Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

[Nate]

Rabble rabble rabble

 

[blue9]

So basically I was like "I don't think the nba is weak because of the 2004 rule change" and you were like FUCK THAT JORDAN BIRD AN MAGIC WERE BETTER THAN ANYONE IN THE NBA TODAY good talk.

You seemed to be implying that yesteryear's NBA was weak because they allowed hand-checking/contact rather than staying in front of your man. Maybe somebody is saying that today's NBA is weak because of the rule change, but I think mostly people are saying that the TALENT is weak and that's why the NBA is weak, not because of a rule change. You've been trying to argue (at least I think it's been you...maybe not) that today's talent is better than yesteryear's talent. My response was that that's bullshit, and the fact that you're using "generational differences" to support yourself makes it seem like you're too young to know what you're talking about.

 

[BonesJones]

Also interesting that expansion seems to only hurt basketball from a telent standpoint in the eyes of fans.

I don't think it would hurt, i actually think expansion would be great for the NBA. Could lower the salary cap a little bit per team (the money would be spread out a little more) and spreading the talent out would mean more parity.

Lower salary cap=less room for multiple stars
Talent Spreader Out=Stars spreader out amongst the teams.

The NBA would be great as a 36 team league. Give Seattle, Las Vegas, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh teams. Then a 16 team playoff would make more sense. Would create a Portland-Seattle rivalry, Kansas City-St. Louis rivalry, a Cincinatti-Cleveland rivalry and a Pittsburgh-Philadelphia rivalry.

I think it'd help small markets too. The more smaller markets, the more power places like that will have.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I don't think it would hurt, i actually think expansion would be great for the NBA. Could lower the salary cap a little bit per team (the money would be spread out a little more) and spreading the talent out would mean more parity.

Lower salary cap=less room for multiple stars
Talent Spreader Out=Stars spreader out amongst the teams.

The NBA would be great as a 36 team league. Give Seattle, Las Vegas, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh teams. Then a 16 team playoff would make more sense. Would create a Portland-Seattle rivalry, Kansas City-St. Louis rivalry, a Cincinatti-Cleveland rivalry and a Pittsburgh-Philadelphia rivalry.

I think it'd help small markets too. The more smaller markets, the more power places like that will have.

Man you got me except for what I bolded. Spreading the talent out will lead to more parity and less entertaining games. More turnovers, lower fg% etc.

I love everything you stated that would be a benefit, but I think the loss of quality play trumps everything else.

I am not saying the NBA is quality now, but it damned sure wont be with more teams and less talent per team.

 

[BonesJones]

Man you got me except for what I bolded. Spreading the talent out will lead to more parity and less entertaining games. More turnovers, lower fg% etc.

I love everything you stated that would be a benefit, but I think the loss of quality play trumps everything else.

I am not saying the NBA is quality now, but it damned sure wont be with more teams and less talent per team.

You know how many CJ McCollums and Will Barton's there are out there? Quality players that just need the chance. Expanding would give more opportunities to guys like that. Therefore I don't think the talent level would go down at all, as your have more guys stepping up given the playing time.

I think that coupled with star players getting spread out more (hypothetically) plus making it harder to sign multiple star players would create a ton of parity.

 

[Orion Bailey]

You know how many CJ McCollums and Will Barton's there are out there? Quality players that just need the chance. Expanding would give more opportunities to guys like that. Therefore I don't think the talent level would go down at all, as your have more guys stepping up given the playing time.

I think that coupled with star players getting spread out more (hypothetically) plus making it harder to sign multiple star players would create a ton of parity.

Fair point. Maybe there is more talent in the NBA, we just dont know it because the all stars clog all the lanes

 

[Orion Bailey]

You know how many CJ McCollums and Will Barton's there are out there? Quality players that just need the chance. Expanding would give more opportunities to guys like that. Therefore I don't think the talent level would go down at all, as your have more guys stepping up given the playing time.

