Well, basketball is closer to baseball in terms of regular season having many games. The NFL is very different.
It is until it isn't...or, you don't have seven games to win a conference or a championship in the NFL either. So each game means more and shows you a bit more.
The Warriors won 16 more games than the Cavs. That is significant.
It is until it isn't. GS played amazing basketball across a long season. Not sure that didn't catch up to them with OKC until OKC couldn't handle success and stress. How many playoff games have they lost now? And the Cavs? That's also significant...maybe more so.
Again the NFL is different. NBA history has shown far fewer upsets in the post season. Can you name an NBA champion who upset a great team similar to the Giants upset of the Patriots?
I don't think the Pats were an all time great team. They played great with a soft schedule. But when they ran into the right match up they lost. The other loss was with a lesser team on both sides, a hot streak (that happens in the NBA too). Upsets of the kind...Knicks over the Celtics in 73 would be close. Rockets over the Lakers in 86 was pretty big. Rockets over the Spurs in 95 definitely was.
The Warriors were also 3-0 vs the Thunder during the regular. Counting the conference finals the Warriors were 7-3 against the Thunder this season.
Sure did. They beat OKC by 8, 3 and 15. The Cavs beat OKC by 10, 4 and 23. And GS played great through the regular season. The Cavs didn't really gel until late. I think that's one reason for the disparity in the playoffs.
Sure, the Spurs are only the second team with a 10.0+ point differential to not win the NBA title. Granted there have only been 10 such teams. Having a 10.0+ point differential is historically rare and is an strong indicator for histortical greatness IMO.
Great team. I have tremendous respect for them. But time is catching up to a few important pieces. Wear and tear can show up late, even when you rest your old guard as much as you can afford to. It was just a matter of which year, with that answer getting closer each series.
The NBA has been consistantly evolving since its birth. Strategy and stles of play change constantly. As I stated before the 1960's NBA was a run and gun league with teams taking an absurd number of shots per game. That is why the star players were able to put up those gaudy stats. There's a reason why players today can't score 100 points in a game or have 50 rebounds in a game or average a triple double for an entire season and it has nothing to do with lack of talent.
I don't know if it's evolving. It's changing, to be sure. I think there was more physical talent to go around before expansions...but, again, part of that "evolution" lets Curry get away with things he simply couldn't when Jordan was battling past the Pistons.
People always bring up those Pistons team as an example of the NBA's toughness in that era.
Pick another. The Celtics were brutal under the boards. Ask Magic in that first meeting in the finals.
But thos Pistons teams were outliers.
They were teams you had to get through for championships for a while.
They certainly did not represent the typical NBA team of that era.
The typical team didn't win rings.
The rest of the NBA did not play that way at all. In fact the Pistons were heavily critisized for playing "dirty".
They were reviled by some media because they played to the edge of the rules and beyond when they could get away with it. They were hated by teams that lost to them, especially the Bulls. You expect it.
Detrioit knew you had to mug Jordan, to take as much of his physical edge as you could, because you weren't taking his heart or his head away. With a lot of talented players, that sort of mugging would deal a double or triple blow. With Jordan, it just dented him a little...which was enough until the team that started winning was fully in place.
Michael Jordan even stated publically that the Pistons were bad for the NBA and their eventual decline were good for the NBA.
Of course he did. They were the obstacle in his path...he also turned his HOF speech into an embarrassing spectacle, so I don't write a basketball Bible by him...the man who couldn't stand to lose at anything. If there's a thin line between genius and insanity there's a thinner line between ultra competitiveness and immaturity.
When the Bulls finally beat them the Bulls didn't beat them by being dirty and mugging oppsoing players. The Bulls beat the Pistons with skill and athleticism. When the Lakers beat the Pistons for the second title of their back-to-back they beat the Pistons with Showtime, not with clothlines and mugging.
Jackson's use of the triangle beat the Pistons. And age. But the Bulls that dominated used some of that Pistons physicality. Rodman had a lot to do with their dominance. Three great defenders with wingspans sending people inside to get out hustled by Rodman on the boards?
And this idea that Curry couldn't play in the 1980's/90's is nonsense. When did having great shooting, freakish 3-point range, ability to drive to the basketball, strong passing skills and, strong rebounding skills not translate in any era?
I agree on the nonsense part. I don't think he'd be what he is, forget being as effective inside either as a lane driver or rebounder, but a great passer and shooter is going to do damage period.
There was a player named Michael Adams who played from 1986-96. He was 5'10", 162 lbs. He led the NBA is 3-point shooting four years in a row. He was also a great passer. In 1990-91 he averaged 26.5 ppg/10.5 apg/3.9 rpb. This was during the supposed rough NBA so how could a 5'10", 162 lb guy do this? Steph Curry is 5" taller than Adams and has greater shooting range. If Adams could do this back then I have no doubt Curry could have dominated even more.
Well, to begin with he was a one time all-star who only made anything like that 26.5 once in a career. He was mostly a 6 assist, 14 pt player with a good outside shot. Not a tough average to have if you're talented, even with the height disadvantage. The next year he went to the Nuggets and came back to earth.
And the old guard is wrong. It's kind of silly when guys from the 1960's were being negative about the current Warriors. Players from the 1960's are in no position to talk about the supposed poor quality of the game today when in their era a guy scored 100 points in a game and averaged 50 ppg, and was pulling down upwards of 55 rebounds in a game.
Chamberlain? For all his greatness he's still underrated. Benched 500 lbs in his day. Stronger and faster than Shaq. Tremendous force on the boards. And Wilt was in rare shape for any athlete. He only sat an average of 8 minutes in 62. Just a Herculean character in NBA lore.
Oh they have a punchers chance. Any team with LeBron has a chance. LeBron is an all-time great. LeBron will get his stats in these NBA finals.
And the two guys playing with him would be the stars of more than a few NBA teams. I'm not saying they should be favored. I think GS, despite the struggles against a surging OKC, should be favored. They've earned it as they've earned home court...but if I really cared who won in this series I'd be nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair contest, to be sure.
Umm...that guy is the two time league MVP and the reigning scoring champion. Reggie Miller never led the NBA in scoring and never came close to winning the MVP .
Given who he was up against and where he played that shouldn't surprise. And I did say Miller on a hot streak...
Now look at the two outside of politics, rounding up over five.
Curry - Miller
Reg season
Ppg: 22 - 18
Rbs: 4 - 3
Ast: 7 - 3
Stl: 2 - 1
Blk: .2 - .2
FG%: 48 - 47
3pt%: 44 - 40
FT%: 90 - 89
Playoffs
Ppg: 26 - 21
Rbs: 5 - 3
Ast: 7 - 3
Stl: 2 - 1
Blk: .1 - .2
FG%: 45 - 45
3pt%: 41 - 39
FT%: 87 - 89
Not really that far out of Reggie's reach, when you look at the production. At least not at this point, on average.
The Warriors actually have a solid inside game as long as Andrew Bogut stays out of foul trouble.
It's not bad, but they can't win playing inside and they can't man James in a seven game series and win.
That was a major reason for those two bad loses against OKC.
I'd say the biggest reason was a psychological folding chair for Durant and Westbrook, who hadn't been there and heard footsteps. They both need to go somewhere and play with someone who can take the heat off of them. :think:
