Kevin Durant Longhorn Legend

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

Wanting and needing are obviously two different things, and that’s where we disagree. Would they have lost to the Cavs the last few years without KD? Maybe. I don’t think so, but maybe. Adding KD just removed all doubt. When you add (at the time) the 2nd best player in the league to what was already clearly the best team in the league, and probably a top 3 team all time, it’s kind of icing on the cake. 

[aggie08 21733]

I think everyone can agree that they wouldn't about to be 3-time defending champions in a few weeks (most likely) without KD. I have a REALLY hard time believing that their nucleus and front office would be 0-3 in that span had they used the salary spike to add post depth (instead of signing KD) and re-signed Barnes, but they sure as shit wouldn't be 3-3.

So, yeah, they needed KD to become an all-time historic dynasty. No one makes documentaries about that team from 30 years ago that won 2 titles in 5 seasons. 

And I don't fault KD in the slightest for wanting to help create that. Especially when the only other reasonable option at the time was Boston.

Edited May 17, 2019 by aggie08

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

19 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I think everyone can agree that they wouldn't about to be 3-time defending champions in a few weeks (most likely) without KD. I have a REALLY hard time believing that their nucleus and front office would be 0-3 in that span had they used the salary spike to add post depth (instead of signing KD) and re-signing Barnes, but they sure as shit wouldn't be 3-3.

So, yeah, they needed KD to become an all-time historic dynasty. No one makes documentaries about that team from 30 years ago that won 2 titles in 5 seasons. 

And I don't fault KD in the slightest for wanting to help create that. Especially when the only other reasonable option at the time was Boston.

I think if they added another fringe all star instead of they would’ve been just as unbeatable from a record and championship standpoint. Again, I know we keep giving him a pass, but I just think if steph is the best player on the warriors, you see him with that unanimous mvp killer instinct. For some reason, it’s harder for him to channel that when he’s playing with a player that he knows is clearly better offensively. Is it an ego thing? Maybe. But you can’t deny that he plays better when the offense goes through him. Same with Klay. When he’s the 2nd option on the team, he just plays better. Maybe more touches, maybe it’s an ego thing for him too. But there’s definitely something to it. 

 

KD just makes them the best team ever.

Edited May 17, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[HookEm 2492]

They weren't going to add a fridge all star. Without Durant they would have paid Harrison Barnes and run it back another year. They weren't unbeatable. They were beat with that very squad.

I just will never understand the "they are better with Durant but don't NEED him" viewpoint. They would have won in 2016 with him. Would have likely lost to Cleveland in 2017 without him. And would have lost to Houston in 2017 without him.

But they don't NEED him.

I'm not ready to give them the title this year either. MIL or TOR will be very tough without Durant.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

1 hour ago, HookEm said:

They weren't going to add a fridge all star. Without Durant they would have paid Harrison Barnes and run it back another year. They weren't unbeatable. They were beat with that very squad.

I just will never understand the "they are better with Durant but don't NEED him" viewpoint. They would have won in 2016 with him. Would have likely lost to Cleveland in 2017 without him. And would have lost to Houston in 2017 without him.

But they don't NEED him.

I'm not ready to give them the title this year either. MIL or TOR will be very tough without Durant.

When they are 28-1 over their last 29 games when KD sits and curry doesn’t, I’m sorry but that means they don’t NEED him. Would they be better with him. Of course. That’s a ridiculous argument and I don’t think it’s an argument that anyone has made. But the numbers don’t lie. KD just makes it overkill. In the history of the NBA, there’s no way a team can just not have their clear best player, a player the caliber of a KD, and still go 28-1 over a 29 game stretch. Everyone else rises to the occasion when KD isn’t out there. It really speaks more to KD’s greatness. The rest of the team is just in awe of him, so they dump it off to him and let him do his thing. They don’t play how they would normally play. And because of how great he is, they are better. They don’t have to play the same way they played when they won 73 fucking games because they have KD. I know they lost that series against the cavs, but I really think you could play that series 5 times and the Cavs would win once. They just happen to win that time because the Swiss Army knife that is Draymond Green got suspended for game 5. If he’s playing that game, on their home court, it’s probably over right there. They could replay that game 7 100 times and because of how close it was, the outcome could be different every tine. This idea that the cavs had their number is laughable to me. There’s a reason “the warriors blew a 3-1 lead” was a meme for the next few years. They blew it. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[52-80 19379]

Where did this idea come from that Lebron is the Warriors-puzzling-solving Championship Whisperer?

Yes he's undisputedly one of the greatest talents of all time.  Who's won all of 3 championships:

1.  with his veteran 3-star team beating baby-faced OKC

2.  squeaking by an aged spurs 4 games to 3

3.  squeaking by the warriors in one of the most improbable finals in nba history, on a team without draymond (by his own stupidity)

in subsequent years, the warriors (with kd) didnt just beat cleveland, they smoked them.  8 games to 1.  including the year before that (without kd), its 12-2.

