Another insane night. 35 points in 20 minutes so far, 9-15 from 3, just hit his 402nd three of the season. Golden State looks like they'll cruise to 73 wins.
Amazing.
Give any team in the 90s a shot at him (not even saying the bulls) and he would be knocked on his ass 6 minutes into the 1st quarter.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 13, 2016, 11:08:59 PM
Give any team in the 90s a shot at him (not even saying the bulls) and he would be knocked on his ass 6 minutes into the 1st quarter.
Please give it a rest. You sound like some of the old MBA guys who are bitter than someone else is getting attention. Steph has that same "cut your heart out" attitude of Montana and MJ.
Quote from: brandx on April 14, 2016, 12:35:53 AM
Please give it a rest. You sound like some of the old MBA guys who are bitter than someone else is getting attention. Steph has that same "cut your heart out" attitude of Montana and MJ.
Give it a rest? Literally my first post (now second) about Curry and golden state but Isaiah Thomas would make him cry.
Also, I really wanna see Klay on a team where he had to be option number 1. He may aver more PPG but there's no way he could carry a team like everyone thinks he can. Not a top 5 shooting guard in the league, just happened to be playing next the the best PG in the league.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 14, 2016, 02:43:58 AM
Give it a rest? Literally my first post (now second) about Curry and golden state but Isaiah Thomas would make him cry.
Also, I really wanna see Klay on a team where he had to be option number 1. He may aver more PPG but there's no way he could carry a team like everyone thinks he can. Not a top 5 shooting guard in the league, just happened to be playing next the the best PG in the league.
The 2nd best shooter in the league who is an outstanding defensive player is not in the top 5 SGs in the league? Ridiculous.
It isn't so much about the talent in the 90's. It is how the game is officiated and how teams are now allowed to play defense versus how they played defense then. In the 80's and 90's, you had Kurt Rambis clotheslining people. You had the Bad-Boys of Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman, Salley, Dumars beating the living crap out of Jordan.... legally. You had the Knicks of Pat Riley who took physicality to an extreme. The Bulls, once they grew up, were very physical.
The way the rules were and the way the games were officiated allowed it. Now that there is no hand-checking, with every foul near the head getting reviewed, with the flagrant 1's and 2's, that level of physicality has been legislated out of the game.
It isn't Golden State's fault. Like those teams of a generation ago, they are exploiting the rules to their advantage and have a team that is built for that. I don't know how they would have fared against the Jordan Bulls teams. For that matter, how would the Jordan Bulls teams have fared against the Showtime Laker's teams of a decade earlier? A sportsbar/ talk radio debating point.
Golden State is really good. Nothing should detract from their accomplishment.
Quote from: tower912 on April 14, 2016, 07:31:30 AM
It isn't so much about the talent in the 90's. It is how the game is officiated and how teams are now allowed to play defense versus how they played defense then. In the 80's and 90's, you had Kurt Rambis clotheslining people. You had the Bad-Boys of Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman, Salley, Dumars beating the living crap out of Jordan.... legally. You had the Knicks of Pat Riley who took physicality to an extreme. The Bulls, once they grew up, were very physical.
The way the rules were and the way the games were officiated allowed it. Now that there is no hand-checking, with every foul near the head getting reviewed, with the flagrant 1's and 2's, that level of physicality has been legislated out of the game.
It isn't Golden State's fault. Like those teams of a generation ago, they are exploiting the rules to their advantage and have a team that is built for that. I don't know how they would have fared against the Jordan Bulls teams. For that matter, how would the Jordan Bulls teams have fared against the Showtime Laker's teams of a decade earlier? A sportsbar/ talk radio debating point.
Golden State is really good. Nothing should detract from their accomplishment.
(http://i.imgur.com/lj8AV9j.gif)
The fans of the old standard bearers are always pissed when someone new comes along and sets a new standard.
Reminds me of how angry my dad was when Hank Aaron surpassed Babe Ruth.
Golden State is an all-time great basketball team. Are they better than the mid-90s Bulls? No, but that's not a knock against them. No one was.
The Bulls played the 90s style of basketball better than anyone else, had the greatest player of all time on their roster, along with another top 20 all-time player and they were one of the best defensive teams ever.
The Warriors play today's style of basketball better than just about anyone else and have one of the greatest shooters of all time (if not THE greatest) on their roster. They play outstanding TEAM basketball. They led the league in assists by over 3 per game!
