Golden State Warriors

[ppdd]

very nice thank you/farewell from David Lee

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLGtBDkUcAAkqnx.jpg

[taguro101]

Lakas talaga nila sana mag champion ulet sila...

[the riddick]

Congrats to the Golden State Warriors!

[Kevin Balot]

Stephen Curry wanted to meet Aldub, not Daniel Padilla.

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BRoWrJiTdAI/Ve3KaWSILDI/AAAAAAAABao/AW4o-ANKpDs/s640/stephen-curry-aldub.jpg

 

http://www.manilalink.com/2015/09/stephen-curry-wanted-to-meet-aldub-not.html

[singsing]

Back to back champs!!

[darksoulriver]

ITN Steve Nash hired as part time assistant coach

[Eddy Syet]

ITN Steve Nash hired as part time assistant coach

 

Steph will learn a lot more from him. Great job by the GSW org.

[Guiness]

The warriors got lucky i think last year, the only team that i thought that had a better matchup with them were the Spurs.

 

The faced the spurs 3 times last season and the spurs won the regular season 2-1.

 

Hopefully with the new rules set by the nba regarding seeding. No more favoring the conference winners, only by win-loss record. it gives a favorable seeding to the spurs so the warriors can prove that their championship wasn't some lucky fluke should they face san antonio in the conference finals.

[Eddy Syet]

The warriors got lucky i think last year, the only team that i thought that had a better matchup with them were the Spurs.

 

The faced the spurs 3 times last season and the spurs won the regular season 2-1.

 

Hopefully with the new rules set by the nba regarding seeding. No more favoring the conference winners, only by win-loss record. it gives a favorable seeding to the spurs so the warriors can prove that their championship wasn't some lucky fluke should they face san antonio in the conference finals.

 

Why would anyone think that the Warriors' title was a fluke? That's crazy.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Guiness]

 

Why would anyone think that the Warriors' title was a fluke? That's crazy.

 

I'm not the only one saying it. NBA analysts, also felt that, certain factors played right into the warriors winning the championship. Luck of the draw, the warriors had the favorable matchups on their road to the conference finals. The pelicans matchup was a wash, since they're still young and on the rise. The grizzlies didn't have enough scoring to keep up with the high powered offense of the warriors' backcourt. Although the warriors struggled against the bigs of memphis, the lack of scoring caught up with them. The rockets matchup favored the warriors heavily. Lack of depth on the bench killed the rockets, relying heavily on Harden to bail them out. Howard's no Olajuwon and i don't consider him an offensive threat. Not to mention the warriors owned the season series 4-0. They dominated the rockets and they had no answer for Curry who was being guarded by who again? i don't even know the guards for Houston. The finals game with Cleveland, having been depleted with injuries to Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving, killed all chances they might have had against the warriors.

 

Even having the Best player in the world in Lebron. He can't carry the whole team by himself. Having a healthy Love and Irving would have gotten a different result.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't repeat as champions. The west is heavily loaded as the Spurs and Clippers got better with their free agent signings (Aldridge for the spurs, Veteran Paul Pierce & Josh Smith for the clippers) also the Thunder will come back as Durant and Westbrook are back from their injuries.

 

Looking at the warriors roster. They look thin on their frontcourt. They did not do anything to address their weakness in their frontcourt. Bogut is a serviceable big man but a liability since he is injury prone. Draymond Green is not a center and teams will take advantage of that weakness.

 

They struggle against teams with very skilled big men, like they did with the spurs & grizzlies. Too bad they didn't face them. The Blazers should'nt have gotten the 4th seed since the spurs and grizzilies have a better win-loss record. The blazers got the 4th seed since they won their Northwest division title. This wasn't fair to the team who had the better record. This put the spurs against the clippers in the 1st round which i thought was an exciting series since it went 7 games.

 

Good thing the NBA changed this ruling for the coming season and division titles won't affect the seeding and will rely on the win-loss record.

 

Nothing to take away from Curry and the warriors. I actually wanted them to win against Lebron. and I congratulate them in winning. But in retrospect, it was luck and injuries to other teams that got them the over the hump.

 

If the warriors manage to defend their championship, they deserve to be called NBA champs. Small ball can only get as far as it goes. In the end, it will catch up. If they manage to get past the spurs and clippers in the playoffs and defeat the cavs at full strength. Then they deserve respect instead of being a one hit wonder like the Mavericks

[Eddy Syet]

I think they deserve to be called champs - even if they don't repeat. The Warriors need no validation.

