TH, buddy, what do the Colt have to do with the Warriors or basketball?
The perception of a team predicated on their regular season dominance was the connection.
My previous post pointed out how truly dominant the Warriors were during the regular season.
Like the Colts for many years.
Even if I were not a Warriors fan I would still make the same points.
I don't doubt it. I'm a Celtics fan, which means I've got a wait...
The Warriors regular season performance is easily of the top 10 greatest regular seasons in NBA history.
I don't think the competition is strong enough to make that case unless you ignore context and just go by the numbers. To my mind that's a bit like ranking all time QBs without noting the rules changes and philosophical shift that made a half dozen people instant Marinos.
I'm not saying they aren't a talented team. They are. I'm not saying that their PG isn't remarkable. He is. But I am saying that if you put them in the Jordan era they wouldn't look that remarkable.
I simply cannot agree the Warriors were lucky to win the finals.
I'd say it's more that Cleveland was ridiculously unlucky.
The Warriors won their four games by 8, 13, 21, and 8 points.
Against a team absent two players good for better than all but one of those margins set against the production of their replacements. One of the 8s was in overtime, which should belong to a team at full strength playing a depleted roster.
They lost game 3 by 6 points with Curry have a HORRIBLE game.
You're not helping your case by noting the league MVP was significantly restricted by a team starting to bench players.
The reality is that the Cavs were lucky to even win 2 games.
A great team takes Cleveland out in a sweep. One player and the two weakest starters behind him left and a team with the kind of success and talent GS has, sporting the league MVP loses two and only looks dominant in one?
When the Warrior coaches changed up their lineup they ran the Cavs off the floor when it really mattered.
No, GS got off to a better start and despite both squads swapping quarters held on for the win against a tired Cleveland.
This Warriors team is a young team with no NBA finals experience. Some of that inexperience showed during the series but their talent and depth simply won out in the end.
You mean won out in the beginning, as in the first quarter. The Cavs traded with them thereafter.
As for the Cavs not being at full strength many of the past great teams had such advantages as well. In the 1989 NBA (Pistons vs Lakers) Byron Scott got injured right before Game 1 missing the entire series. Then Magic Johnson pulled his hamstring in game 1 and missed the rest of the series. The Lakers still played the Piston tough but the Pistons won the series 4-0. Should the Pistons championship be "devalued" because of the unfortunate injuries to two key Lakers players?
You can't compare the talent on those teams with Cleveland, top to bottom. You want to run those rosters? And even so, as you note, the Pistons swept them. As they should have (either) if they wanted to be considered one of the best to run a series.
lain: 