Both teams are all-time great teams. It's not insulting to say that the Bulls were better and it doesn't downgrade what GS has accomplished. It's remarkable and they're a lot of fun to watch.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 08:38:49 AM
The Warriors play today's style of basketball better than just about anyone else and have one of the greatest shooters of all time (if not THE greatest) on their roster. They play outstanding TEAM basketball. They led the league in assists by over 3 per game!
You say the Warriors play today's style of basketball better than
just about anyone else. Who plays today's style better than the Warriors?
I'm not ready to say that this Warriors team isn't better than the mid-90s Bulls. Really it is too hard to really know since it is such a different league now. I do agree that they are hard to compare given the rules at the time. It was literally illegal to play any sort of defense against those Bulls except man-to-man.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 14, 2016, 08:43:20 AM
You say the Warriors play today's style of basketball better than just about anyone else. Who plays today's style better than the Warriors?
San Antonio comes pretty close and has done it more consistently over a longer period of time.
Comparing era's, especially in basketball, is so difficult it probably shouldn't be done. Not only are rules different but so are off the court things like S&C, recovery, and statistical analysis.
Take Larry Bird, his last 3 seasons he was basketball wearing a turtle shell on his back....if he had today's medical advances and rest/recovery protocols does he like 10%, 20% or 30% better in those 3 seasons? Or does he get an additional 3 seasons out of his career?
Plus the human body potential has changed in the last 30 years. There was no human being like Lebron James 30 years ago, the things he is physically capable of doing on a basketball court were not possible 30 years ago so how do you compare those eras?
Even things like how they value shots has changed. The long 2 has been shunned and the corner 3 has come into vogue because statistically thats how it should be....didn't have that mindset 20 years ago.
The 90s Bull were the top team of their era, the GSW are the top team of the current NBA paradigm (which is crazy since the Spurs are ridiculously good too) but I don't know that you can really compare them.
I thought the Bulls record was unbeatable. This is a all time great accomplishment in an era of parity.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 14, 2016, 09:07:08 AM
I thought the Bulls record was unbeatable. This is a all time great accomplishment in an era of parity.
An era of parity? Going into this season, there were 3,
maybe 4, teams capable of winning the championship. There were twice that many teams "built to lose."
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 09:23:10 AM
An era of parity? Going into this season, there were 3, maybe 4, teams capable of winning the championship. There were twice that many teams "built to lose."
So pretty much the same as the Bulls era then.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 09:34:18 AM
No, not really.
Really? Because before the 1995-96 season, there was a lot of hype on the Bulls. The only other teams that people legitimately thought could contend were the Magic (with O'Neal and Penny), the two time defending champion Rockets, Spurs and the Sonics.
Here is what Leigh Montville wrote in SI's NBA Preview issue:
"Forget about it. Take out a pen and write this down: The Bulls are the defending champs, shooting for their fourth straight title. Everything that happened in the past two years gets an asterisk. The Rockets* might have won back-to-back titles* and Hakeem Olajuwon* and David Robinson* might have won MVP* awards and Shaquille O'Neal* might have sold a lot of footwear and soda, but all of that happened in a vacuum."
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 09:23:10 AM
An era of parity? Going into this season, there were 3, maybe 4, teams capable of winning the championship. There were twice that many teams "built to lose."
But when you're talking about a regular season record like the Warriors just set, you don't focus on just those 3-4 teams. Sure, the Warriors, Spurs, and Cavs (and maybe the Thunder) are head and shoulders above, but you have teams like the Raptors, Hawks, Blazers, Celtics, Heat, and Clippers who can come out and knock teams off and pose problems. The league is fairly deep IMO.
Also, as for the Spurs playing the style of basketball better than the Warriors, their consistency over the years is notable, but part of their success is resting stars, preventing them from reaching a total like this. The Warriors didn't do that. We'll see if it hurts them in the playoffs, but to rampage through the season like they did is otherworldly.
Here's my question, not saying they will but what would the thoughts be if Golden State doesn't even win the championship? Say the Spurs knock them off in the WCF.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 14, 2016, 10:48:49 AM
Here's my question, not saying they will but what would the thoughts be if Golden State doesn't even win the championship? Say the Spurs knock them off in the WCF.
2007 Patriots, 2005 USC football, 2001 Mariners, etc...
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 08:56:44 AM
San Antonio comes pretty close and has done it more consistently over a longer period of time.
I didn't ask who comes pretty close, I asked who you thought was
better at playing today's style than the Warriors.
San Antonio was clearly better two or three years ago, but that isn't now....
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 14, 2016, 10:48:49 AM
Here's my question, not saying they will but what would the thoughts be if Golden State doesn't even win the championship? Say the Spurs knock them off in the WCF.