 

The luck of the draw isn't really luck per se. That is the end goal of working your butt off for an entire 82-game season. Get the #1 seeding come the playoffs. Why? To get home court advantage. To be matched up with lower-ranked seed. It's not always the case but lower-ranked opponents means better chances of winning a title. And win the title they did. Even if the new ruling is implemented last year - it wouldn't have made a difference for the Warriors. They were on top.

 

I think it's unfair to blame the weak opposition for an NBA team's success (I can hear fans calling LeBron to dare play in the stronger West to try and win a title but I'm not one of them). In the Warriors' case, they're in the arguably stronger conference. They're the best team in the NBA last season. They may have lost the season series to the Spurs but if the Spurs can't get through their own side of the bracket, we can't really put that on Golden State. It's on the Spurs.

 

They fought a Cleveland team that's without its second and third-best players. Yup, the result could have been different had Irving and Love played but that will always be an "if". The reality is that the Warriors showed up, the Cavs fought valiantly even when short-handed, but the Warriors still ate them for breakfast.

 

Every NBA champion deserves respect. Even one-hit wonders like the Mavs, Big Ben's Pistons, or Bill Walton's Blazers.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[IR○N B3^ST]

Idol..

[Guiness]

they have the respect since they won. but if they are a great team, they should prove it by defending their championship. This is what separates a great team from a good team. there are teams that lose that desire and hunger to prove themselves after they have won. They should take a page from teams like the Isiah Thomas led pistons, the magic johnson lakers or the olajuwon led rockets who defended their championships back to back.

 

They should take this criticism that they're championship was a stroke of luck and use it as motivation to prove themselves that they can hang with the best teams and win "Convincingly"

[Guiness]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhDtLtVl4-g

[Eddy Syet]

^ Interesting debate from Skip and Stephen as usual. I understand what they mean by the Warriors validating their championship but that doesn't mean that I agree. I would have loved to see the Spurs play against the Warriors in the playoffs but hey like I said - the Spurs are a no-show. They lost to the Clippers. If they really wanted to have a shot at the Warriors, then they should have taken care of business against LAC.

 

When the Spurs lost to the Clippers. I was salivating for a Clippers-Warriors Western finals. Lo and behold! The Clippers were a no-show too. They bowed to the Rockets. The point about Westbrook not having the chance to play against Curry in the playoffs? Guess whose fault was that? Yup, it's the Spurs' fault too. They did not beat the Pelicans.

 

Having said that - it's really hard to put the blame on the Warriors. They did what they have to do and that is to beat the crap out of any team (regardless of who's playing) they will face which resulted to a 67-win season. So if you'll ask me, do they need validation? I don't think so. That question should be asked to the other 29 teams not called Warriors.

[Guiness]

The spurs should'nt have even faced the clippers in the first round. They should have gotten a higher seed than the 6th they got just because the blazers were the division champs and they got the 4th seed instead of the spurs, who have a better win-loss record anyway. It's not the warriors fault of course but, that particular first round matchup could have gotten the spurs a second round matchup with the warriors. That could have been an interesting matchup. We might not be talking about the warriors today winning but instead, the spurs

 

you can go ahead and say that they don't need validation but i feel different about that. I don't see people talking about nba champions who won a championship and then fall off. Like the 1977 Blazers, or the 2011 Mavericks. They get forgotten because they won one and never got to win again or even repeat.

 

Did you hear or read anybody blaming the warriors? no one's blaming the warriors, its just that things that happened that were beyond their control like injuries to key players from other teams, the seedings etc...

 

What skip and stephen are saying is, even if the warriors won. Who's to say their championship is considered legitimate since they didn't get to face the top teams like the spurs or the clippers and an injury plagued cavs team with a fatigued and gassed out lebron? That's what they mean, they say that the road to the championship they took seemed too easy.

 

If they faced and beat all the top teams in the west and beat the cavs at full strength, then I would say "this team is legit, its a great team"

 

It all comes down to this coming season

 

If they repeat as champs, then I won't say criticize their championship. Since they proved they didn't get lucky.