 

in what world would lebron have been repeat champions because the warriors didnt have kd? 

the #1 seeded team won the championship 7 of the last 10 years.  those 2016 warriors suffered a fluke loss. 

if that series was replayed 10 times, who here can say they wouldnt put money on the warriors, all 10 times?

the giants beat the patriots in a superbowl once.  it dont make shit.  the warriors need KD like warren buffet needs another million dollars

 

 

 

 

 

[UTDD 362]

I personally think the 2016 series if played again 10 times would result in more Warriors wins than Cleveland wins, but the bottom line is that they lost.  I think Houston would have somehow blown their series even without KD but I do think 2017 Cleveland was strong enough to give the Warriors severe trouble without Durant.  This is just a historically great team, and in fact one my biggest credits to LeBron in his career and for me personally elevating him to a similar tier as Kareem and Jordan historically is partly because of somehow managing to get that third title against that team.  It's an amazing accomplishment to me.  I seriously doubt that almost any superstar replacing LeBron on that 2016 Cleveland team could have won that series.  And not to discredit Durant as I think he is the greatest pure scorer I have personally ever seen, even more potential than Jordan if he possessed the mentality of Jordan (he unfortunately does not as he is famously thin skinned and too sensitive versus Jordan who is frankly to me is almost a psychopath stone cold killer), but I think you could have placed at least 3-5 great superstars (and likely more on that list) on the Warriors to replace him the last two years and they still win the title.  It's just a credit to the overall strength of Golden State historically as a team and not as much a slap to Durant.        

[52-80 19379]

Those Cavs were no scrubs.  Kyrie was 5th year.  Kevin Love was recently in MVP contention.  Korver one of the deadliest shooters in the league (and made all-star reserve).  Richard Jefferson good veteran. 

 

And they needed every minute of LeBron to get over the warriors.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

4 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Those Cavs were no scrubs.  Kyrie was 5th year.  Kevin Love was recently in MVP contention.  Korver one of the deadliest shooters in the league (and made all-star reserve).  Richard Jefferson good veteran. 

 

And they needed every minute of LeBron to get over the warriors.

And they needed a HUGE 3 by Kyrie. A 3 that he could probably take 100 times (fading away like that) and make 10 times. But he fucking buried it. Props to him. But again, yet another improbable thing that went in their favor. Like I said, a lot had to go right for the cavs to win that game, and it’s the reason Lebron has to mentioned in the same breath as MJ. I don’t think he’s better than MJ, but MJ never beat a team in the same ballpark as GS. Not even close.

Edited May 17, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[joeycovers 399]

20 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

And they needed a HUGE 3 by Kyrie. A 3 that he could probably take 100 times (fading away like that) and make 10 times. But he fucking buried it. Props to him. But again, yet another improbable thing that went in their favor. Like I said, a lot had to go right for the cavs to win that game, and it’s the reason Lebron has to mentioned in the same breath as MJ. I don’t think he’s better than MJ, but MJ never beat a team in the same ballpark as GS. Not even close.

Win Totals of 4  Teams Bulls beat in Finals.  If you don't think none of those squads are in the same "ballpark" then you didn't watch basketball in the 90's. 

Suns 62

Sonics 64

Jazz 64

Jazz 62

 

 

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

7 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Where did this idea come from that Lebron is the Warriors-puzzling-solving Championship Whisperer?

Yes he's undisputedly one of the greatest talents of all time.  Who's won all of 3 championships:

1.  with his veteran 3-star team beating baby-faced OKC

2.  squeaking by an aged spurs 4 games to 3

3.  squeaking by the warriors in one of the most improbable finals in nba history, on a team without draymond (by his own stupidity)

in subsequent years, the warriors (with kd) didnt just beat cleveland, they smoked them.  8 games to 1.  including the year before that (without kd), its 12-2.

 

in what world would lebron have been repeat champions because the warriors didnt have kd? 

the #1 seeded team won the championship 7 of the last 10 years.  those 2016 warriors suffered a fluke loss. 

if that series was replayed 10 times, who here can say they wouldnt put money on the warriors, all 10 times?

the giants beat the patriots in a superbowl once.  it dont make shit.  the warriors need KD like warren buffet needs another million dollars

 

 

 

 

 

Before KD, in which all of Cleveland's big 3 played and finished:

Games with Lebron and Kyrie:  4-3 for Cavs

Games with Lebron, Kyrie and Love:  3-2 for Cavs

Let's not be obtuse, when the big 3 for Cleveland played, not only was it close, but it actually skewed towards Cleveland.

KD wasn't brought in because the Warriors couldn't win games or even playoff series without him.  He was brought in because they weren't sure they could win championships without him.

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

11 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

KD wasn't brought in because the Warriors couldn't win games or even playoff series without him.  He was brought in because they weren't sure they could win championships without him.

 

You really think Draymond Green, Steph, Klay, Kerr, and iggy felt like they weren’t sure they could win a championship without KD? I’m not buying that shit. They recruited him because he was the 2nd best player and they had the cap space. Why wouldn’t they recruit him like anyone else would.

They didn’t think to themselves “man, I’m not sure if we can win unless we add a future top 10 all time player. I know we just won 73 games and lost in a game 7, but we need to add the 2nd best player to get over the hump.” 

Not a chance. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[aggie08 21733]

14 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Before KD, in which all of Cleveland's big 3 played and finished:

Games with Lebron and Kyrie:  4-3 for Cavs

Games with Lebron, Kyrie and Love:  3-2 for Cavs

Let's not be obtuse, when the big 3 for Cleveland played, not only was it close, but it actually skewed towards Cleveland.

KD wasn't brought in because the Warriors couldn't win games or even playoff series without him.  He was brought in because they weren't sure they could win championships without him.

 

I can just as easily pick and choose data to make the case the other way in the two Finals before KD:

Warriors intact starting 5 vs. Cavaliers intact starting 5 (LeBron, Kyrie, Love): 3-0

Warriors starting 5 vs. Cavs w/ only Love out: 4-1

Watch the end of Game 4 in 2016 when the Cavs were up in the 4th quarter, and Steph and co. came back and ripped their hearts out in Cleveland. Watch Cleveland walk off the court devastated. Tell me you think that team was going to win Game 5 in Oracle without the motivation and anger of watching Draymond's ball slap over and over again, and the subsequent suspension.

