League assistance? That means, I'm guessing, strength of schedule and referee bias? Special rules means "no hand-checking" - which there is plenty of in the playoffs - or "hack a Shaq"? The incessant carrying on every dribble that has become the new norm for ball-handlers is what you think is giving the Warriors and edge? I'm guessing as to what you mean, so please clarify for me.

No depth? Odd considering they are considered by most to be one of the deeper teams in the NBA. Not enough defense either, you say, to win in the playoffs? Well. whether or not you feel they have enough defense to get through the playoffs, the fact remains they are in the finals again this year.

Guys, I understand that you prefer an earlier style of basketball in an era where things were supposedly more physical, but it sure feels like that bias for a bygone age clouds your judgment for what you can see with crystal clarity in 1080p on a nightly basis. This Warriors team is very very good and deserves more credit than what I'm seeing here.

Hate to say it, but you two are some serious haters!


p.s. I'm reluctant to have my first handful of opinions be so seemingly full of rage and criticism, but like the say "no pain, no gain''!

 

[blue9]

Does "mop up" mean sweep? Seems like a similar phrase. Since you admit you're guessing, care to guess up 5 champs from yesteryear that would sweep the Warriors? If you can come up with 5 without the help of others scouring their memory banks then perhaps you might be right. If you can't easily, then it's doubtful with the help of a crack team of forumites to be able to come up with 15 more teams that would sweep the Warriors in a 7 game series. If "mop up" merely means beat in a 7 game series, then _perhaps_ you could make a case for that, but that is certainly not what your hyperbolic statement implied.

No, "mop up" does not mean sweep - just convincingly beat, which may include a sweep.

Jordan Bulls
Magic Lakers
Shaq Lakers
Bird Celts
Isaiah Pistons
Larry Brown Pistons

And that's just if they got past various iterations of the Jazz, Sonics, Blazers, and Suns.

 

[Schilly]

So Are the Warriors overrated? In the context of their dominance this season, nope.

 

[Denny Crane]

So Are the Warriors overrated? In the context of their dominance this season, nope.

Even though they did beat OKC, I wouldn't call falling behind 3-1 and the series going to 7 games as "dominant."

 

[Schilly]

Even though they did beat OKC, I wouldn't call falling behind 3-1 and the series going to 7 games as "dominant."

73-9 is. Coming back from being down 1-3 is pretty impressive too.

 

[Denny Crane]

73-9 is. Coming back from being down 1-3 is pretty impressive too.

it is. But dominant is 73-9 and sweeping the playoffs.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

it is. But dominant is 73-9 and sweeping the playoffs.

That hypothetical situation is beyond impressive or dominant, it has never been done before. Your implication is that unless you sweep the playoffs you are not truly dominant no matter the regular season record.
I'm curious if you would change your tune about the Warriors greatness if they did sweep the playoffs this year. I have a feeling that it wouldn't be enough. Perhaps there is an eye test issue you see with this era's teams which is why the Warriors can never measure up perhaps?

So, would you say that a team that squeaked in at around .500 at the 8th seed that then proceeded to sweep the playoffs were dominant? It's pretty safe to say that a number 8 seed is certainly in the 8th seed because they earned that position and are not a dominant team no matter if they dominated their competition in the playoffs.

Luck can have some factor in a 7 game series. If two evenly matched teams get to a 7th game it could come down to a small handful of plays that determine the outcome. One can't say the overused canned response, "the better team won", seriously applies in this case. The reality is that one team had to win eventually and this time it was Team A or Team B and that is all you can accurately say. Not the team that wanted it more won, etc. The vagaries of the game will not always favor the "team that wanted it more".

However, when it comes to a team dominating the regular season to the point of a winning percentage of 89% this can in no way be attributed to the lucky bouncing of the ball. I am sure we can all agree that the Warriors dominated the regular season. Then when it comes to the playoffs, we all know that it's a bit different from the regular season and things tighten up. So a team that might have been crushing opponents will now have smaller winning margins, but win in any case. They may even lose some games, but they still end up moving to the next round because of various components that comprise a great team.

The 2016 Warriors like most teams in history don't have to dominate every single other team in order to be dominant. Various great Lakers, Celtics and Bulls teams had been tested by other teams and those battles are how we gauged the greatness of those teams, not by how they crushed lesser talent.