They still have an incredible regular season record. Spurs fans can't be feeling great after those last two games head to head.
Quote from: tower912 on April 14, 2016, 07:31:30 AM
It isn't so much about the talent in the 90's. It is how the game is officiated and how teams are now allowed to play defense versus how they played defense then. In the 80's and 90's, you had Kurt Rambis clotheslining people. You had the Bad-Boys of Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman, Salley, Dumars beating the living crap out of Jordan.... legally. You had the Knicks of Pat Riley who took physicality to an extreme. The Bulls, once they grew up, were very physical.
The way the rules were and the way the games were officiated allowed it. Now that there is no hand-checking, with every foul near the head getting reviewed, with the flagrant 1's and 2's, that level of physicality has been legislated out of the game.
It isn't Golden State's fault. Like those teams of a generation ago, they are exploiting the rules to their advantage and have a team that is built for that. I don't know how they would have fared against the Jordan Bulls teams. For that matter, how would the Jordan Bulls teams have fared against the Showtime Laker's teams of a decade earlier? A sportsbar/ talk radio debating point.
Golden State is really good. Nothing should detract from their accomplishment.
This is a really good post. One thing that I do quite often see is how its mentioned Golden State would get pushed around in the 80s and 90s when the game was much more physical. Its hard for me to argue against that.
What I don't see mentioned very much, is how the 90s Bulls teams would fare against Golden State in the current NBA without the same physicality. How about that side of the coin?
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 14, 2016, 11:13:43 AM
I didn't ask who comes pretty close, I asked who you thought was better at playing today's style than the Warriors.
San Antonio was clearly better two or three years ago, but that isn't now....
Was 2-3 years ago not "today's style" of basketball? Or do you take "today" literally?
San Antonio went 67-15 this season (going at about 85-90%), had the #1 defense and their Pythagorean W-L was 2 games better than the Warriors'. Only 6 teams in history have won more than 67 games. The Spurs' regular season was just a hair below Golden State's and no one would be all that surprised if SA beat GS in the conf finals.
Last season and this regular season, GS was the best, but no one has been better than SA since the NBA's defensive rules changed and 3pt attempts increased. I would define that time period as "today's game." Perhaps you only look back 12-18 months.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 01:24:30 PM
Was 2-3 years ago not "today's style" of basketball? Or do you take "today" literally?
San Antonio went 67-15 this season (going at about 85-90%), had the #1 defense and their Pythagorean W-L was 2 games better than the Warriors'. Only 6 teams in history have won more than 67 games. The Spurs' regular season was just a hair below Golden State's and no one would be all that surprised if SA beat GS in the conf finals.
Last season and this regular season, GS was the best, but no one has been better than SA since the NBA's defensive rules changed and 3pt attempts increased. I would define that time period as "today's game." Perhaps you only look back 12-18 months.
I would be very surprised if the Spurs beat the Warriors in the Conference Finals. This year's Spurs team is quite possibly Pop's best team, and probably the 2nd best team of this generation, maybe a top 10 team ever? Without a doubt a top 25 team ever...and they aren't even close to what the Warriors are.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 14, 2016, 01:59:05 PM
I would be very surprised if the Spurs beat the Warriors in the Conference Finals. This year's Spurs team is quite possibly Pop's best team, and probably the 2nd best team of this generation, maybe a top 10 team ever? Without a doubt a top 25 team ever...and they aren't even close to what the Warriors are.
The way the Warriors won on Sunday night is what has to worry Spurs fans. At home, they tried to slow the Warriors down and make it a grind it out defensive game...and the Warriors beat them handily doing just that.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 01:24:30 PM
Was 2-3 years ago not "today's style" of basketball? Or do you take "today" literally?
San Antonio went 67-15 this season (going at about 85-90%), had the #1 defense and their Pythagorean W-L was 2 games better than the Warriors'. Only 6 teams in history have won more than 67 games. The Spurs' regular season was just a hair below Golden State's and no one would be all that surprised if SA beat GS in the conf finals.
Last season and this regular season, GS was the best, but no one has been better than SA since the NBA's defensive rules changed and 3pt attempts increased. I would define that time period as "today's game." Perhaps you only look back 12-18 months.
I'm talking about current events, not history. And right now, GS is the best team.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 14, 2016, 07:04:05 PM
I'm talking about current events, not history. And right now, GS is the best team.
There can be a team in an era/generation of basketball that isn't the current best team in that era/generation. But the best team of this generation/era is the Warriors, and it's not even close to be honest. 65 wins and a title last year, followed up by 73 wins this year. Absurd. I'd expect they win the title this year.