I tend to lean your way that the 2017 Cavs beat them without KD (Cleveland's offense was just unstoppable), but the majority of basketball experts that I've heard on the subject disagree. I think it would have been another 7 game series, with LeBron breaking hearts in Oracle yet again.

 

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

42 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

You really think Draymond Green, Steph, Klay, Kerr, and iggy felt like they weren’t sure they could win a championship without KD? I’m not buying that shit. They recruited him because he was the 2nd best player and they had the cap space. Why wouldn’t they recruit him like anyone else would.

They didn’t think to themselves “man, I’m not sure if we can win unless we add a future top 10 all time player. I know we just won 73 games and lost in a game 7, but we need to add the 2nd best player to get over the hump.” 

Not a chance. 

Draymond called him crying from his car after game 7 saying they couldn't do it without him.  So yes, considering they had everything go right for them in the regular season en route to a record 73-9, for all of them to have career years -- all of them, and to still lose in the Finals, I think they wanted to ensure they would win round 3.  There's nothing wrong in wanting to improve your team or chances.  More over, Kerr and the front office admit that KD wasn't brought in for the regular season nor to try and get over some first round hump.  He was brought in for 1 or 2 playoff series in a season.  He was brought in to dominate the post-season because that's when an all-time talent will make the greatest impact, when everyone's intensity is at an 11 and game plans are tightened up with wake less nights but staff, when some bench guys wilt on the road.  They wanted to ensure they weren't bridesmaids again so they went out, tried, and successfully acquired the best player on the market because they didn't want to lose again.... To date, it's been a wise acquisition.  To their words, they didn't care about another regular season breaking records, they wanted championship trophies.

28 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I can just as easily pick and choose data to make the case the other way in the two Finals before KD:

Warriors intact starting 5 vs. Cavaliers intact starting 5 (LeBron, Kyrie, Love): 3-0

Warriors starting 5 vs. Cavs w/ only Love out: 4-1

Watch the end of Game 4 in 2016 when the Cavs were up in the 4th quarter, and Steph and co. came back and ripped their hearts out in Cleveland. Watch Cleveland walk off the court devastated. Tell me you think that team was going to win Game 5 in Oracle without the motivation and anger of watching Draymond's ball slap over and over again, and the subsequent suspension.

I tend to lean your way that the 2017 Cavs beat them without KD (Cleveland's offense was just unstoppable), but the majority of basketball experts that I've heard on the subject disagree. I think it would have been another 7 game series, with LeBron breaking hearts in Oracle yet again.

 

You're making my point for me, so thank you.  The Warriors needed a huge personnel advantage (superstars to be injured) to dominate the first go around.  When it was more even, it was tight and they lost in 7.  The margins were thin as shit as you're living on Bogut being out to the Warriors losing game 6 and 7.  They can't win with out Bogut?  That's how laser thin the margins were and IMO, the Warriors knew they were playing with fire having to rely on him.  Bogut ended up getting hurt after traded and played only 51 games the next 2 years.  Run it back the next year and the likelihood is Bogut's on the bench in a suit.  The Warriors weren't sure they could win again with the same squad, they wanted to improve, so they tried and accomplished it.  Doesn't mean they were sure they couldn't with the same squad although the career trajectories and analytics don't paint a pretty picture.

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[aggie08 21733]

Without a star suspension, it never even makes it to 7. So yes, the margins were thin both ways.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Draymond called him crying from his car after game 7 saying they couldn't do it without him.  So yes, considering they had everything go right for them in the regular season en route to a record 73-9, for all of them to have career years -- all of them, and to still lose in the Finals, I think they wanted to ensure they would win round 3.  There's nothing wrong in wanting to improve your team or chances.  More over, Kerr and the front office admit that KD wasn't brought in for the regular season nor to try and get over some first round hump.  He was brought in for 1 or 2 playoff series in a season.  He was brought in to dominate the post-season because that's when an all-time talent will make the greatest impact, when everyone's intensity is at an 11 and game plans are tightened up with wake less nights but staff, when some bench guys wilt on the road.  They wanted to ensure they weren't bridesmaids again so they went out, tried, and successfully acquired the best player on the market because they didn't want to lose again.... To date, it's been a wise acquisition.  To their words, they didn't care about another regular season breaking records, they wanted championship trophies.

You're making my point for me, so thank you.  The Warriors needed a huge personnel advantage (superstars to be injured) to dominate the first go around.  When it was more even, it was tight and they lost in 7.  The margins were thin as shit as you're living on Bogut being out to the Warriors losing game 6 and 7.  They can't win with out Bogut?  That's how laser thin the margins were and IMO, the Warriors knew they were playing with fire having to rely on him.  Bogut ended up getting hurt after traded and played only 51 games the next 2 years.  Run it back the next year and the likelihood is Bogut's on the bench in a suit.  The Warriors weren't sure they could win again with the same squad, they wanted to improve, so they tried and accomplished it.  Doesn't mean they were sure they couldn't with the same squad although the career trajectories and analytics don't paint a pretty picture.

 

And you really believe that, huh? That’s cute. Good for you, man. Normally I agree with a lot of what you said, but even if that came directly from Draymond greens mouth, I don’t believe it. He might have said that to make KD look better, but I highly doubt that happened the way you worded it. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Without a star suspension, it never even makes it to 7. So yes, the margins were thin both ways.