If the Warriors win in a sweep over the Cavs -- a team that many were saying were peaking at the right time and going to give the Warriors fits (and still may in my estimation) -- I guarantee there will be those trying to find more excuses to say the Warriors are not worthy of being regarded as a great team. And I can only wonder where this disdain is coming from. Actually, I guess we need look no further than how many treat Lebron to know why.

*shrug* Haters gonna hate?

 

[Denny Crane]

I have an old school warriors jacket that I wear in winter. People stop me on the street and compliment me on the jacket. I'm not a hater.

You jump to a bunch of conclusions.

The '85 Chicago Bears were dominant. They shut out their NFC playoff opponents and had the biggest super bowl victory up to that time.

Winning series 4-3, behind in most games, isn't dominant. It's winning, but not dominant.

They may dominate the Cavs, though.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

I have an old school warriors jacket that I wear in winter. People stop me on the street and compliment me on the jacket. I'm not a hater.

You jump to a bunch of conclusions.

The '85 Chicago Bears were dominant. They shut out their NFC playoff opponents and had the biggest super bowl victory up to that time.

Winning series 4-3, behind in most games, isn't dominant. It's winning, but not dominant.

They may dominate the Cavs, though.

I have a broken hand so please pardon my not being careful to make my comment seem less directly pointed towards you. It's not easy touch typing with a splint. I intended to make more remarks addressed to haters in general and not you specifically and indeed I certainly jumped to conclusions which I hope you can correct me on.

My use of exaggeration to prove points, which others confuse for true hyperbole, is my favorite debate tactic and sometimes they fall short of my intention. So your NFL comparison of the Bears is clearly an outlier in my opinion and doesn't serve your point any better. Your suggestion is that unless you dominate every opponent you face in nearly every game, then you are not a "dominant" team, whatever that truly means since I would suggest it is not the exactly defined for everyone. Similar to best player vs MVP, it's a matter of opinion and not easily quantifiable.

A series of games can't be compared to a single round of a game like Football and surely not to just one particular teams historic performance.

Anyway, I can certainly agree that the Warriors didn't crush the Blazers, even though they won in 5, and they didn't crush the Thunder, but it is not fair to suggest that out of 73+13 (the total wins) 9+5 (total losses) 86-14 which turns in to a 86% win percentage, is not indicative of a dominant team. In the grand scheme, considering how many games are in the yearly schedule, a handful of games are not going to tell the whole story and the full body of work is somehow lessened once you single out a section? It doesn't matter if there is one team in the league that Warriors would lose to more often than not in a 7 game series as long as they dominate every other team in the association which essentially is what has happened this season. GSW have dominated every team in the league except during a short stretch of the season where they played the most physically talented team with two of the most unstoppable super stars and a cadre of impressive big men that everyone knew would cause GSW problems going in to the series. Then they pulled off a miraculous comeback, without the help of the refs as some would have us believe, which shows an additional level of mental dominance that many other teams are simply not capable of.

IMO, the level of dominance the Warriors have shown this year including the playoffs doesn't rate a 10 assuming a 10 would be 73-9 then a full playoff sweep with no games really close, but that is a wholly unrealistic scenario in the modern era. The 95-96 Bulls, which are the gold standard for dominance in the modern NBA, finished at 87-13 (87%) and if the Warriors do end up sweeping the Cavs they would end up at 86.5% and at worst 84%. That is a whole lot of winning and better than nearly all teams to have ever played in the NBA. So if we were to adjust the scale and say the 95-96 Bulls rate a 10, then the Warriors should merit 9.x where x = your best guess. But it's at least a 9.something, no?

Ok, I'm done!

 

[Denny Crane]

They were down 3-1 to OKC. Looked to me like OKC lost, and GSW didn't beat them. They beat themselves.

73 wins and out before the finals was closer to reality than GSW being dominant.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

They were down 3-1 to OKC. Looked to me like OKC lost, and GSW didn't beat them. They beat themselves.

73 wins and out before the finals was closer to reality than GSW being dominant.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

To me, that is sports show personality talk. OKC lost and GSW didn't win. We all know the game is dynamic and one team can go on a run or get hot or cold. OKC didn't have bad games per se. The Warriors had timely strips by Iguodala, hot shooting by Klay, and clutch 4th quarter shooting by Curry to win games. The reason why the Warriors were able to come back from that deficit is because they are a great team that knows how to win close games, important games and can overcome deficits that other teams fail to. Every team is capable of losing and the Bulls, Lakers, Celtics of yore are no different and shouldn't be thought less of when they come across a powerful rival and stumble a bit. It's the champion that hits that wall of adversity then smashes it down instead of faltering.

