You could be right. They are very, very good. I share this sentiment. Rockets really do have a chance here since it's back-to-back on the road for the Dubs. One thing you cannot account for in these scenarios is injuries. You never know when somebody is going to go down. Steph goes down and this is a .500 team. And on a final note, I think Boston showed us something against GSW last night even though the game was somewhat marred by GSW missing Klay/Barnes. Boston consistently brought the ball up and burned clock and came up with good looks against the Dubs defense. KEY: Burn clock. This forces GS to defend, and takes some juice out of their legs. Boston almost got them. And this is why I think the Cavs (or possibly Spurs) are going to get them in a 7-game dogfight. The Cavs have the power inside to really grind down the Warriors. And Lebron at the 5 going against Draymond is the answer for the Dubs small ball lineup.
Saying if Stephen goes down and this is a. 500 team is like saying goes if we didn't have harden we'd be the worst team in the NBA. It's not really saying a whole lot. And they're definitely not putting LeBron at the 5 vs Warriors small ball. You can't go small vs them and expect to win, especially when green plays elite rim protection. They're gonna go big, like the spurs are going to do and try kill them on the glass. Love/Thompson, lma/Duncan might have a shot.
Then they are dumb too. I mean, if you are bragging about a team winning consecutive games you shouldn't just discount the games they lost that actually counted for something. It wouldn't be stupid if they started counting the ones from the playoffs and kept the count going. But to say a team won X straight when there are clearly losses in the middle, that you just choose to account for in a different set of books, naw....
A key factor you're overlooking...this is the tail end of a long road trip. In fact, if the Warriors win tonight, they'll be the first team in NBA history to sweep a seven-game road trip. That should put into perspective how difficult a seven-game trip is. "Wearing them out" won't be a viable strategy in the playoffs because you get plenty of rest over the course of the series. There are never any back-to-backs or three-games-in-four-nights sets. Not to mention, both teams are on the same schedule during a series...Boston showed that a fresher team, at home, can to an extent wear down a tired Warriors team who's missing two starters. That doesn't sound like any sort of blueprint or repeatable plan. Most of the time, the Warriors will probably have the edge in terms of being fresh, because they have arguably the deepest team in basketball in addition to the most talented.
At least in this case, it hardly matters. If the league counted the playoffs, the Warriors would be on a 27 game streak instead of 28, since they won 3 straight to end the Finals. It's not like the Warriors are carrying over a 15 game streak from last year or anything.
So, take away three starters from an NBA team and they're not as good as they would be with them? lol ok. Take away the best, 2nd best and 4th best starter from any team - they'd be bottom 5 too.
That's the point I'm making. Someone said no Curry = .500 team. Lolno, no Curry and they're bottom 5.
I don't believe that's true. Thompson can still play both ways, and Draymond is still a beast on both ends as well. Bogut is a great defender, and Iggy is a good wing. They won't be the best in the league without Curry, but I doubt they'd be anywhere near the bottom 5.
I don't think they do as well without Curry drawing the attention of every defender on the court. Klay would somewhat fill that roll, but he's not as much of a dynamic off the dribble scorer as Curry is. Maybe not bottom five, but they won't be a playoff team.
Warriors don't seem too disappointed. They actually went over to shake hands with the Bucks after losing.
Called it. I knew the Bucks would end the streak. Although I voted for Charlotte, in my head I voted for Bucks.