Not just any star. They could’ve lost Klay, maybe. That version of that team needed Draymond, and he let them down by getting suspended. That’s on him, but it was some fluke shit. They win game 5 with him on the court and this whole conversation looks ridiculous. But he wasn’t there, and they lost. So here we are 

Edited May 17, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

Just now, youdunnf'dup said:

And you really believe that, huh? That’s cute. Good for you, man. Normally I agree with a lot of what you said, but even if that came directly from Draymond greens mouth, I don’t believe it. He might have said that to make KD look better, but I highly doubt that happened the way you worded it. 

And that's fine.  That was reported by Zach Lowe, so if it's false, that's on him but Lowe is considered one of the premier basketball media members who doesn't normally trade in falsehoods.  Regardless, you ignored the rest of the post.  I can explain things to you, but I can't make you understand them so we'll just go our separate ways on this.  Agree to disagree, but you read extremely subjective. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

I won’t dispute that. Full disclosure, I literally stopped after the bold part because I thought it was pretty laughable. But hey, if Zach Lowe reported it, he’s only going to report what he’s told. I’ll go back and read the rest of your post later (it was kinda tldr), but I doubt you would change my opinion. 

[ztejas 44114]

18 hours ago, youdunnf'dup said:

I think if they added another fringe all star instead of they would’ve been just as unbeatable from a record and championship standpoint. Again, I know we keep giving him a pass, but I just think if steph is the best player on the warriors, you see him with that unanimous mvp killer instinct. For some reason, it’s harder for him to channel that when he’s playing with a player that he knows is clearly better offensively. Is it an ego thing? Maybe. But you can’t deny that he plays better when the offense goes through him. Same with Klay. When he’s the 2nd option on the team, he just plays better. Maybe more touches, maybe it’s an ego thing for him too. But there’s definitely something to it. 

 

KD just makes them the best team ever.

Why are you acting like Durant just disappears from the NBA if he doesn't go to Golden State? The Warriors should have lost to OKC in 2016. They were lucky to even make the Finals. 

Sure, you can play the 2016 Finals 100 times and maybe Cleveland only wins 10, but you play the WCF 100 times and Golden State probably wins less than half of them. 

Durant wasn't going anywhere in 2017 that wouldn't have been a surefire contender. Meaning, it would be one more team that Golden State would have had to go through in the West, or a potential team in the East that could have given them trouble in the Finals. 

So not only did he make them a juggernaut, he made the field weaker. 

[HookEm 2492]

I would just like consistency when discussing the topic. Everyone is quick to say that GSW would win > 5 / 10 if 2016 was replayed. But ignores the fact that WITH Durant they were 14 total points away from going to a game 7 in 2017. If that series is played 10 times, I think Cleveland wins 1-2 times WITH Durant and probably 5-6 times without him.

In 2017, if the Houston series is played 10 times, Houston wins 4-5 of them with Durant and a healthy Chris Paul. Without Durant, Houston might win 6-7 of them. And in the 3-4 games that they get by Houston, Cleveland probably beats them a few times out of 10. Probably as many as 5-6 times if Kyrie stays and Durant wasn't in the picture.

Bottom line, odds are slim that without Durant they would have been this dominant. Not even factoring in the outcome if Durant had gone to Boston, San Antonio, or stayed in OKC.

[HookEm 2492]

Dang stole my thunder.

[aggie08 21733]

41 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

 

You're making my point for me, so thank you.  The Warriors needed a huge personnel advantage (superstars to be injured) to dominate the first go around.  When it was more even, it was tight and they lost in 7.  The margins were thin as shit as you're living on Bogut being out to the Warriors losing game 6 and 7.  They can't win with out Bogut?  That's how laser thin the margins were and IMO, the Warriors knew they were playing with fire having to rely on him.  Bogut ended up getting hurt after traded and played only 51 games the next 2 years.  Run it back the next year and the likelihood is Bogut's on the bench in a suit.  The Warriors weren't sure they could win again with the same squad, they wanted to improve, so they tried and accomplished it.  Doesn't mean they were sure they couldn't with the same squad although the career trajectories and analytics don't paint a pretty picture.

It wasn't about Bogut. It was about who was behind him. Having to play Harrison Barnes at center in Game 5 and Festuz Ezeli and Anderson Varejao in the 4th quarter of an NBA Finals Game 7 cost them a championship. That's on them for riding with "good locker room guys." But it's something they could have rather easily addressed with the salary spike had the not landed KD. Even a stiff like Dedmon would have been an improvement. 

I do get a chuckle that it's a Spurs' fan--the franchise who the Warriors unabashedly modeled themselves after--who holds that bolded opinion. How did the analytics and career trajectories of TD, Manu, and Parker look before they made back to back runs to the Finals? Numbers don't tell the entire story; chemistry and winning DNA matters. In the right culture, you get guys like Boris Diaw carving up a LeBron led defense.

The Warriors didn't have a Kawhi waiting in the wings, but they'd still have 3 All-Stars very much in their primes (unlike those Spurs). I think it's pretty damn apparent that they still would have been--and will be--championship contenders without KD. As I wrote earlier, no chance in hell that they'd be on the brink of winning 3 in a row without KD, but I would have put any amount of money on them getting at least one more these past 3 seasons. 

They'd/they'll just be really good (but beatable), instead of all-time great (and largely unbeatable).

