Who hits 70 first, Warrior wins or 76ers losses?

[Virtanen18]

I hate them but....San Antonio can beat anybody.

They've been worse than Golden State this year and last year, but sure, they can beat anybody. Do they have the ability? Maybe. But they weren't beating the Warriors last year.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Lol. Anything to back up their fall from grace?

You act like 59 wins is terrible.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

They've been worse than Golden State this year and last year, but sure, they can beat anybody. Do they have the ability? Maybe. But they weren't beating the Warriors last year.

San Antonio is notorious for taking nights off. They don't care as badly as others about the regular season. They know what to do.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

It still makes no sense where you see them as a 50 win team. They win 67 a year ago, win the title. Have won 20 straight games dating back to last season. Are something absurd like 57-4 on home court in the last year. Play at a pace that is tops in the league. Points per 100 poss. is still elite. Curry has elevated his play, get this, after his MVP season. Start a season 16-0. But yes, they're on the decline and haven't proved a thing yet.

I never said "50" I said 50 something which goes up to...59.

You really think they are gunna continue shooting lights out? They won't go 39-2 at home again. Is there really a basis? From a logical standpoint there's no way a team can keep up a pace long term and see no stretches of failure. They won't shoot lights out all year like last year. Historic season but over time things balance out. They will hit struggles. The season is long and teams get bored. Also teams give you there best now that you won it all. Hell they almost lost to the Nets at home. Last year they lost to the Bulls and Clippers. Not exactly slouches. They were pasting bad teams. Plus...they'll lose some on the road. I don't think seeing 8 less games when it was such a big number really goes as a decline because teams don't win 60 something very often. It'd still get them the top seed more than likely. I think people have put them on an absurd pedestal. People don't realize that expecting them to win that many or more is a big task. Expecting less wins isn't crazy when they had that many. The season is young. Its not even December yet. Let's slow down a bit here.

 

[Timo Time]

I never said "50" I said 50 something which goes up to...59.

You really think they are gunna continue shooting lights out? They won't go 39-2 at home again. Is there really a basis? From a logical standpoint there's no way a team can keep up a pace long term and see no stretches of failure. They won't shoot lights out all year like last year. Historic season but over time things balance out. They will hit struggles. The season is long and teams get bored. Also teams give you there best now that you won it all. Hell they almost lost to the Nets at home. Last year they lost to the Bulls and Clippers. Not exactly slouches. They were pasting bad teams. Plus...they'll lose some on the road. I don't think seeing 8 less games when it was such a big number really goes as a decline because teams don't win 60 something very often. It'd still get them the top seed more than likely. I think people have put them on an absurd pedestal. People don't realize that expecting them to win that many or more is a big task. Expecting less wins isn't crazy when they had that many. The season is young. Its not even December yet. Let's slow down a bit here.

Just last page, you said the Clippers aren't good. Now you're putting them back on competitive nature? Your reasoning has little, to no evidence as to why you think they'll regress, other than your "hunch." Pretty sure a win is a win in anyone's book, but they're winning by nearly 14 points a game every night. The eye test and advanced test say they're an elite group and nothing than the tear that they are currently on and last years title run would say otherwise.

You also make it sound like they shouldn't be beating the team they're supposed to. So what if they pound on teams that are sub .500. They're supposed to and expected to do so.

 

[Virtanen18]

You act like 59 wins is terrible.

And you act like 67+title+16-0 is not great. If you're not impressed by the Warriors, I'm not sure the sport is for you.

 

[George Binks]

Gotta say warriors but I doubt either reach it

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Just last page, you said the Clippers aren't good. Now you're putting them back on competitive nature? Your reasoning has little, to no evidence as to why you think they'll regress, other than your "hunch." Pretty sure a win is a win in anyone's book, but they're winning by nearly 14 points a game every night. The eye test and advanced test say they're an elite group and nothing than the tear that they are currently on and last years title run would say otherwise.

You also make it sound like they shouldn't be beating the team they're supposed to. So what if they pound on teams that are sub .500. They're supposed to and expected to do so.

This was based off of last year. Clippers made the 2nd round, no? I didn't say I was saying they are solid or anything. I was just pointing out last year who they lost to and last year those were quality teams. That's all.