But what could happen is 3 years from now they could fall back to 3rd in the West and lose in the 2nd round. That doesn't make whoever wins the West/NBA title in 3 years the best team of the era/generation/brand of basketball.
This is a team - much like the 95-96 bulls - that we'll tell our kids and grandkids about. My kids always want me to tell them about the time I saw Michael Jordan play - which by the way was an exhibition / glorified pick-up game in Milwaukee during which he amazed everyone while unconstrained by the proprieties of the NBA and duties to teammates. These Warriors will be the subject of many such stories.
Who would win vs. the earlier Bulls... with 90's rules and officiating the Bulls would win. With today's rules and officiating the Warriors would win. I would say that those Bulls would probably still win 55+ games in Today's NBA because they were one of the first teams spacing and using 3's to open up the middle and did it better than than half the teams trying it today.
Quote from: WarriorFan on April 14, 2016, 11:06:22 PM
This is a team - much like the 95-96 bulls - that we'll tell our kids and grandkids about. My kids always want me to tell them about the time I saw Michael Jordan play - which by the way was an exhibition / glorified pick-up game in Milwaukee during which he amazed everyone while unconstrained by the proprieties of the NBA and duties to teammates. These Warriors will be the subject of many such stories.
Who would win vs. the earlier Bulls... with 90's rules and officiating the Bulls would win. With today's rules and officiating the Warriors would win. I would say that those Bulls would probably still win 55+ games in Today's NBA because they were one of the first teams spacing and using 3's to open up the middle and did it better than than half the teams trying it today.
Curry is like only two other players in my lifetime watching the NBA in that you watch them all the time when they are on the floor. even when they don't have the ball. The other two, by the way, were MJ and Doctor J. And that goes back to watching Russell and Wilt as a kid.
Connie Hawkins may have been another had he played in the NBA at a young age. Iverson and Magic were electric but you weren't always watching them off the ball.
Quote from: WarriorFan on April 14, 2016, 11:06:22 PM
This is a team - much like the 95-96 bulls - that we'll tell our kids and grandkids about. My kids always want me to tell them about the time I saw Michael Jordan play - which by the way was an exhibition / glorified pick-up game in Milwaukee during which he amazed everyone while unconstrained by the proprieties of the NBA and duties to teammates. These Warriors will be the subject of many such stories.
Who would win vs. the earlier Bulls... with 90's rules and officiating the Bulls would win. With today's rules and officiating the Warriors would win. I would say that those Bulls would probably still win 55+ games in Today's NBA because they were one of the first teams spacing and using 3's to open up the middle and did it better than than half the teams trying it today.
I even found the details of the game... August 17, 1988. Terry Cummings Charity game for Milwaukee youth. Jordan had 50 in a 181 - 178 victory.
Quote from: brandx on April 15, 2016, 12:15:31 AM
Curry is like only two other players in my lifetime watching the NBA in that you watch them all the time when they are on the floor. even when they don't have the ball. The other two, by the way, were MJ and Doctor J. And that goes back to watching Russell and Wilt as a kid.
Good point, and I agree. As good as his teammates have been, it's hard to take your eyes off Curry because you might miss a spectacular play.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 14, 2016, 01:59:05 PM
I would be very surprised if the Spurs beat the Warriors in the Conference Finals. This year's Spurs team is quite possibly Pop's best team, and probably the 2nd best team of this generation, maybe a top 10 team ever? Without a doubt a top 25 team ever...and they aren't even close to what the Warriors are.
A lot of people (not singling you out, wades) are really selling the Spurs short this season. The Warriors are an all-time team but statistically, the Spurs are right there with them.
The 67-15 Spurs had a Pythagorean W-L of 67-15. The Warriors was 65-17, which basically means GS had a great deal of luck involved in winning 73 games (for perspective, the 95-96 Bulls Pyth W-L was 70-12). If you go by ESPN's Expected Wins, SA had 70 and GS 68.
Metrics...
SA was 1st in Pth W-L, GS was 2nd
SA was 1st in Expected Wins, GS was 2nd
SA was 1st in DRat, GS was 5th
SA was 1st in Def eFG%, GS was 2nd
GS was 1st in ORat, SA was 4th
GS was 1st in eFG%, SA was 2nd
GS was 1st in MOV, SA was 2nd
GS was 1st in SRS, SA was 2nd
Sure, the Warriors are a lot more fun to watch but, statistically speaking, the Spurs are right there with them in terms of dominance.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 15, 2016, 08:47:48 AM
A lot of people (not singling you out, wades) are really selling the Spurs short this season. The Warriors are an all-time team but statistically, the Spurs are right there with them.