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by aggie08

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

Houston is who we thought they were. They could play that series 1000 times, and they would just find a way to lose. Even if it was in heartbreak fashion all 1000 times. Winners win, and people who consistently choke consistently choke.

All kidding aside, THATS WHY DURANT SHOULD’VE GONE TO ANOTHER FUCKING TEAM. 

To give this warriors team some resistance. Because you’re right, they probably don’t beat Durant if he goes somewhere else and makes his own super team. That’s why he’s kind of a bitch. He’s that great. He isn’t the type of player that needs to join the one team (or two teams if he joined lebron) that would threaten his championship dream. The one team that he was up 3-1 against, but they came back to beat him in a game 7. I couldn’t even imagine the how soft you would have to be at that time to make a move like that. Mentally, there has to be a small part of him that hates the fact that they didn’t close out that series. Most competitors would hate that team in that situation. He joined them. To this day, the idea of any true competitor doing that is just laughable. And that’s why it’s a shame. We know he’s a competitor. 

He’s not soft anymore, but that’s just a soft move. Charmin ultra soft 

Edited May 17, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[aggie08 21733]

13 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

Houston is who we thought they were. They could play that series 1000 times, and they would just find a way to lose. Even if it was in heartbreak fashion all 1000 times. Winners win, and people who consistently choke consistently choke.

All kidding aside, THATS WHY DURANT SHOULD’VE GONE TO ANOTHER FUCKING TEAM. 

To give this warriors team some resistance. Because you’re right, they probably don’t beat Durant if he goes somewhere else and makes his own super team. That’s why he’s kind of a bitch. He’s that great. He isn’t the type of player that needs to join the one team (or two teams if he joined lebron) that would threaten his championship dream. The one team that he was up 3-1 against, but they came back to beat him in a game 7. I couldn’t even imagine the how soft you would have to be at that time to make a move like that. Mentally, there has to be a small part of him that hates the fact that they didn’t close out that series. Most competitors would hate that team in that situation. He joined them. To this day, the idea of any true competitor doing that is just laughable. And that’s why it’s a shame. We know he’s a competitor. 

He’s not soft anymore, but that’s just a soft move. Charmin ultra soft 

This is where you lose me, man. Where should he have gone? It was time to leave OKC, and I believe him when he said that he wanted a new life experience in a bigger, more business-centric city (pretty obvious given his off-the-court pursuits).

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

6 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

It wasn't about Bogut. It was about who was behind him. Having to play Harrison Barnes at center in Game 5 and Festuz Ezeli and Anderson Varejao in the 4th quarter of an NBA Finals Game 7 cost them a championship. That's on them for riding with "good locker room guys." But it's something they could have rather easily addressed with the salary spike had the not landed KD. Even a stiff like Dedmon would have been an improvement. 

I do get a chuckle that is a Spurs' fan--the franchise who the Warriors unabashedly modeled themselves after--who holds that bolded opinion. How did the analytics and career trajectories of TD, Manu, and Parker look before they made back to back runs to the Finals? Numbers don't tell the entire story; chemistry and winning DNA matters. In the right culture, you get guys like Boris Diaw carving up a LeBron led defense.

The Warriors didn't have a Kawhi waiting in the wings, but they'd still have 3 All-Stars very much in their primes (unlike those Spurs). I think it's pretty damn apparent that they still would have been--and will be--championship contenders without KD. As I wrote earlier, no chance in hell that they'd be on the brink of winning 3 in a row without KD, but I would have put any amount of money on them getting at least one more these past 3 seasons. 

 

I'm befuddled by your post.  It's all fucking aggy.  My contention isn't that the Warriors couldn't have won a championship without KD (we'll never know), it's the highest magnitude and most direct way of improving their team was adding the best player available during their spike, which happened to be KD.  They should be applauded for taking advantage of the stupidity of no cap easing and doing a great sales job.  I also have no idea what you're trying to say about Ezeli either, who put up great numbers as a bench guy in limited minutes.  His per 100 possessions were 20-16-3Blks.  He had a close to 18 PER, .171 WS/48 and positive VORP.  What did he do wrong?   

And why chuckle?  The Spurs were among the first teams and organizations to embrace analytics.  They're central to their approach in how to improve efficiency and put players in situations to succeed.  Did you not know this?   The analytics actually looked really good for the Spurs big 3 going into the 12-13 season for the big 3.  Manu had his best year of his career in limited games because of injury but he was actually awesome, we recognized we needed to limit his minutes as age crept in, but still playing at a high level.  Tony was in his prime and his play had only gotten better the last 3 years as he took on more of the offense.  It was probably his 2nd best year to date and playing at a very high level.  Tim was showing age, but still playing a very high level averaging 15/9 on good percentages.  His defense was still elite and he had started to thin down as we embraced the start of a new style of pushing the ball.  He wasn't central to the offense anymore as his knees were more busted but he had found his new thresh hold.  The Spurs had reached the WCF.  So.... the trajectories looked actually pretty good, the Spurs just didn't have a long window and understood it.  No idea what you're trying to say here, but you did make me chuckle in trying....so even?

 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

This is where you lose me, man. Where should he have gone? It was time to leave OKC, and I believe him when he said that he wanted a new life experience in a bigger, more business-centric city (pretty obvious given his off-the-court pursuits).

I don’t know man. Any one of the other teams in the NBA. Not the one team that you lost to in a hard fought 7 game series. Nothin like that has ever happened in the history of the league. I’ll give him the off the court stuff. And yes, the bay area is beautiful. You gotta remove the human element from it, man haha. No but seriously, any other team. I don’t think we’ll ever see anything like this again. Not with a player or his caliber.

