Yep, Warriors probably wrap it up tonight, but what an underwhelming run for the GSW. So many losses on their way to the title, and they didn't even have to match up with the Spurs, the 2nd best team in the league. And enigmatic play from one star (Curry, who took at entire game off, and I mean completely, in the finals) and stupid play from another (Draymond). Now, if the Cavs actually decoy Lebron and Irving just a little bit and get Love going... (a la some of the eastern conference playoff games)... could get a little interesting.
How can their run be underwhelming when they just broke the ******* regular season record? Also every title is special, because you have to win 4 best of 7s to do it. Its not like March Madness or NFL where some unknown team gets a winning streak and suddenly wins a championship, in the NBA the best team is usually the holding the trophy at the end. Also Spurs can't be the 2nd best team because they got eliminated by someone else, if they were really that hot they wouldn't have lost a best of 7 series c'mon.
(sigh). Sorry it wasn't obvious: I meant their playoff run. Just not very dominant. Inconsistent, to put it nicely. I grew up when a dominant team could declare fo' fo' fo' and almost flawlessly back that up. The '83 Sixers, with Moses and Doctor J, swept the incredible showtime Lakers in the finals. It was a massacre and amazing to watch. I'll stick to my statement, and if you want elaboration: yes, record-breaking regular season. We've all heard about it ad nauseum and it's totally true. They have the best regular season record ever. Maybe they peaked early or something. Maybe they spent too much energy getting that record, but starting with losing a game to the Rockets, their playoffs haven't been that special. Without a Klay miracle, and without the league not suspending Draymond in the OKC series, they wouldn't even be in the finals.
How much weight does playoff run really matter compared to regular season though? I feel like the NBA season builds the hype for how great a team is and the championship is validation only, regardless of record in the playoffs. Everyone remembers the 72-10 Bulls, Jordan's MVP season and how they were arguably the greatest team ever. Well they actually lost 3 games in the playoffs. Yet we hear much less of the 2001 Lakers which lost only a single game in the playoffs because they went 56-26 in the regular season, not good enough to build historically great hype. The Warriors have built hype during the regular season and broke the Bulls' record. Looking back ten years from now, nobody will remember nor care about their playoff record as long as they're able to win the title.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Report: Cavaliers wanted Draymond Green suspended two games <a href="https://t.co/j0rbBSqobv">https://t.co/j0rbBSqobv</a></p>— Kurt Helin (@basketballtalk) <a href="https://twitter.com/basketballtalk/status/743461657372811266">June 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I posted this before, fwiw. GSW's run to title so far ... 88-16 = .846 Bulls run to title ... 87-13 = .870 Bulls following title -- 84-17 = .831 GSW cannot match the Bulls winning %. And they can actually drop behind the Bulls '97 record, if Cavs pull it out. note: Bulls only played best of 5 in first rounds back then. Swept both years - 3-0. So, we can probably consider those 4-0 wins.
Nobody does the percentage calculations lol, and when they count wins its usually regular season because playoffs are almost like a completely new league because the league matches changes so much.
Competition back in the 80's wasn't that good because everyone was still figuring the whole drafting and managing the salary cap thing out so some guys like Jerry Krause got it while others didn't. If all you wanted was dominant teams, then the 80's teams you're talking about paled in comparison to the Celtics Russell team. They won like 9 rings in a row, and then Russell was still able to be both a player and a coach at the same time. How's that for dominant?
A fine but unanswerable question. Good points. I think losing 1 or 3 games in the playoffs is different than losing 7 or 8. Every average year has a championship team losing about 7 games. I agree with you that the 2001 Lakers should be considered special. I have to admit, folks, that I'm over-reacting to being immersed in the Bay Area and Bay Area media. That said, even here in SF, people are really questioning "what's wrong" with the team in the playoffs. They've come out flat several times, and Curry hasn't looked competitive at times. I think most (not all) people agree on that. It's just an interesting topic. My eye test says something is distracting Curry off the court. Maybe a family issue, but I have no evidence for that other than the way he's competed in a couple of these games.
Spoiler http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/16234289/5-5-experts-debate-golden-state-warriors-vs-cleveland-cavaliers-game-6-nba-finals
The Warriors(assuming they win the title) are kinda mirroring the 1991-92 Bulls. That team went 61-21 the year before and dominated in the playoffs with a 15-2 run en route to their first title. The following year, they won 6 more games and finished 67-15. But they struggled in the playoffs a lot more than the previous year and went 15-7 including that 7-game slugfest with the Knicks in the Semifinals. They lost a game at home in the Semifinals, WCF, and Finals. The Warriors went 67-15 last year and had a relatively easy run in the playoffs with a 16-5 record. No doubt their opponents all nursing injuries played a role. This season they won 6 more games and finished 73-9. But so far they've struggled in the playoffs going 15-7 thus far including that 7-game slugfest with the Thunder in the WCF which required a 3-1 comeback. They've lost a game at home in the WCF and Finals.
I did say "fwiw" But your point is because no one has broken the Bull's record before. There was a 1 game difference. Do you really think ppl won't look at playoff performance at all, like no one will, if both win the title. Certainly in football ppl would look at how convincingly someone won throughout the playoffs when comparing two identical regular season records. And here we are talking about one game out of 82 Why would the NBA be different than football wrt looking at the whole body of work Bottom line: saying ppl don't look at playoff record as much as regular season, simply doesn't address the fact that no one has won 70 games before other than the Bulls. So this is an unprecedented comparison
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Including playoffs, Golden State is 16-0 under Kerr in games officiated by Ken Mauer.</p>— NBA Ref Stats (@NBARefStats) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBARefStats/status/743529572151394304">June 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stephen Curry: 22 3-ptrs (on 55 attempts) this series. Record for 3-ptrs in one NBA Finals is 27 (on 49 attempts) by Danny Green in 2013.</p>— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/743487042231865344">June 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Damn...This is sick... Kudos to Zach Lee. The video is viral. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MUST WATCH: Put this together for my <a href="https://twitter.com/cavs">@Cavs</a> fans. Enjoy. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefendTheLand?src=hash">#DefendTheLand</a><a href="https://t.co/QTLG8HvymC">https://t.co/QTLG8HvymC</a></p>— Zach Lee (@ZachLeeTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/ZachLeeTV/status/743426353366609922">June 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