The 67-15 Spurs had a Pythagorean W-L of 67-15. The Warriors was 65-17, which basically means GS had a great deal of luck involved in winning 73 games (for perspective, the 95-96 Bulls Pyth W-L was 70-12). If you go by ESPN's Expected Wins, SA had 70 and GS 68.
Metrics...
SA was 1st in Pth W-L, GS was 2nd
SA was 1st in Expected Wins, GS was 2nd
SA was 1st in DRat, GS was 5th
SA was 1st in Def eFG%, GS was 2nd
GS was 1st in ORat, SA was 4th
GS was 1st in eFG%, SA was 2nd
GS was 1st in MOV, SA was 2nd
GS was 1st in SRS, SA was 2nd
Sure, the Warriors are a lot more fun to watch but, statistically speaking, the Spurs are right there with them in terms of dominance.
I don't get into the advanced statistics of overall teams to determine how good (or bad) a whole team may be, so maybe the Spurs are better than the Warriors. But I do know that the Warriors went 3-1 against the Spurs in the regular season, and 2 of the wins were never really close.
Like I said, there's no doubt in my mind that the Spurs are a top 25 team ever, and in my opinion they're a top 10 team ever. The best that Pop has had, and he's obviously had some great teams.
Which further validates the Warriors, in my opinion. Call it luck or whatever you want, but finishing 6 games ahead of the field, when there's a team that went 67-15 included in that "field," is absurd.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 15, 2016, 09:19:44 AM
I don't get into the advanced statistics of overall teams to determine how good (or bad) a whole team may be, so maybe the Spurs are better than the Warriors. But I do know that the Warriors went 3-1 against the Spurs in the regular season, and 2 of the wins were never really close.
Like I said, there's no doubt in my mind that the Spurs are a top 25 team ever, and in my opinion they're a top 10 team ever. The best that Pop has had, and he's obviously had some great teams.
Which further validates the Warriors, in my opinion. Call it luck or whatever you want, but finishing 6 games ahead of the field, when there's a team that went 67-15 included in that "field," is absurd.
Agreed. Advanced stats and "expected" wins are nice...but when the two teams took the court, GS was the better team.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 15, 2016, 12:01:53 PM
Agreed. Advanced stats and "expected" wins are nice...but when the two teams took the court, GS was the better team.
Maybe, however in that last game Khwai had one of his worst shooting performances ever and Timmy didn't play. Sure Steph is far and away the best player in the NBA right now but let's not pretend the Spurs don't have a chance.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 15, 2016, 12:01:53 PM
Agreed. Advanced stats and "expected" wins are nice...but when the two teams took the court, GS was the better team.
Duncan played all of 27 minutes against GS. Iguodala missed one of the games for GS. The results of head-to-head regular season games don't matter much once the postseason starts. They're basically scrimmages.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 15, 2016, 12:07:19 PM
Maybe, however in that last game Khwai had one of his worst shooting performances ever and Timmy didn't play. Sure Steph is far and away the best player in the NBA right now but let's not pretend the Spurs don't have a chance.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 15, 2016, 12:11:50 PM
Duncan played all of 27 minutes against GS. Iguodala missed one of the games for GS. The results of head-to-head regular season games don't matter much once the postseason starts. They're basically scrimmages.
This isn't your Tim Duncan of 15 years ago, or even 5 years ago. The guy is about the 7th best player on the Spurs.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 15, 2016, 12:13:16 PM
This isn't your Tim Duncan of 15 years ago, or even 5 years ago. The guy is about the 7th best player on the Spurs.
Also not the same Tony Parker of 5 years ago and that really affects the team.
A great team, but I don't think I put it in the top 10 of all time - just because of the age of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 15, 2016, 12:13:16 PM
This isn't your Tim Duncan of 15 years ago, or even 5 years ago. The guy is about the 7th best player on the Spurs.
Which speaks to their depth ;)
It's Leonard and Aldridge's team now but Manu, Duncan, Parker, West and even Mills or Green are capable of having big games.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 15, 2016, 01:45:12 PM
Which speaks to their depth ;)
It's Leonard and Aldridge's team now but Manu, Duncan, Parker, West and even Mills or Green are capable of having big games.