[aggie08 21733]

1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

I'm befuddled by your post.

Then you're being purposely obtuse.

1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

My contention isn't that the Warriors couldn't have won a championship without KD (we'll never know)

I never tried to imply that that was your argument.  Though, I'm pretty sure you've said matter-of-factly elsewhere that they never would have won another one without KD.

1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

it's the highest magnitude and most direct way of improving their team was adding the best player available during their spike, which happened to be KD.  They should be applauded for taking advantage of the stupidity of no cap easing and doing a great sales job.

Where have I said otherwise?  If you have chance to get KD, you do everything in your power to get KD, and figure the rest out later.  That's obvious.

1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

I also have no idea what you're trying to say about Ezeli either, who put up great numbers as a bench guy in limited minutes.  His per 100 possessions were 20-16-3Blks.  He had a close to 18 PER, .171 WS/48 and positive VORP.  What did he do wrong?

What rim-running center doesn't put up numbers on the court with Steph and Dray?  But it was blatantly obvious that he wasn't the same player coming back mid-season after knee surgery.  The explosion and lateral movement wasn't there.  Everyone in the building knew the injury was more serious than initially believed long before the deadline.  No analytics needed; you only had to watch him play.  They gambled with their center depth and lost (leading to much compensation in years to come).

1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

And why chuckle?  The Spurs were among the first teams and organizations to embrace analytics.  They're central to their approach in how to improve efficiency and put players in situations to succeed.  Did you not know this?   The analytics actually looked really good for the Spurs big 3 going into the 12-13 season for the big 3.  Manu had his best year of his career in limited games because of injury but he was actually awesome, we recognized we needed to limit his minutes as age crept in, but still playing at a high level.  Tony was in his prime and his play had only gotten better the last 3 years as he took on more of the offense.  It was probably his 2nd best year to date and playing at a very high level.  Tim was showing age, but still playing a very high level averaging 15/9 on good percentages.  His defense was still elite and he had started to thin down as we embraced the start of a new style of pushing the ball.  He wasn't central to the offense anymore as his knees were more busted but he had found his new thresh hold.  The Spurs had reached the WCF.  So.... the trajectories looked actually pretty good

Cool.  And the offensive analytics are still elite whenever Steph is on the court (pretty much regardless of who is on the court with him)...along with being one of the most efficient players in NBA history himself.  And the defensive analytics are still really good whenever Dray is on the court (pretty much regardless on who is on the court with him and how many extra pounds he's carrying). And the analytics are still REALLY good across the board when they dust off Iggy for the playoffs.  But the analytics were apparently "not painting a pretty picture" 3 years ago???  When they still had 3 All-Stars in their prime and a still spry Iggy?  Um, okay.  And I'm the one not making sense?  The Spurs had Tim Duncan in decline, an aging Manu, and Parker as the only player who you would even try to make a case for as a Top 10 player if you were feeling generous...and maximized their talent because of an established winning culture, chemistry and selfless leadership, and high IQ in the building (on and off the court).  But now, without KD, Golden State is destined for "1st and 2nd round losses" when Iggy is their only important player over 31?  Sure, possibly; the Spurs have lost in the early rounds in between deep playoff runs...but they were almost always upsets.  Upsets can happen when you're just one of the pack with a chance to win it all (which is the tier that they'll most certainly return to once KD leaves), instead of the dominant favorites.  But I'd be stunned if they're not in serious contention for a few more years.

The bench and finding a poor man's replacement for Iggy are the concerning points, obviously, with pretty much the only the MLE to work with.  But the dirty little secret is: the Warriors bench has never been as good as we remember it being with their "Strength in Numbers" mantra.  Barbosa was the only guy who really has done anything outside of Golden State, and that was before he got there.  Livingston was a niche specialist that wouldn't have worked on most teams.  Brandon Rush, Mo Speights, Patrick McCaw, Ezeli are just guys that were elevated by those around them.  We're seeing that now with Looney.  Damian Jones also fit excellently in their system to begin the season.  Bell climbed out of Kerr's doghouse finally.  They need a wing (was kind of hoping for Tyreke Evans on the MLE...oops), but they'll be just fine. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by aggie08

[TommyGufano 6023]

3 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Before KD, in which all of Cleveland's big 3 played and finished:

Games with Lebron and Kyrie:  4-3 for Cavs

Games with Lebron, Kyrie and Love:  3-2 for Cavs

Let's not be obtuse, when the big 3 for Cleveland played, not only was it close, but it actually skewed towards Cleveland.

KD wasn't brought in because the Warriors couldn't win games or even playoff series without him.  He was brought in because they weren't sure they could win championships without him.

 

In the name of accuracy, I'd like to point out that Kyrie played 44 mins in game 1 of '15 finals. 

[aggie08 21733]

1 hour ago, youdunnf'dup said:

I don’t know man. Any one of the other teams in the NBA. Not the one team that you lost to in a hard fought 7 game series. Nothin like that has ever happened in the history of the league. I’ll give him the off the court stuff. And yes, the bay area is beautiful. You gotta remove the human element from it, man haha. No but seriously, any other team. I don’t think we’ll ever see anything like this again. Not with a player or his caliber.

If I remember correctly, his options at the time were Golden State, New York, Washington, Miami, Boston, the Lakers, or San Antonio. No one else had money.  The Clippers got a meeting, but it was a courtesy; they didn't have space for a max contract.  So, if you want to be in a big city, but don't want to join a dumpster fire or the team that just beat you, your choices are...Boston or Miami following in LeBron's footsteps?  

