Yeah, I know people may point to LBJ’s W-L record in the Finals but it’s a pretty lame academic exercise. James has had the misfortune of playing some great teams and with the exception of the Miami Heat, he’s pretty much had to carry his teams to the Finals. In my mind, James’ legacy was actually cemented in the 2015 loss to the Warriors. The fact that they actually had a 2-1 lead at one point against a team that could have easily swept them was pretty impressive, and without Irving, it was pretty much the Lebron show. Coming from a 3-1 deficit last year against a team that had the best W-L record in regular season history built on that legacy. But I’m afraid they’re playing a Warriors team that just has too many ways to stretch the Cavs this time.
There’s precedent for that: in 1980, as part of the NBA’s 35th-anniversary celebration, the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America picked a team to honor as the greatest of all time. They chose the 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers, rather than any of the Celtics teams that had won the title in 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, and 1969.
I have to assume that the Sixers breaking a hole in the legendary Celtics title run was what won over the voters. Who knows, if the Warriors rattle off 4 or 5 straight titles, the '15-'16 Cavs might be exalted in the same way the Sixers were, as a team of giant-slayers.
There’s something to be said for beating teams that have established themselves as being good. The Spurs of 2014 are, in my mind, one of the best teams I can remember seeing in recent years, having crushed a team that was making its 4th straight trip to the Finals and had won the previous 2. But if the Warriors go undefeated in the playoffs and cruise to victory over these defending champion Cavs, it’s hard not to see how they’re among the best ever, if not the best.
This warriors team is not better than the 2001 Lakers or 2007 Spurs. And GS is not sweeping the cavs in Cleveland.
Certainly this Warriors team is among the greatest-ever teams in NBA history.
I think they’re right up there. As I Lakers fan, the 2001 squad was always one of my favorites and you won’t get any argument from me that they were impressive. But the style of play that the Warriors bring to the court would have presented some real problems for the Lakers. I think the 2002 Sacramento Kings showed some of the vulnerabilities of the Lakers when playing teams that moved fast and passed and shot the ball well. The Lakers just barely won that conference finals series and the Warriors are much, much better than the Kings were. You could argue it was a different year and a different team, and you’d be right, but it wasn’t that much different. The 2007 Spurs were certainly a team that would match up well against any.
I think the Cavs could possibly take game 3 at home, but the series will most likely end in Cleveland sometime this week. The Cavs looked and played noticeably better. They probably threw their best punches at GS and it didn’t matter. The Warriors still cruised to victory. The Cavs did a much better job of defending, especially tightening things up in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. But the Warriors just have too many ways to score and we also saw that when Golden State asserts itself on defense with timely shot blocking, it can be demoralizing. Golden State still really hasn’t played its best defensive game yet and it already has 2 victors with an average point margin of more than 20 points. Just imagine what happens if they turn up the defensive intensity a little more.
I wouldn’t call game 2 a cruise for GS. The Cavs hung in there close for 3 Qs, even though GS threw a lot at them. I was nervous for a while, really until the 4th when they started pulling away.
Look, I want a sweep, but GS has a tough fight on their hands for games 3 and 4 at The Q. I think GS can sweep, but it won’t be easy.
I don’t know… I mean, yeah, nobody on the Warriors could seriously slow down 2001 Shaq, but on the other hand, who would Shaq cover on the other end? And, related, who could seriously slow down Durant? I think the current playoffs are showing that two great scorers and mediocre defense is not enough to beat these Warriors. Remember, shooting 50% from three is better than 70% from in the paint.
Plus, of course, the 2001-2 Lakers weren’t even clearly the best team in their conference (if it takes overtime of game 7 to get a series winner, you can’t really say one team is clearly better).
2007 Spurs vs current Warriors would be fun (what’s the over/under for number of assists?), but I think Durant tips the scales.
Eh, I think Golden State’s unforced turnovers and Draymond’s foul trouble did more to keep the game close than anything Cleveland did. Even with those things giving the Cavaliers a chance, plus Love showing up and LeBron being LeBron, Klay Thompson found his stroke and the Warriors buried them. The game just never seemed close, even when the score indicated otherwise. Cleveland was fighting, and Golden State seemed like they just bumped the cruise control up a couple clicks.
Cleveland might be able to steal a game at home with the added energy from the crowd, and maybe they can snowball from that, but I’m just not seeing it. The addition of KD just made this season a non-issue. Take MVP, add MVP, collect trophies.
The NBA is boring with just two superteams, but last year’s finals were pretty great. The Warriors felt like a good team that built themselves the right way, but this Durant shit just kinda ruins what could’ve been a great rivalry. The two superteams sort of makes a joke of the league, but the super-super team even more so. It turns something that felt like an organically developed team into a fluke situation that allows them to play the game on easy mode.
The Cavs look like they’re playing with every bit of effort they can muster just to keep their heads above water, while the Warriors just casually knock away 25 footers all day.
They’re not doing too bad at the moment.
Maybe next year the warriors can win every single game in the regular season and sweep another playoffs and finals and they can just dissolve the NBA.
So much for that.
Whoa - an 11-0 Warriors run to eke out the win. Curious to see if it’ll be a full play-offs sweep.
I don’t get to see the Warriors much out here in the East, and I know they’re really, really, really good, but they truly do have the ability to run off a dozen points as pretty much at will as I’ve never seen before, and I started following the NBA in 1987. There have been other teams that were really, really good, but this is almost unfair. They are up against a ridiculous team, featuring a genuinely transcendent player on the very very short list for GOAT, surrounded by the best supporting cast he’s ever had, and it looks like the Warriors are just toying with them.
This is what makes the NBA finals uninteresting to me. It’s the damn three point shot. I know, I know, it’s “the way of things” but these shots keep coming from further and further out. I think this is the root of the issue. The “problem” is that they keep making them! Curry is shooting somewhere around 40% from 35 feet out. It’s UNHEARD of.
So, something will need to be addressed at some point. Moving the line out further…maybe. Other than that I’ve got nothing.
The problem with moving the three point line out is that it plays into Curry’s strengths even more. Move the line back a few feet and Curry’s maybe the only guy for whom it’s a positive expectation shot. It reminds me a bit of when they started Tiger-proofing golf courses, and it just made it so Tiger was the only one with the length to handle them.
For game 4, who is going to have the stronger drive and will to win? Will it be Cleveland, trying desperately to at least avoid being swept, and wanting to give their fans something to cheer about, or will it be the Warriors, wanting to sweep and set incredible records and assert their dominance on the entire league?
I’d say 3 point shooting has become particularly good over the past 5-10 years or so. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the NBA was much more about low-post scoring and kicking it out for the occasional 3 pointer when the double teams got too intense. Over the past 10 years, however, the NBA has changed its style of play – probably so that they could regain their edge when playing in international competition. I actually like the changes. I think it’s better fundamental basketball and the old NBA was deluding itself by thinking it was losing FIBA and Olympics because they were forced to play a softer game that wasn’t “real” basketball. This is real basketball. Passing the ball to some 7’1" 345 pound oaf who crushes anyone in his path isn’t real basketball. Moving the ball and keeping defenses off balance until you find a mismatch – that’s basketball.