I think that coupled with star players getting spread out more (hypothetically) plus making it harder to sign multiple star players would create a ton of parity.

There in lies your problem young padawan. Parity means more difficult for the Blazers to win. We want DOMINATION OF ONE TEAM ONLY!
All the others can be gutter ballers for all I care.

 

[BBert]

Big news: It's a star driven league. Other big news: The team with the one or two best players usually wins.

I favor more parity and more teams if it would lead to more parity. The problem is that unless there is a way to prevent a few teams from amassing all the best players we would end up with an even worse situation than what we have now: Lots of parity among the bottom feeders and a hand full of teams breaking regular season win records.

And that sucks for the majority of fans.

 

[BonesJones]

Fair point. Maybe there is more talent in the NBA, we just dont know it because the all stars clog all the lanes

There in lies your problem young padawan. Parity means more difficult for the Blazers to win. We want DOMINATION OF ONE TEAM ONLY!
All the others can be gutter ballers for all I care.

Lol I just want a more entertaining playoff

Big news: It's a star driven league. Other big news: The team with the one or two best players usually wins.

I favor more parity and more teams if it would lead to more parity. The problem is that unless there is a way to prevent a few teams from amassing all the best players we would end up with an even worse situation than what we have now: Lots of parity among the bottom feeders and a hand full of teams breaking regular season win records.

And that sucks for the majority of fans.

Well more teams means more low contract players. That means that the cap for each team should go down. Couple that with raising the max for a free agent (to say 35/40/45%), and it'd make it way harder for teams to have multiple stars unless it's through the draft. That means more parity and a better chance for smaller markets

 

[BBert]

Lol I just want a more entertaining playoff

Well more teams means not lesser contract players. That means that the cap for each team should go down. Couple that with raising the max for a free agent (to say 35/40/45%), and it'd make it way harder for teams to have multiple stars unless it's through the draft. That men's more parity and a better chance for smaller markets

That would be great.

 

[Denny Crane]

In Jordan's day, Euro players had a tough time getting into the NBA. Now the league is diluted with Euro players. It is weaker than the old days. Bob McAoo (SIC, no D) was as good as Durant, but not a top 5 player of his time. Bernard King would be in the MVP top 3 in this NBA.

The Alvin Adams Phoenix Suns team would be perennial champs against today's teams.

Name a better pair in today's NBA than Dr. J and Moses Malone.

There were two pro leagues that undiluted the NBA when they merged. It effectively added superstar free agents to the existing teams while none lost any of their own.

If you didn't see those guys play, you really missed the best of the NBA.

 

[Nate]

You seemed to be implying that yesteryear's NBA was weak because they allowed hand-checking/contact rather than staying in front of your man. Maybe somebody is saying that today's NBA is weak because of the rule change, but I think mostly people are saying that the TALENT is weak and that's why the NBA is weak, not because of a rule change. You've been trying to argue (at least I think it's been you...maybe not) that today's talent is better than yesteryear's talent. My response was that that's bullshit, and the fact that you're using "generational differences" to support yourself makes it seem like you're too young to know what you're talking about.

I have not been trying to argue that. So I don't know what you're talking about.

I do know a thing or two about psychology though, so I know for a fact that this is mostly a generational thing (and that's not just about basketball). We're talking about opinions here....

Also, they have this thing called the Internet. It allows people to watch videos of things that happened in the past. Ever watched any NBA Hardwood Classics?

 

[Nate]

In Jordan's day, Euro players had a tough time getting into the NBA. Now the league is diluted with Euro players. It is weaker than the old days. Bob McAoo (SIC, no D) was as good as Durant, but not a top 5 player of his time. Bernard King would be in the MVP top 3 in this NBA.

The Alvin Adams Phoenix Suns team would be perennial champs against today's teams.

Name a better pair in today's NBA than Dr. J and Moses Malone.