Edited May 17, 2019 by aggie08

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

16 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

If I remember correctly, his options at the time were Golden State, New York, Washington, Miami, Boston, the Lakers, or San Antonio. The Clippers got a meeting, but it was a courtesy; they didn't have space for a max contract.  So, if you want to be in a big city, but don't want to join a dumpster fire or the team that just beat you, your choices are...Boston or Miami following in LeBron's footsteps?  

That town will never love him as much as Steph. Ever. Under any circumstances. Steph is the golden child in that city. And KD is far and away the better player, but it’s the truth. The burner twitter accounts are enough evidence to know that he REALLY cares about everyone else’s opinion, but he had to see this coming right? Maybe he didn’t, but that just seems naive. 

I think there’s a reason he’s leaving. Why else would he leave? Why wouldn’t he just stay forever and win the title every year. Because I think he wants that validation for having to earn a championship. Maybe he didn’t realize it would come so easily, even though it was clear as day to everyone else. Why do you think the warriors look so excited out there, and in post game interviews now. They love KD, but I think they all took it a little personal that people think they need KD to beat anyone. I know what they say in front of the mic. They say the right thing. But you know deep down they’re really embracing this opportunity to prove they don’t need KD, since they know he’s gone after this year. Like, they want him back to guarantee that they win another title, but if they could have it guaranteed either way, knowing he’s gone at the end of the year, I bet they wouldn’t mind winning it with the OG squad 

Edited May 17, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[Hate 20232]

If he had spent his 6 months on any other college campus this wouldn’t even be a debate.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

5 hours ago, joeycovers said:

Win Totals of 4  Teams Bulls beat in Finals.  If you don't think none of those squads are in the same "ballpark" then you didn't watch basketball in the 90's. 

Suns 62

Sonics 64

Jazz 64

Jazz 62

 

 

The warriors won 9 more games than any of those teams. That’s a lot, in terms of regular season Ws. Plenty of teams win between 60-67 games. It really isn’t that uncommon. You’re in another tier if you’re getting 73 wins in an 82 game regular season. And spare me this “basketball was better back then.” The players are more talented now. YouTube proves that 

Edited May 18, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[ztejas 44114]

4 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Even a stiff like Dedmon would have been an improvement. 

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day and it was a long day at work. Congrats. WHOOP

[aggie08 21733]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day and it was a long day at work. Congrats. WHOOP

DeWayne Dedmon isn't an improvement over Anderson Varejao? Are you an idiot?

[Goo Punch 4275]

Dedmon is an underrated player. He's had a little trouble staying healthy, but he's a serviceable backup big who can defend and stretch the floor some. He's >>>>>>>> Varajao.

[ztejas 44114]

17 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

DeWayne Dedmon isn't an improvement over Anderson Varejao? Are you an idiot?

Your entire argument is baseless. That series did not come down to who was playing center for the Warriors. The 2017 and 2018 title teams barely even had a starting center. 

And you aren't even talking about 2016 - you're saying going into 2017. They could roll any 7 footer in the league out there for 15 minutes a game and it would barely move the needle. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by ztejas

[aggie08 21733]

10 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Your entire argument is baseless. That series did not come down to who was playing center for the Warriors. The 2017 and 2018 title teams barely even had a starting center. 

No shit. Having KD on the Warriors erases much of the need for depth. And I'd argue that even still they had better center depth than '16 with JaVale and DWest.

Game 7 in 2016 was decided by 4 points. Ezeli and Varejao were a combined -18 in the 19 minutes that there were forced to play out of necessity. In Game 5 without Green, they experimented with Barnes at center because they couldn't trust anyone else. But yeah, it totally didn't matter.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by aggie08

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

No shit, Sherlock. Having KD on the Warriors erases the need for depth. And I'd argue that even still they had better center depth than '16 with JaVale and DWest.

Game 7 in 2016 was decided by 4 points. Ezeli and Varejao were a combined -18 in the 19 minutes that there were forced to play out of necessity. But yeah, it totally didn't matter.

 

He had a really long day at work, man. Leave him alone. He knows he isn’t making any fucking sense. 

[ztejas 44114]

13 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

No shit. Having KD on the Warriors erases much of the need for depth. And I'd argue that even still they had better center depth than '16 with JaVale and DWest.

Game 7 in 2016 was decided by 4 points. Ezeli and Varejao were a combined -18 in the 19 minutes that there were forced to play out of necessity. In Game 5 without Green, they experimented with Barnes at center because they couldn't trust anyone else. But yeah, it totally didn't matter.

 

It's just hilarious to me that you're blaming their 2016 loss on a lack of depth at center. Like that was the X factor in a series which featured multiple hall of fame players on both teams. 

Yeah Bogut got hurt - shit happens. Tell Draymond to not get suspended. Tell Curry and Klay to nut up. Maybe don't match them up against the 2nd greatest player of all time.

Again, you're argument is baseless and you're grasping at straws. You might as well start arguing that if the 2015 Cavs had an all star point guard behind Kyrie they win that Finals series instead of losing in 6. 

[aggie08 21733]

Did I say that that was the only issue? Or even the main one? No? Okay, cool.

The overarching point was that Cleveland needed a LOT to break right for them to win that series. All the injury luck that Golden State had the previous year came back to completely bite them in the ass: Steph never fully recovered from his knee sprain, Bogut went down (exposing their shit backups), and Iggy's (the only player with success guarding LeBron) back flared up. Then you add Draymond's stupidity extending the series past 5 games.