[Eddy Syet]

You're not blaming the Warriors. You're simply saying that:

 

1. One title is not something to be proud of because no one talks about teams who win "just" once.

2. Things happened beyond their control but they still have to prove themselves this season.

3. Their championship road was too easy.

4. They were champions because they got lucky.

 

I don't know with you but I find it hard to attribute an NBA title to just plain "luck." Did the 1977 Blazers just got lucky? How about the 2011 Mavs who swept the defending champion Lakers and then pulverized Miami's super team in the finals? Did they just got lucky too? Can we say the same for the 2004 Detroit Pistons? That team composed of Billups, Big Ben, and company never won again. Can we say the same for the 2006 Miami Heat? That team with "just" DWade and company never won again. Their next titles were inside the LeBron era in Miami. How about KG and Paul Pierce's 2008 Celtics? Did Bird's and Bill Russell's titles made Pierce's title legit? Are we supposed to criticize them too because they only won once? How about the Seattle Sonics and Washington Bullets teams who faced each other in the finals two consecutive times in 1978 and 1979 seasons? Their titles are not legit? Each of them won only once against the other.

 

You see, my point is ALL NBA titles - yep, including the lockout-plagued titles by the Spurs and the Heat in 1999 and 2012 are legit. From the point I raised in the previous paragraph, let's say the Warriors do not repeat this season, do we strip them of the title they won last year? Do we put an asterisk like what Skip and Stephen were saying? No. We don't. They are champions. They played, they won games and they still needed to win 16 playoff games to hoist that trophy. They did not cheat. They paid their dues. And that my friend is all that it should take to make a title legit - not a repeat performance.

 

Winning an NBA finals series makes ANY team a legitimate champion. Winning more than once makes the team great. The Warriors can prove that they are a great team if they win the title again this season. Let's not label their title last season a farce because that is simply untrue and unfair.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Guiness]

From what you're saying, it seems like you mean that they should be content to winning last season and take it easy this year? That doesn't sound like a championship team to me. If anything, they should be more than motivated this season to prove people who say that their championship isn't all that legit and come into this season hungrier than ever to win again.

 

I would like nothing better but for them to prove not only me wrong but to all their detractors that their championship was no fluke and they're the real deal. Those teams you mentioned had chances to repeat. But they were derailed because of Age, injury and even key players being traded away which make up the core of the team.

 

The warriors can't be compared to those teams you mentioned because their core players are intact and being a young team i would say they wouldn't have problems with injuries maybe except for Bogut.

 

I still think they would have lost to the Spurs if they faced them in the playoffs. The clippers would have been a good matchup for them since they're evenly matched. For this coming season the warriors are the favorites to defend. I hope i'm wrong about them.

[darksoulriver]

Lets see if the Warriors can beat a recharge San Antonio Spurs

[Eddy Syet]

From what you're saying, it seems like you mean that they should be content to winning last season and take it easy this year? That doesn't sound like a championship team to me. If anything, they should be more than motivated this season to prove people who say that their championship isn't all that legit and come into this season hungrier than ever to win again.

 

I would like nothing better but for them to prove not only me wrong but to all their detractors that their championship was no fluke and they're the real deal. Those teams you mentioned had chances to repeat. But they were derailed because of Age, injury and even key players being traded away which make up the core of the team.

 

The warriors can't be compared to those teams you mentioned because their core players are intact and being a young team i would say they wouldn't have problems with injuries maybe except for Bogut.

 

I still think they would have lost to the Spurs if they faced them in the playoffs. The clippers would have been a good matchup for them since they're evenly matched. For this coming season the warriors are the favorites to defend. I hope i'm wrong about them.

 

No, sir. I'm not saying that the Warriors should be content to winning just one. That's not even our topic. The topic I believe was: did the Warriors simply got lucky last season? And my stand was they sure got the so-called "luck of the draw" but that should not lessen the luster of their title. As I keep saying, it's not their fault that they did not get to face the Spurs (or the Clippers) in the playoffs. That is purely San Antonio's fault. Are we really going to punish the Warriors and question the legitimacy of their title just because "a supposedly strong team like the Spurs LOST to the Clippers?" Or just because "a supposedly strong team like the Clippers LOST to the Rockets?" That, in my opinion, is unfair.

 

It is true that some of the teams I mentioned who only won once were not the same team following the championship season. Case in point is the 2011 Mavs. Their core was not the same because Mark Cuban literally did not bring the same team back. That cannot be said however for the Pistons, Celtics, or the Sonics and the Bullets. Let's also not forget that however successful the Spurs were during Duncan's time - they never won two straight titles. My point is that a title's legitimacy should not be questioned just because of the opposition or just because it's a team's "first." There are 30 teams in the NBA. Only 16 get to make the playoffs. That should make the playoffs competitive enough for any championship team.