There were two pro leagues that undiluted the NBA when they merged. It effectively added superstar free agents to the existing teams while none lost any of their own.

If you didn't see those guys play, you really missed the best of the NBA.

I see what you're saying about the merger. But I think euro players had a hard time getting into the NBA because basketball wasn't as popular back then. And it still isn't compared to soccer.
Euro players were basically a few decades behind Americans when it came to basketball. That disparity is getting smaller and smaller though. Because now there's more guys from Europe who grew up idolizing Jordan, Kobe, etc. before that, they were idolizing soccer players.
Same with America and soccer. Americans aren't just born shittier soccer players than other countries. We just don't idolize soccer players, so we don't develop a high amount of great soccer players.

 

[Denny Crane]

I see what you're saying about the merger. But I think euro players had a hard time getting into the NBA because basketball wasn't as popular back then. And it still isn't compared to soccer.
Euro players were basically a few decades behind Americans when it came to basketball. That disparity is getting smaller and smaller though. Because now there's more guys from Europe who grew up idolizing Jordan, Kobe, etc. before that, they were idolizing soccer players.
Same with America and soccer. Americans aren't just born shittier soccer players than other countries. We just don't idolize soccer players, so we don't develop a high amount of great soccer players.

Basketball is more popular in the USA, too. All the schools have teams, and the schoolyard is always packed. In Europe, they play soccer like we play basketball.

Our talent is identified at earlier age than before. Coaching has progressed, as has how to train. We have 500 colleges with basketball programs, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, high schools. All that to fill 450 roster spots.

It makes no sense that our league needs an influx of foreign talent. Our players just aren't that good anymore.

Rudy comes here and is meh. He plays in Europe and is a superstar. Sergio, too. That should be a clue.

 

[Nate]

Basketball is more popular in the USA, too. All the schools have teams, and the schoolyard is always packed. In Europe, they play soccer like we play basketball.

Our talent is identified at earlier age than before. Coaching has progressed, as has how to train. We have 500 colleges with basketball programs, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, high schools. All that to fill 450 roster spots.

It makes no sense that our league needs an influx of foreign talent. Our players just aren't that good anymore.

Rudy comes here and is meh. He plays in Europe and is a superstar. Sergio, too. That should be a clue.

How are we getting worse at basketball then?

 

[Denny Crane]

How are we getting worse at basketball then?

Poor fundamentals. Nobody knows how to play C anymore. The Cs used to be the elite players.

Flopping is a skill now.

Bigs shooting 3s and trying to dribble. They all think they're LeBron.

Emphasis on the 3 in general. Pass the ball around the 3pt line until someone can get a shot off.

Zone instead of man defense. You don't need players to be as good at D.

The Bulls had two stars, both were elite defenders. That team's defense was smothering when it needed to be.

The guys with fundamentals are elite today.

 

[Nate]

Poor fundamentals. Nobody knows how to play C anymore. The Cs used to be the elite players.

Flopping is a skill now.

Bigs shooting 3s and trying to dribble. They all think they're LeBron.

Emphasis on the 3 in general. Pass the ball around the 3pt line until someone can get a shot off.

Zone instead of man defense. You don't need players to be as good at D.

The Bulls had two stars, both were elite defenders. That team's defense was smothering when it needed to be.

The guys with fundamentals are elite today.

I respectfully disagree! The nba is definitely different though, you're right about that.

 

[Orion Bailey]

In Jordan's day, Euro players had a tough time getting into the NBA. Now the league is diluted with Euro players. It is weaker than the old days. Bob McAoo (SIC, no D) was as good as Durant, but not a top 5 player of his time. Bernard King would be in the MVP top 3 in this NBA.

The Alvin Adams Phoenix Suns team would be perennial champs against today's teams.

Name a better pair in today's NBA than Dr. J and Moses Malone.

There were two pro leagues that undiluted the NBA when they merged. It effectively added superstar free agents to the existing teams while none lost any of their own.

