Current Golden State Warriors vs. Other All Time Great Teams

94-95 Rockets would have destroyed them /thread

 

17-18 Rockets almost destroyed them /thread

 

What's the point of speculating? Warriors fan?

 

They were one Iguodala from choking it all.

That's like saying Jordan wouldn't threepeet the first time without BJ Armsrong.

 

I genuinely wonder if Shaq would dominate them or be unplayable - today's rules.

 

True

 

how many of the other team's best players are injured? gonna need a minimum 1 HOF'er or 2 all-stars out of the game.


but to answer seriously, the injuries thing doesn't mean they weren't rightful champions, but it does affect how we evaluate them. they might be the most talented team ever assembled, but they needed the other team's 2nd best player to be injured to not lose to 3 people (paul, harden, d'antoni) considered playoff losers before the series started.

they probably beat the spurs last year even with kawhi, but all we know is that with kawhi, they were getting worked something fierce.

pre-durant, they struggled to beat lebron without love and irving.

i suppose you can argue they aren't unbeatable and they really did need kevin durant and he didn't ruin the nba, but only because they seem to come up so short in the playoffs against elite opponents that they make the seemingly inevitable the merely highly probable.

if the 2017-18 rockets frustrated the warriors, the 90's bulls would certainly do so with their defense. and you'd have 2 excellent playmakers on offense (and a 3rd with kukoc in the 2nd 3-peat). you'd have to put several and maybe up to 5 (not 1998) bulls teams over the warriors in a head to head.

it's somewhat difficult to evaluate the 80's dynasties because defense was played so sparingly. people remember the 1 flagrant, but don't remember the other 99 possessions where all-time great teams are putting in rec league defensive effort. see Hardwood Classics for more information. in a vacuum, the warriors offense would simply play guys like kareem and mchale and parish off the floor. given some time to adjust and with 80's illegal defense rules, you would think those guys would score tons in the post. if we're just comparing how they did versus their era, i could see putting the '86 celtics and '87 lakers over the warriors just due to the warriors fall off in the playoffs.

peak spurs defense may not have had enough offense but certainly with time to implement a switching D would have given the warriors all they wanted (the 80 year old version of the spurs was guarding them and the younger spurs would have bruce bowen giving curry the zaza treatment). the "beautiful game" spurs of 2014 probably wouldn't be able to hang because the warriors wouldn't be old and worn out like the heat. as good as they've been, i'm not sure the spurs have ever peaked as high as some other teams.

Ziggy brings up a good question with shaq. it might just depend on the illegal defense rules. if they still had illegal defense, shaq would have draymond backed under the basket on every single play. i don't care how good draymond is, he ain't keeping shaq out of position any better than the dale davis' of the world back in the day. you would almost have to count on draymond being in fould trouble a significant percentage of the time. and they would literally have no one else to guard him (obviously teams are just constructed differently these days). it would seemingly be shaq vs the eastern conference level of dominance where 40 and 20 would just the norm now could shaq find someone to guard? shaq already wasn't great at PnR defense. now turn it up to 11 with the warriors (and the lakers don't get to play illegal defense either).

it seems obvious to just stick him on draymond because he can't shoot, but the first time draymond sets a pick for curry and shaq is 20 feet away, that strategy won't seem so good.

without illegal defense, you wonder what the warriors could do defensively. virtually no one can post up any more. even the bigs who are good (davis, cousins) have to do so much more than post up to score and shaq couldn't do those things. i mean i think shaq would still get his huge numbers, but in 2000 shaq got his numbers and was still a great rim protector with enormous defensive value. now he'd get those numbers and be struggling to keep up on defense. but kobe, fox, fisher would still be a pretty good set of defenders for the warriors. the blazers and kings almost beat the lakers so i don't see it as impossible for the warriors (outside of 2001), but i think you'd be tempted to give it to whichever team had the rules for which they were constructed.

 

It's all about matchups. Warriors actually don't match up that well with other great teams.

For example, Harden would destroy Shaq 1-on-1 period. Shaq would be unplayable. Curry and Durant are not that good in 1-on-1 pick and roll. Curry often chokes and Durant doesn't dribble very well.

 

They didn't, really. In the 2015-16 regular season, they beat Cleveland both times in the regular season by like an average of 20 PPG per game. And then they went up 3-1 in the Finals before losing Draymond for a game due to suspension, Bogut for the last few games to any injury and Iguodala barely functional due to a back injury. Had Golden State been fully healthy (and not missing Green to suspension), they almost surely win that series in 5, IMO.

I find the Warriors as annoying as anyone, but it's not their fault that opposing players have been injured (with the arguable exception of Kawhai...). The narrative that they needed those injuries just seems like wishful thinking, that, in Harden's words, "They ain't even that good."

 

Also, the Warriors don't play their "death lineup" all game, or even most of the game. They wouldn't defend Shaq with Green. They'd defend him the same way the '90s Bulls did--with a large gump and selective double-teaming. The Bulls had Longley, who was no star offensively or defensively, the Warriors would use use someone like Pachulia, who's pretty similar in quality. Losing that match-up didn't doom the Bulls and it wouldn't doom the Warriors. They could play their small lineup whenever Shaq was on the bench.

 

no and no