I would have picked Cleveland over them in 7 in 2017 without KD, but not because Cleveland "had their number" or Golden State would take a step back, but because I thought that the Cavs 2017 team was significantly better than 2016, and was the most unstoppable non-KD Warriors offense that I've ever seen.

But this notion that the Warriors championship contending window was closing--or worse, had already closed--without KD is a non-starter.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by aggie08

[ztejas 44114]

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

The overarching point being that Cleveland needed a LOT to break right for them to win that series. All the injury luck that Golden State had the previous year came back to completely bite them in the ass: Steph never fully recovered from his knee sprain, Bogut went down (exposing their shit backups), and Iggy's (the only player with success guarding LeBron) back flared up. Then you add Draymond's stupidity extending the series past 5 games.

I would have picked Cleveland over them in 7 in 2017 without KD, but not because Cleveland "had their number" or Golden State would take a step back, but because I thought that the Cavs 2017 team was significantly better than 2016, and was the most unstoppable non-KD Warriors offense that I've ever seen.

But this notion that the Warriors championship contending window was closing--or worse, had already closed--without KD is a non-starter.

 

Golden State needed a lot for them to break right to even make the Finals. For the 2nd time - shit happens. That's basketball. 

I'd be interested in your thoughts on a 2016 OKC/Cavs matchup. 

(and as long as we're on the record - you're not bad as far as aggies go - enjoying the back and forth)

[aggie08 21733]

Just now, ztejas said:

Golden State needed a lot for them to break right to even make the Finals. For the 2nd time - shit happens. That's basketball. 

Oh, I agree. Their wounds (like having garbage behind Bogut) were mostly self-inflicted. Steph made mental errors down the stretch in the final 3 games that had nothing to do with being less than 100% physically. And Dray went full Dray. No excuses. 

I just think that they would have learned from it and been even better (at least in the postseason) in the future, even without landing the 2nd best player on the planet. 

Still, their ceiling was probably upper-middle class Spurs where they win 2 or 3 titles in 5-6 years. Instead of the world-beaters they became with KD.

 

[ztejas 44114]

11 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Oh, I agree. Their wounds (like having garbage behind Bogut) were mostly self-inflicted. Steph made mental errors down the stretch in the final 3 games that had nothing to do with being less than 100% physically. And Dray went full Dray. No excuses. 

I just think that they would have learned from it and been even better (at least in the postseason) in the future, even without landing the 2nd best player on the planet. 

Still, their ceiling was probably upper-middle class Spurs where they win 2 or 3 titles in 5-6 years. Instead of the world-beaters they became with KD.

 

Answer my question though - how do you think an OKC / Cavs 2016 Finals would have played out? 

Also - say KD stays one more year in OKC (which I thought he would do at the time), do the Warriors get past that OKC team again? 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

I think it’s safe to say that they probably could’ve taken the warriors if they ran it back. If Klay doesn’t just go ridiculous in game 6, they probably win that first series. And if they made the finals, they were every bit as good as the Cavs. 

But that’s kind of my point. That’s why he didn’t need to join them, and it’s why they didn’t need him. KD was just coming into his own where he could challenge Lebron for best player in the game. A guy like that doesn’t need to join a 73 win team. That’s overkill. 

And whether you think they needed KD against the Cavs in the finals or not, those series would’ve been battles if he wasn’t involved. From the moment he signed with GS he eliminated all doubt for who was going to win the next few finals. Outside of Houston of course, but I’ve made it pretty clear about how I feel about Houston when it really matters. They would’ve found a way to lose that series regardless of whether KD was there or not

Edited May 18, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[aggie08 21733]

22 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Answer my question though - how do you think an OKC / Cavs 2016 Finals would have played out? 

Also - say KD stays one more year in OKC (which I thought he would do at the time), do the Warriors get past that OKC team again? 

I think OKC beats Cleveland if they got past Golden State. The team defense that they finally got dialed in a few games into their series with the Spurs, harnessing their length and physicality, was stifling. It got in Green's head, and had the Splash Brothers seeing shadows in the paint. Their offense, simplistic as ever in OKC, was still the 2nd best in the league to Golden State's. It's hard for me to trust Russ in a high leverage situation (he blew assignment after assignment in Games 5-7 of the WCF), but I thought '15-'16 was by far his best year. He only took 4 threes a game, he shot over 50% on 2pt shots (only time in his career), and his assist:turnover ratio was well over 2:1. They had Roberson to bother LeBron. It would have been a good one.

All that said, I probably still would have picked Golden State if they met again the following year. It felt like 2016 was OKC's chance: Steph was banged up and OKC had them completely rattled after Game 4...and they still couldn't finish. They traded away some of their length in the offseason with Ibaka for Oladipo (before he was Dipo), and Golden State would have added size with the salary cap spike to battle Adams. And we'd be trusting Russ to learn from the loss and continue to make positive strides after watching Steph get the shine that he thinks he deserves.

Some franchises just seem perpetually snake bit.

Edited May 18, 2019 by aggie08

[totallynotabuttpirate 5477]

Man, y'all motherfuckers have some salty vaginas. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by totallynotabuttpirate

[tx 3 putt 78470]

I think golden state will be ok after durant leaves 

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Well, everyone knows Longhorns celebrate Longhorns leaving Oklahoma. What this thread presupposes is, maybe they didn't.

[satyanash 15355]