Which speaks to the irrelevance of your comment about how few minutes Duncan played against GS in the regular season. ;)
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 15, 2016, 03:40:45 PM
Which speaks to the irrelevance of your comment about how few minutes Duncan played against GS in the regular season. ;)
Not really. Like I said, Duncan is still capable of having big games, although he's basically resting up during the regular season. I also mentioned that the 2015 Finals MVP missed the game for GS. Was that irrelevant too? He's not their best player.
My point is that the regular season meetings mean nothing come postseason.
Curry and Golden State are a very fun team to watch and certainly have been good last year and this year. There have been many teams in history that have had some good runs like this. The Bill Walton Blazers with Maurice Lucas are one that comes to mind. Unfortunately Walton got hurt at the end of the second good season and that was the end of that. But they were incredible when Walton was healthy and I believe that team would be a very interesting match up against today's Golden State.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 14, 2016, 08:38:49 AM
Golden State is an all-time great basketball team. Are they better than the mid-90s Bulls? No, but that's not a knock against them. No one was.
The Bulls played the 90s style of basketball better than anyone else, had the greatest player of all time on their roster, along with another top 20 all-time player and they were one of the best defensive teams ever.
The Warriors play today's style of basketball better than just about anyone else and have one of the greatest shooters of all time (if not THE greatest) on their roster. They play outstanding TEAM basketball. They led the league in assists by over 3 per game!
Both teams are all-time great teams. It's not insulting to say that the Bulls were better and it doesn't downgrade what GS has accomplished. It's remarkable and they're a lot of fun to watch.
I also believe the Bulls were better, mainly because they had Jordan (duh) and I agree the Warriors are great and fun to watch.
My only real beef with what you wrote here is that I do not believe the Bulls had "another top-20 all-time player." I'm pretty sure if you and I sat down and talked it out for 10 minutes, we could agree on at least 30 better than Pippen.
As for a couple things mentioned by other posters ...
I believe Curry would have found a way to be great in the '90s. He's a lot tougher than most people think.
I also don't think it's a slam dunk that Curry is "by far" today's best player. That LeBron kid is pretty good, I hear. He can't shoot like Curry, of course, but then again Curry can't race from 35 feet behind an opponent, leap and block a shot. They are 1 and 1A, with the edge to Curry because of team accomplishments, style points, "clutch-a-bility," and soon-to-be two-time MVP hardware. All IMHO, of course.
Looking like the Spurs might not even make it to a matchup with the Warriors.
Ginobili and Duncan are old. Parker is still good but declining. Aldrich and Leonard are their stars right now, but no role players are stepping up.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Spurs win on Thursday.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on May 10, 2016, 09:38:20 PM
Looking like the Spurs might not even make it to a matchup with the Warriors.
Yup. Now we'll get to hear how "lucky" the Warriors were to "avoid" the Spurs again and have the Clippers depleted by injury for another year. Awesome.
I also see TMac claiming Curry winning MVP proves the NBA is watered down. Hilarious. The "old" guys claiming everything was better when they were in their prime is just tired. I'm pretty sure the Spurs played the same way with just as much talent when they were first winning Titles in that same era as they do now.
That OT performance by Curry - and really, the whole second half of Monday's game - is one of the great individual performances I've seen. If you haven't seen it, especially the OT ... find it and watch it.
For that matter, the entire game was extremely entertaining sports theater.
Those who claim to be basketball fans but don't like the NBA playoffs ... I have to wonder if they really are basketball fans at all. There has been some tremendous stuff. Thunder-Spurs Game 5 was just the latest fantastic show.
I'm glad this thread was hoopalooped. I was watching games the other night and trying to remember anybody from the 80's and 90's who routinely shot pull up 3's off of the dribble. Isaiah Thomas is the only one who comes to mind and he only did it when he was in the zone. Everybody else I remember was catch-and-shoot, usually 3 inches behind the line. Today, we have shooters who are starting their move 40 feet from the basket and pulling up to shoot 3's just inside 30. Nearly indefensible when the shooter gets hot.
Quote from: MU82 on May 11, 2016, 12:12:28 AM
That OT performance by Curry - and really, the whole second half of Monday's game - is one of the great individual performances I've seen. If you haven't seen it, especially the OT ... find it and watch it.
For that matter, the entire game was extremely entertaining sports theater.
Those who claim to be basketball fans but don't like the NBA playoffs ... I have to wonder if they really are basketball fans at all. There has been some tremendous stuff. Thunder-Spurs Game 5 was just the latest fantastic show.