Stats are flawed. They have some big wins. I know there's like a 50 point win in there somewhere. A big game like that will make any average go up because there's a few games they haven't even won by DD.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

And you act like 67+title+16-0 is not great. If you're not impressed by the Warriors, I'm not sure the sport is for you.

Personally I'm not huge on the NBA anymore. Its awful team basketball. You don't really have to watch the league strongly though to figure out the differences between the quality and average to nothing teams. There's not even enough quality talent out there to fill all 30 rosters and you can't win without some kinda star. The Warriors would get handled in an era where defense was actually played. Some of you may be too young to remember but even in the 90s there was a time where teams would not let you shoot wide open shots. Now the rules sort of favor the 3 and all that. The 3 ball hasn't always been that big in basketball like it is today. Teams are not as big as a result of how the game is played so a little bug like Curry can flourish. His game/there game wouldn't always have worked in this league.

 

[Virtanen18]

Personally I'm not huge on the NBA anymore. Its awful team basketball. You don't really have to watch the league strongly though to figure out the differences between the quality and average to nothing teams. There's not even enough quality talent out there to fill all 30 rosters and you can't win without some kinda star. The Warriors would get handled in an era where defense was actually played. Some of you may be too young to remember but even in the 90s there was a time where teams would not let you shoot wide open shots. Now the rules sort of favor the 3 and all that. The 3 ball hasn't always been that big in basketball like it is today. Teams are not as big as a result of how the game is played so a little bug like Curry can flourish. His game/there game wouldn't always have worked in this league.

You're gonna moan and groan about "awful team basketball" and then bash the Warriors? Does not compute. If you think they're all about the 3, you're sadly mistaken. I dunno about the 90s, but I'm hard pressed to believe the Warriors team basketball with excellent shooting would not succeed because of an era.

And are you saying you can't win the big one without some kinda star? Did the Spurs have one standout star like that? Kawhi was finals MVP but he wasn't your typical "star" at that time.

 

[WTFetus]

Honestly, by your recent post, I don't think you even watched 90s ball. You definitely haven't watched the Warriors play a single game these last two seasons.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Kings are gonna end the streak.... nah, they'll lose by 25.

 

[darko]

Personally I'm not huge on the NBA anymore. Its awful team basketball. You don't really have to watch the league strongly though to figure out the differences between the quality and average to nothing teams. There's not even enough quality talent out there to fill all 30 rosters and you can't win without some kinda star. The Warriors would get handled in an era where defense was actually played. Some of you may be too young to remember but even in the 90s there was a time where teams would not let you shoot wide open shots. Now the rules sort of favor the 3 and all that. The 3 ball hasn't always been that big in basketball like it is today. Teams are not as big as a result of how the game is played so a little bug like Curry can flourish. His game/there game wouldn't always have worked in this league.

The game has changed, get over it. 70s and 80s was different to 90s and early 00s. It happens.

Not sure how you can watch Warriors games and not be impressed.

 

[darko]

You're gonna moan and groan about "awful team basketball" and then bash the Warriors? Does not compute. If you think they're all about the 3, you're sadly mistaken. I dunno about the 90s, but I'm hard pressed to believe the Warriors team basketball with excellent shooting would not succeed because of an era.

And are you saying you can't win the big one without some kinda star? Did the Spurs have one standout star like that? Kawhi was finals MVP but he wasn't your typical "star" at that time.

They'd definitely succeed. Just impossible to tell how great they'd be. 90s (and early 00s) had lot of dominant big men. Warriors would have tough time stopping them. Warriors would be the fastest team those 90s teams have played and would torch them from the outside. 90s was a big boy league, today is a quicker league.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

They'd definitely succeed. Just impossible to tell how great they'd be. 90s (and early 00s) had lot of dominant big men. Warriors would have tough time stopping them. Warriors would be the fastest team those 90s teams have played and would torch them from the outside. 90s was a big boy league, today is a quicker league.