 

Having said that - I'll go back to the 2011 Dallas Mavericks. They never repeated as champions. Are we going to say that the 2011 title was a fluke?

 

You believe that the Spurs could have beaten them. Fair enough. You could be right or wrong there but then that's immaterial to the question of the Warriors' title's legitimacy because we can never know - the Spurs faltered. That wasn't Golden State's fault.

 

The Warriors earned the right to be called champions. Let's give them that.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Guiness]

Speaking of the Mavericks, do you really believe that championship of theirs wasn't a fluke? They were at 18-1 odds of winning the championship with 7 other teams having better odds than them. That was a fluke. Even now, I'm still wondering how they were able to pull that off that year. Did you honestly say to yourself before the start of the finals, that they would win against the Heat? Be honest. The Heat made a mistake of underestimating them and giving them the confidence that they could win that series. They clearly were the more talented team, everyone knew that. I was shocked at what happened. Mind you, i was actually rooting for the Mavs since i always like an underdog winning against a heavily favored team. But never in my mind did i think that they would win against the Heat. I was happy with the results. To be honest with you, i don't even remember the teams they faced in the playoffs other than the Heat because that's how forgettable they were.

 

But going back to the warriors, you can't compare them to the Mavs because the warriors were more talented than that team, younger and had the best record.

 

As for this coming season, I am anticipating how they would do this year and I am very much interested in how they would do against the teams they were struggling against. If they play the same way they did last season, I'm afraid they won't get to repeat as champs. We can revisit what we talked about if their championship was a stroke of luck by how they do this season

 

I really hope I'm wrong about them.

[Eddy Syet]

OK. Let's just agree to disagree then.

 

As for the Mavs? No, their title wasn't a fluke. I had full confidence in Dirk and company that season. I watched all the playoffs games they played that year. Even before their come-from-behind win in Game 2 against Miami, they already did that many times - against Portland, against the defending champions LA Lakers, and again, against the OKC Thunder who boasts of the younger but definitely NOT less talented KD, RW, and Harden.

 

They dethroned the Lakers when everyone was praying for a Lakers vs Heat finals. So yeah, I wasn't surprised when they beat the Heat. I was the only rich person in the office then because I practically won every bet I entered into by putting my money on the Mavs.

 

Also, you are talking to Jason Kidd's (and in turn the Mavericks') biggest fan here in MTC. People who know me can attest to that. That is why I was the one who started the Milwaukee Bucks thread.

 

Again, the Mavs championship was no fluke. Whether the Heat underestimated them or not is not the Mavs' problem. We beat them 4 games to 2 and that's not by stroke of luck.

[Guiness]

You are aware that the Lakers from that point in time have been in the finals the previous 3 years. They were pretty much gassed and fatigued by that season so your Mavs caught a break there by playing them the first round. They were the fresher team. They were on a roll by then from the sweep and they road that momentum in the finals against the Heat who were favored against them, but the one mistake the Heat made was they didn't respect them and underestimated them thinking the trophy would just be handed to them because they were the more talented team. Did you see this video of them making fun of Dirk being sick and the felt he was faking his illness? This video was before game 5 when the series was tied. this was a team who didn't respect their opponent and was still joking around when the series was tied. They didn't respect Dirk and that's what happened to their arrogance. That's why im saying the Mavs won through luck because the Heat underestimated them. This was also the year that Lebron made that speech about not winning just one " not one, not two, not three, not four etc... championships being this was the first year of the Big 3 in Miami.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoOXKha7uL4

 

 

You pretty much made my point since you're a fan of Kidd and telling me that you won every bet, because you were the only One who bet on them. That's what i'm telling you, no one believed they would win because the majority was pulling for the Heat. By virtue of being a fan you remove yourself from being objective since you have belief and faith on your team even if the oddsmakers are against them. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I, on the other hand can say i am objective since i thought like everybody else that the Heat were favored to win. I am actually a Knick fan, and since my team didn't qualify for the finals. I rooted against the Heat since i would rather see them lose than win the championship. But at the back of my mind, while watching each game. I always thought that the Heat would win since they had the best player in the game in Lebron James. When the mavs won it was a shock to me that they won and also relief since the Heat loss. Like i said luck.

 

The expression "It's better to be lucky than good" applies to them.

[Eddy Syet]

Luck? Bullsyet.