I'm a casual NBA fan. I've watched more basketball in the past two weeks than I can remember ever watching in a comparable period. This has been really, really good stuff.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 11, 2016, 06:56:46 AM
I'm a casual NBA fan. I've watched more basketball in the past two weeks than I can remember ever watching in a comparable period. This has been really, really good stuff.
The DVR makes it SOOOO easy to watch all sporting events, and the NBA is no exception. I record a game and don't start watching until at least an hour after it starts. More often, it is over before I start. I am careful not to learn who won.
For an NBA game, I'll go through the first half at 2x or 3x speed, watching the score. I'll stop a couple times to watch a few minutes here and there. I fast-forward through halftime and get into the third quarter. I'll watch for a bit and if it's close I'll keep watching, fast-forwarding only through timeouts and free throws. If it's a blowout, I'll watch at 3x speed, keeping an eye on the score to see if the trailing team makes a run.
I especially love the DVR in the final minutes of a close game. Each coach saves 2-3 timeouts, so it's nice to fast-forward through those. Invariably, there are a couple stoppages to look at replays - I love fast-forwarding through those 3-5 minute delays. Just makes the whole thing so much more enjoyable!
Quote from: MU82 on May 11, 2016, 07:36:35 AM
The DVR makes it SOOOO easy to watch all sporting events, and the NBA is no exception. I record a game and don't start watching until at least an hour after it starts. More often, it is over before I start. I am careful not to learn who won.
For an NBA game, I'll go through the first half at 2x or 3x speed, watching the score. I'll stop a couple times to watch a few minutes here and there. I fast-forward through halftime and get into the third quarter. I'll watch for a bit and if it's close I'll keep watching, fast-forwarding only through timeouts and free throws. If it's a blowout, I'll watch at 3x speed, keeping an eye on the score to see if the trailing team makes a run.
I especially love the DVR in the final minutes of a close game. Each coach saves 2-3 timeouts, so it's nice to fast-forward through those. Invariably, there are a couple stoppages to look at replays - I love fast-forwarding through those 3-5 minute delays. Just makes the whole thing so much more enjoyable!
I'm with you there...especially the end of close games. In the NBA especially, they have a way of making a "20-second timeout" last 3 minutes.
The ball movement in the NBA, versus the usual isolation plays, is really what is making a difference right now.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on May 11, 2016, 09:05:22 AM
The ball movement in the NBA, versus the usual isolation plays, is really what is making a difference right now.
Absolutely - I pretty much gave up on the NBA a few years ago because the all isolation plays basically turned it into a series of one on ones. I've tuned back in over the past couple of seasons, and it's a pretty dramatic difference.
Quote from: MU82 on May 11, 2016, 12:12:28 AM
That OT performance by Curry - and really, the whole second half of Monday's game - is one of the great individual performances I've seen. If you haven't seen it, especially the OT ... find it and watch it.
For that matter, the entire game was extremely entertaining sports theater.
Those who claim to be basketball fans but don't like the NBA playoffs ... I have to wonder if they really are basketball fans at all. There has been some tremendous stuff. Thunder-Spurs Game 5 was just the latest fantastic show.
The fact that he is the FIRST unanimous MVP in NBA history says it all. Even MJ and Lebron, and Kareem can't make that claim.
But there have been other stunning performances.
Draymond averaging 24.5 pts, 11.3 reb., 5.8 assists, and 3.8 blocks per game all while playing PPF - point power forward and running the offense a good deal of the time. His defense is off the charts whether playing C, PF, or SF.
Westbrook showing he is the most athletic great player since MJ.
Kawhi doing anything and everything.
Quote from: brandx on May 11, 2016, 03:44:43 PM
The fact that he is the FIRST unanimous MVP in NBA history says it all. Even MJ and Lebron, and Kareem can't make that claim.
But there have been other stunning performances.
Draymond averaging 24.5 pts, 11.3 reb., 5.8 assists, and 3.8 blocks per game all while playing PPF - point power forward and running the offense a good deal of the time. His defense is off the charts whether playing C, PF, or SF.
Westbrook showing he is the most athletic great player since MJ.
Kawhi doing anything and everything.
Agree. It's been fun to watch the playoffs, as it usually is.
Quote from: brandx on May 11, 2016, 03:44:43 PM
The fact that he is the FIRST unanimous MVP in NBA history says it all. Even MJ and Lebron, and Kareem can't make that claim.
Add Wilt, Magic and Bird to the list of remarkably dominant players who were never unanimous. There were 25 MVPs amoung the six guys on your list and mine, but never a unanimous one.
A truly special feat for Curry.