If you didn't see those guys play, you really missed the best of the NBA.

I don't think that more Euros in the league means the NBA has weakened. I think it means the euro league has strengthened. NBA was very much an American sport for the bulk of its inception until Jordan came along and made it Global. Ever since then international basketball has taken leaps and bounds. I would think it's fair to assume that the players have as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think that more Euros in the league means the NBA has weakened. I think it means the euro league has strengthened. NBA was very much an American sport for the bulk of its inception until Jordan came along and made it Global. Ever since then international basketball has taken leaps and bounds. I would think it's fair to assume that the players have as well.

Nikola Mirotic was MVP in the toughest Euro league, and considered the best player in the world (outside the US). How's his NBA career going? I'm happy with Vonleh

 

[Orion Bailey]

Nikola Mirotic was MVP in the toughest Euro league, and considered the best player in the world (outside the US). How's his NBA career going? I'm happy with Vonleh

Im happy with Vonleh too, but you made an isolated point about a generality. There is no doubt in my mind, even while I know nothing about Euro ball, that the average player and the game as a whole has improved, and with that individual players would be better on average than in past decades. Are they good enough for the NBA now? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that they aren't improving and there might be a gem in the rough in the wrong situation that has the skills to cross over to the NBA. Just saying its pretty difficult to think the league hasn't gotten better considering its infancy in the big picture

 

[Denny Crane]

Im happy with Vonleh too, but you made an isolated point about a generality. There is no doubt in my mind, even while I know nothing about Euro ball, that the average player and the game as a whole has improved, and with that individual players would be better on average than in past decades. Are they good enough for the NBA now? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that they aren't improving and there might be a gem in the rough in the wrong situation that has the skills to cross over to the NBA. Just saying its pretty difficult to think the league hasn't gotten better considering its infancy in the big picture

It has improved, but so should our players. After all, our SFs are now 6'10" with handles.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

I do hate their TV announcers though...worst in the league. On the other hand the obnoxious bandwagon fans that some are complaining about remind me of every other obnoxious bandwagon fans... as a Duck I've seen this from the inside.

STOMP

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.

 

[STOMP]

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

 

[STOMP]

I'm not denying their defense, but I also don't know that I'm wholly buying into it.

Exhibit A: We hung 120 points on them in three straight games.
Exhibit B: OKC went up 3-1, including 133 and 118 point performances. (And then the refs really swung momentum in G5 for GSW.)
Exhibit C: CLE is playing the game at half-speed - that has nothing to do with GSW's defense.

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

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

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

 

[mook]

Poor fundamentals. Nobody knows how to play C anymore. The Cs used to be the elite players.

Flopping is a skill now.

Bigs shooting 3s and trying to dribble. They all think they're LeBron.

Emphasis on the 3 in general. Pass the ball around the 3pt line until someone can get a shot off.

Zone instead of man defense. You don't need players to be as good at D.

The Bulls had two stars, both were elite defenders. That team's defense was smothering when it needed to be.

The guys with fundamentals are elite today.

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.

 

[mook]

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:

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

I don't have a beef with Europeans trying to compete. It just doesn't make sense that they could, considering how soccer is the game they play in their school yards and basketball is the game we play in ours. The superstars over there (Rudy, Sergio) are meh here. So if we have guys who aren't superstars over there playing in our league, then what does it say about the quality of play here?

 

[Denny Crane]

Hakeem was a 3 year US college player and was redshirted his freshman year.

Good example.

There is too much money at stake, indeed. Money to be made selling jerseys overseas.

 

[mook]

I don't have a beef with Europeans trying to compete. It just doesn't make sense that they could, considering how soccer is the game they play in their school yards and basketball is the game we play in ours. The superstars over there (Rudy, Sergio) are meh here. So if we have guys who aren't superstars over there playing in our league, then what does it say about the quality of play here?

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.