What do you consider succeeding? I mean they'd probably win 40-50 or so but I think they'd struggle in the playoffs. Sadly the league doesn't value big men anymore. Its fun to watch a guy like Porzingis though.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

The game has changed, get over it. 70s and 80s was different to 90s and early 00s. It happens.

Not sure how you can watch Warriors games and not be impressed.

The NBA isn't real basketball anymore is a part of it. Its become street ball. As boring as they are and I don't care for them but the Spurs play great team ball. Now if you don't have a star you might as well pack it up and go home before the season starts.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Honestly, by your recent post, I don't think you even watched 90s ball. You definitely haven't watched the Warriors play a single game these last two seasons.

Who are you referring to? The 90s was great. You had the Pistons who played tough guy ball and it worked for a few years. The Bulls had MJ but they also had guys like Pippen and Rodman. They were unstoppable in the paint. The only team who really was an anomaly was the Pacers with Reggie. He was fun to watch but he could do it all. The Jazz had the mail man and well the Rockets were quite a team even after the Championship years and they had Barkley. The Knicks certainly centered their team around Ewing though his legs gave out towards the end. Then they became a team centered around Houston. Still the games were intense. Who doesn't remember Miami and NY fighting in the playoffs. Teams actually played D and protected the rim. Now the rules are so soft. Hard foul? Flagrant!

 

[Virtanen18]

You need great players to win? Bush league!

 

[darko]

What do you consider succeeding? I mean they'd probably win 40-50 or so but I think they'd struggle in the playoffs. Sadly the league doesn't value big men anymore. Its fun to watch a guy like Porzingis though.

I'm talking different type of big men. Post up types. Shaq, Olajuwon, Admiral, Ewing, Alonzo, Duncan early etc. The most equipped team to stop Shaq was probably early 00s Blazers when they stockpiled big men like Sheed, Sabonis, Dale Davis, Kemp etc to try and stop Shaq. Shaq would give Warriors fits. Warriors would give teams fits with their speed. Warriors would still be up there, just not sure if they'd be a top dog. It's also unfair comparisons because 90s and early 00s had 2 of the biggest dynasties ever (Bulls and Lakers).

 

[darko]

The NBA isn't real basketball anymore is a part of it. Its become street ball. As boring as they are and I don't care for them but the Spurs play great team ball. Now if you don't have a star you might as well pack it up and go home before the season starts.

Doesn't make sense at all.

90s/early 00s:
Bulls (Jordan) - IMO Pippen is a star too
Rockets (Olajuwon)
Spurs (Duncan)
Lakers (Kobe, Shaq)

Even teams that fell short had stars: Jazz (Malone and Stockton), Kings (Webber), Sonics (Kemp and Peyton).


You'd be hard pressed to find a team that has gone all the way without a star player. I'd probably say 89 Pistons with Dumars, Thomas and Lambeer.

 

[BostonBob]

I get the feeling Brooklyn may lose more games than Philly when it's all set and done.

Boston Celtic fans certainly hope you are right.

 

[BostonBob]

And by the way - Kobe Bryant taking 70 shots in one game should have been an option.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Doesn't make sense at all.

90s/early 00s:
Bulls (Jordan) - IMO Pippen is a star too
Rockets (Olajuwon)
Spurs (Duncan)
Lakers (Kobe, Shaq)

Even teams that fell short had stars: Jazz (Malone and Stockton), Kings (Webber), Sonics (Kemp and Peyton).


You'd be hard pressed to find a team that has gone all the way without a star player. I'd probably say 89 Pistons with Dumars, Thomas and Lambeer.

Those Pistons teams had nobody amazing. Thomas was a good player but hr wasn't like some elite incredible stud. You could argue the Spurs when they beat the Heat. Duncan isn't the guy he was. In his prime for his position he was incredible. Parker is also over the hill. Ginobli. They are an exception though as they've played together for years.

What about the 04 Pistons? Billups was a good FT shooter and all but they didn't have a superstar or even star. They had a big oaf like Ben Wallace and Shred.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Boston Celtic fans certainly hope you are right.

Won't happen. The Sixer's are horrible. The Nets are atleast somewhat competitive.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

And by the way - Kobe Bryant taking 70 shots in one game should have been an option.

And the Lakers would still lose that game lol