Quote from: MU82 on May 11, 2016, 07:36:35 AM
The DVR makes it SOOOO easy to watch all sporting events, and the NBA is no exception. I record a game and don't start watching until at least an hour after it starts. More often, it is over before I start. I am careful not to learn who won.
For an NBA game, I'll go through the first half at 2x or 3x speed, watching the score. I'll stop a couple times to watch a few minutes here and there. I fast-forward through halftime and get into the third quarter. I'll watch for a bit and if it's close I'll keep watching, fast-forwarding only through timeouts and free throws. If it's a blowout, I'll watch at 3x speed, keeping an eye on the score to see if the trailing team makes a run.
I especially love the DVR in the final minutes of a close game. Each coach saves 2-3 timeouts, so it's nice to fast-forward through those. Invariably, there are a couple stoppages to look at replays - I love fast-forwarding through those 3-5 minute delays. Just makes the whole thing so much more enjoyable!
Yes and no.....I do really enjoy the enhancement of monitoring twitter while watching live either a big game or a Marquette game. I get the fast forward thing and will do it if I get to a TV late but I prefer live and then soak up the twitter snark
Quote from: mu03eng on May 12, 2016, 10:59:45 AM
Yes and no.....I do really enjoy the enhancement of monitoring twitter while watching live either a big game or a Marquette game. I get the fast forward thing and will do it if I get to a TV late but I prefer live and then soak up the twitter snark
I don't twit, so that's not appealing for me.
The one good thing about getting laid off when I was is that I got out of journalism about 2 seconds before all reporters and columnists had to start doing the twatter thing.
Off topic but not deserving of its own thread and not sure where else it fits so I'll throw this in here.
The Jazz's new uniforms are soooooo nice. The new logo and court are pretty well done too.
Looks like the Spurs won't be stopping the Warriors....
Quote from: GooooMarquette on May 13, 2016, 08:29:12 AM
Looks like the Spurs won't be stopping the Warriors....
Don't count 'em out just yet! ;)
Not surprisingly, the NBA is getting exactly what they want. The most watchable team and star in the NBA against two other exciting, in-their-prime stars who are going bring in big ratings but ultimately lose. The NBA definitely did not want a conf finals with the boring old Spurs uglying things up against GS.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 13, 2016, 09:30:41 AM
Don't count 'em out just yet! ;)
Not surprisingly, the NBA is getting exactly what they want. The most watchable team and star in the NBA against two other exciting, in-their-prime stars who are going bring in big ratings but ultimately lose. The NBA definitely did not want a conf finals with the boring old Spurs uglying things up against GS.
Huh? The NBA didn't want a potential Western Conference Finals that nobody stopped talking to since the day LaMarcus Aldridge signed with the Spurs almost a year ago? This was supposed to be one of the greatest Playoff series in NBA history. A 73 win team against a 67 win team. Two teams that have been constantly talked about as the two of the greatest teams in the history of the NBA. Every time these teams matched up in the regular season it was a matchup with the highest win total through (however many games they'd played between them) in NBA history.
Quote from: YoungsWorld on May 13, 2016, 09:40:44 AM
Huh? The NBA didn't want a potential Western Conference Finals that nobody stopped talking to since the day LaMarcus Aldridge signed with the Spurs almost a year ago? This was supposed to be one of the greatest Playoff series in NBA history. A 73 win team against a 67 win team. Two teams that have been constantly talked about as the two of the greatest teams in the history of the NBA. Every time these teams matched up in the regular season it was a matchup with the highest win total through (however many games they'd played between them) in NBA history.
Yeah - I have no inside knowledge of what the NBA "wanted," but I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't expect a Warriors-Spurs series to be a huge money maker...and potentially a series fans might be talking about for years (maybe a "changing of the guard" type of thing?).
Anyhow, the Thunder have been playing well, so maybe they can make it interesting.
I'm not sure how much it could have been a "changing of the guard" type of thing since the Warriors won last year.
BTW, the Golden State / Portland series was incredibly entertaining. I expect something similar with the Thunder too. I also wouldn't count out the Cavs. They are going to be well rested for this next round - played the minimum so far. May have to shake off some rust, but it will do them well in the long run.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on May 13, 2016, 12:19:53 PM
BTW, the Golden State / Portland series was incredibly entertaining. I expect something similar with the Thunder too. I also wouldn't count out the Cavs. They are going to be well rested for this next round - played the minimum so far. May have to shake off some rust, but it will do them well in the long run.
I agree with all of this, Sultan.
As for what the NBA did or did not "want," are we talking conspiracy theories again? Oh goodie!