This Warriors team is an elite team that should at least be in the discussion of the elite teams of the past. If the OKC series and to a lesser degree the Blazers series makes some feel the regular season dominance is either a fluke or simply not indicative of dominance, then I guess there is no arguing with that as it's their opinion. However, I stand by my notion that just because there might be one team in a league of 30 teams that could give the Warriors fits doesn't counterbalance the wreckage left behind by what they did to the other 28 teams. Some teams just have match-up problems that are hard to have the answer for. Throughout the history of the game this has been the case, and because those nemesis teams aren't capable of beating enough of the other teams in the league they don't win nearly as many games.

Anyway, I see where you're coming from. I hope my points, whether you agree or not, are understandable and reasonable.

Take care

 

[Denny Crane]

We all know that a dominant team takes the lead early and never gives it up.

 

[BBert]

I have to agree GS has been far, far from dominant in the playoffs so far. They trailed three-fourths of the time against the Blazers. Only their experience (biting my tongue on some of the favoritism) and a couple of Curry hot streaks allowed them to pull it out. Same against OKC. OKC destroyed GS in two straight games, and were ahead 3-1, before self destructing. By any logical or rational definition of "dominate", Golden State has not. IF they sweep the Cavs, one could say they dominated the finals. But even then GS most certainly would not have dominated the playoffs.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have to agree GS has been far, far from dominant in the playoffs so far. They trailed three-fourths of the time against the Blazers. Only their experience (biting my tongue on some of the favoritism) and a couple of Curry hot streaks allowed them to pull it out. Same against OKC. OKC destroyed GS in two straight games, and were ahead 3-1, before self destructing. By any logical or rational definition of "dominate", Golden State has not. IF they sweep the Cavs, one could say they dominated the finals. But even then GS most certainly would not have dominated the playoffs.

There's dominant and there's "looks beatable."

The Warriors have looked beatable, even though they've won the games they had to.

There's a similar argument about Joe Montana being the greatest QB. He did win superbowls, but he also set records for comeback victories. With that team, they never should have had to come back in the first place. What does that say about him?

So a guy like Troy Aikman, who won with his talented teams by taking the lead and never giving it up, seems like a better QB to me. Plus I would take Steve Young over him, given the choice.

 

[Run BJM]

it is. But dominant is 73-9 and sweeping the playoffs.

If thats the criteria then no NBA team has ever been dominant.

The Warriors have looked vulnerable at times during the playoffs. They have looked like they can be beat. And yet no ones beat them in two years. "Closest 5 game series of all time", "OKC lost the series, GSW didn't win", "GSW is healthier than everyone they play", "XYZ team from my day would have obliterated the Warriors", "GSW is avoiding teams that lose playoff series in the first and second rounds". Boo fucking hoo. If we are so terrible then why haven't any of you pussies stepped up and beat us? MJ's Bulls aren't here to save you.

Keep telling yourself whatever you have to to get through your day. We'll continue skullfucking.

 

[Strenuus]

If thats the criteria then no NBA team has ever been dominant.

The Warriors have looked vulnerable at times during the playoffs. They have looked like they can be beat. And yet no ones beat them in two years. "Closest 5 game series of all time", "OKC lost the series, GSW didn't win", "GSW is healthier than everyone they play", "XYZ team from my day would have obliterated the Warriors", "GSW is avoiding teams that lose playoff series in the first and second rounds". Boo fucking hoo. If we are so terrible then why haven't any of you pussies stepped up and beat us? MJ's Bulls aren't here to save you.

Keep telling yourself whatever you have to to get through your day. We'll continue skullfucking.

I remember when you use to be civil.

It seems the draymond green effect is wearing off onto the fans.

 

[Denny Crane]

If thats the criteria then no NBA team has ever been dominant.

The Warriors have looked vulnerable at times during the playoffs. They have looked like they can be beat. And yet no ones beat them in two years. "Closest 5 game series of all time", "OKC lost the series, GSW didn't win", "GSW is healthier than everyone they play", "XYZ team from my day would have obliterated the Warriors", "GSW is avoiding teams that lose playoff series in the first and second rounds". Boo fucking hoo. If we are so terrible then why haven't any of you pussies stepped up and beat us? MJ's Bulls aren't here to save you.

Keep telling yourself whatever you have to to get through your day. We'll continue skullfucking.