 

They dethroned the Lakers because the Lakers were "exhausted" for being in the finals the previous three years?! Seriously? So what were the other teams doing in those three years? Watching TV? I mean because the Lakers were exhausted? Wow. The Lakers defeated the Lakers because the Mavs were the better team that year. Period.

 

Are you saying that the Lakers were also playing every off-season and not taking a break just like the other 29 teams?

 

The Miami Heat only lost because they disrespected the Mavs? What kind of crap is that?

 

If I were to follow your reasoning, can I say that Heat just got lucky that they faced a young and inexperienced OKC Thunder when they won their first title? Was it luck the second time around because Ray Allen drained a crucial three-pointer when the Spurs could have taken the title in Miami?

 

Please don't use "objectivity" and "luck" in the same paragraph because they contradict each other. And it isn't right to say that being objective is being one with "most." Dahil maraming nagsasabi na Heat ang mananalo sa finals nila ng Mavs nung 2011 eh lack of objectivity na kapag sumalungat ka?

 

Eh paano yung Mavs vs Heat finals nung 2006? The Mavs were heavily-favored but the Heat won. So lack of objectivity ba yung naniwala sila DWade na kaya nilang talunin ang Heat? Syet.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Eddy Syet

[Guiness]

Ok, stay with me here. Let's focus on the lakers and the lakers only.

 

If you look at the schedule, the finals are played until June right? Now how much rest do you get in the off season before training camp starts and a new season. Since training camp starts at the end of september. The team gets what, at the most 3 months of rest between july- august. Not even counting the summer league and their commitments to endorsers. You saw steph curry go on tour right? that's one of those commitments they need to uphold in their contracts to showup at camps and endorse whatever product their signed to.

 

I don't know about you but 82 games in a season is a lot not to mention the playoffs and finals. Repeating and going back to the finals every year is tough. Mentally and physically it can be draining. I'm just not saying this because its my opinion. These opinions come from analysts and NBA players themselves who say that playing until June can be draining. The other 29 other teams you mentioned got eliminated and had more time to recharge and rest.

 

The lakers fought a good series with the Mavs, but mental and physical fatigue caught up with them and the Mavs had fresher legs. I'm not taking anything away from the Mavs winning that series but, you have to admit fatigue did play a factor. The lakers looked old and worn out

 

Going back to the 2011 Mavs. Answer me honestly, do you believe for a FACT that the Mavericks were a more talented team than that Heat team? Don't take into account the results of the finals and just judge the team looking at them from a glance. Player to player and overall, who is the more talented team? The following season, the two times they met during the regular season. The heat dominated both games and both games ended up in a rout. I would say the following season, they did not underestimate them again. That's what the difference was from the previous year they lost to them. They did not respect them enough to give them credit for making the finals. Hard lesson learned by Lebron that also humbled him because he was arrogant enough to believe that being the "chosen one" that winning championships is easy.

 

You can't apply the same reasoning to other teams because they have different circumstances. You mentioned the OKC thunder the following year. Yes, they were young and inexperienced. But, the determining factor on that series was, the Heat were the more talented team. Lebron is the best player in the world. Everyone knows that. He guarded KD for the most of the important moments of the game and he wasn't going to underestimate them like he did the Mavs.

 

You mentioned the Ray Allen 3. Heck yea that was lucky. But i think part of it was also Coach Pop's fault for not putting Duncan in the game. That was luck however you look at it. The game was decided by ONE rebound. That's all it was, One rebound between the spurs winning it all and the Heat getting a big momentum. The game 7 after that was pretty much a demoralized Spurs team who had no more fight left in them after it was taken away in game 6.

 

Luck can play a big factor in sports. That's what i believe,

 

You misunderstood my point on being objective. Being objective is having no affiliation or favoring a side. You are neutral. It's not a negative thing. Those people who said they were rooting for the Heat. They're not objective because they are biased towards the Heat, same thing with you being a Mavs fan. There's nothing wrong with that. It should be encouraged that you make a case for your team as what you are doing now. I'm pretty much the same as well when you i am talking about the Knicks. I'm not objective when it comes to them. There's nothing wrong with not being objective when it comes to a team you are siding with or favor.

 

You're talking about the people who were rooting for the Heat in to win in the 2006 Finals. Of course there wasn't any objectivity because they were Heat fans. They want the Heat to win like any other fan would, therefore they wouldn't be objective. They would be biased. Unless they were casual basketball fans who have no afiiliation and have don't favor any side. Again, nothing wrong with that.