The Cavaliers looked dominant in the playoffs. 4-0, 4-0, and 4-2 to reach the finals.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

If thats the criteria then no NBA team has ever been dominant.

The Warriors have looked vulnerable at times during the playoffs. They have looked like they can be beat. And yet no ones beat them in two years. "Closest 5 game series of all time", "OKC lost the series, GSW didn't win", "GSW is healthier than everyone they play", "XYZ team from my day would have obliterated the Warriors", "GSW is avoiding teams that lose playoff series in the first and second rounds". Boo fucking hoo. If we are so terrible then why haven't any of you pussies stepped up and beat us? MJ's Bulls aren't here to save you.

Keep telling yourself whatever you have to to get through your day. We'll continue skullfucking.

LOL, so defensive.

 

[Orion Bailey]

There's dominant and there's "looks beatable."

The Warriors have looked beatable, even though they've won the games they had to.

There's a similar argument about Joe Montana being the greatest QB. He did win superbowls, but he also set records for comeback victories. With that team, they never should have had to come back in the first place. What does that say about him?

So a guy like Troy Aikman, who won with his talented teams by taking the lead and never giving it up, seems like a better QB to me. Plus I would take Steve Young over him, given the choice.

Does not anyone see that basically both sides are right?

GSW WAS dominant in the regular season. There is no disputing that. GSW has DEFINITELY looked beatable in the playoffs. There is a no disputing that either. Cleveland seemed to shows chinks in their armor in the regular season and were absolutely NOT a dominant team. No disputing that. Cleveland has absolutely been dominant in the playoffs and there is no disputing that.

I believe the point of contention however, is where GSW is a dominant team period. I think in order to answer that, you must first set guidelines to the time frame of the team. Are we saying a dominant team for a single season, only, including the playoffs, or a team as an era, spanning at minimum, two seasons?

Most of these questions are answered above regarding a single season. As far as an era? I think they need another year. They were a great team last year, but not dominant. In order for this team to truly be considered among the elites of history, they will need at least one more 60 win season and a finals appearance within the next two years, and it must be with the same basic core, and they must win this year as well. IF they do that, they are a dominant team for their era. Hands down. They would also have to be considered in the tops as one of the top 3-5 teams in basket ball eras.

However if they win this year, and then slide next year to a 50 something win team and lose in the playoffs.. and do the same the year after... they were not a dominant team for an era. They were just another team peaking for a year of two, like most championship teams not part of a dominant era.

 

[mook]

They were clearly a dominant regular season team. You can't argue with 73 wins. The reason why is simple--who has time to commit a lot of practice to guarding a point guard 40 feet from the rim, and also the insane shooting of Clay, and also the weirdly good overall game of Green? When you face 4 teams in a week, well, you just pencil in Golden State as a loss and put your chips on beating the Portlands and Rockets of the world, because who has time to design something special for one of your 29 opponents who is probably going to win anyway?

Teams can compete with them in a series because they can game plan around their very unique system, a luxury teams don't have in the regular season.

Plus, I think a team so reliant on three pointers is just not going to sweep a series very often. Opponents will force them into some bad shooting nights and pull off upsets.

But they still are incredibly tough to beat in a 7 game series because they are so good at threes. They may have 2 or 3 bad nights of shooting, but Curry and Clay ensure they won't have 4. So you have to somehow beat them in a game or two while seeing threes rain down from every direction, and the Thunder proved that's a really hard thing to do.

The Warriors are famous for playing the percentages. Part of those percentages is that in a 7 game series they will get hot 4 times. And so far, they've been right. Is it dominant like the 72 win Bulls? No. But if they pull off a back-to-back championship while also winning 73 games, and also beating LeBron twice and a tandem of Westbrook/Durant, history won't care how many playoff games they lost while doing it. They'll be remembered as an all-time great team.

 

[Nate]

Hate hate hate hate hate

 

[BBert]

Never said they didn't have a dominant regular season.

Just that they didn't dominate the playoffs.

Until now.

The way things are going now, they may sweep.

 

[Nate]

It's possible to be a Blazers fan, and still recognize that other teams are good. Some of the stuff being said in here is ridiculous.... I guess there's only ever been one dominant team since the Bill Russell Celtics? Fuck it, there was no competition back then. And they let Jordan do whatever he wanted. There's never been a dominant team. The nba is a joke. Let's all stop watching. No talent. Boring.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The Warriors are NOT overrated.

Steph Curry's importance TO the Warriors IS overrated.