[quote]therajraj wrote:
GS is definitely a deeper team than CLE, but I doubt better.
[/quote]
X2
If Cleveland was whole, it would have been a drastically different series with a different outcome, and it does not take James Naismith to know this. There is nothing sophistry about that fact.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Deeper and better aren’t mutually exclusive terms by any means. What in the fucking world do you think “deeper” refers to?
[/quote]
Deeper = the talent level of the average player on GS is higher. The drop off in performance for GS going to it’s bench vs CLE is way lower. Cleveland’s talent by contrast is largely concentrated in a couple of players.
It’s clear you know this by the fact you referred to GS as both the deeper and better team.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
They were the deeper, better team, even with Irving AND Love. [/quote]
Lebron with a historically bad supporting cast was able to push the “deeper” team to 6 games.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Deeper and better aren’t mutually exclusive terms by any means. What in the fucking world do you think “deeper” refers to?
[/quote]
Deeper = the talent level of the average player on GS is higher. The drop off in performance for GS going to it’s bench vs CLE is way lower. Cleveland’s talent by contrast is largely concentrated in a couple of players.
It’s clear you know this by the fact you referred to GS as both the deeper and better team.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
They were the deeper, better team, even with Irving AND Love. [/quote]
Lebron with a historically bad supporting cast was able to push the “deeper” team to 6 games.
[/quote]
It wasn’t historically bad until they lost. I don’t know from what basis you derive your “historical” comparison.
Are you really on here trying to argue that the Warriors weren’t clearly the best team in the NBA because they didn’t win the Finals quickly enough? Take a step back and think about what you’re saying here. First of all, I never said the Warriors were anything other than the best team in the NBA this year.
You have one argument to make against this viewpoint, and it’s weak at best. Your entire opposition to my statement that the Warriors are the best team in the NBA is based on the fact that they won the title in 6 games instead of 4.
You still the feel the sting of the multitude of embarrassments you’ve been subjected to in the MLB threads over the years, and so you come on here with a disingenuous argument in some ill-fated attempt to push my buttons or whatever. And now you find yourself making an entirely ridiculous argument, one that clearly shows you have no commitment to the game of basketball and have watched no more than a handful of Warriors games all year.
So who’s engaging in sophistry now, you fucking dunce?
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
GS is definitely a deeper team than CLE, but I doubt better.
[/quote]
X2
If Cleveland was whole, it would have been a drastically different series with a different outcome, and it does not take James Naismith to know this. There is nothing sophistry about that fact. [/quote]
None of this is even remotely supportable, other than the redundant fact that ANY series with ANY additional or subtracted players would have different results. The games may still be won by the same teams and in the same order, but the scores would be different, as would the pathway to those scores. That is enough to make them different.
But that isn’t what you are talking about. What you are talking about is something that is entirely up for conjecture and will never, ever be settled. The fact is that the series is over and this year’s Warriors will never play this year’s full Cavs squad in the Finals. So you can make any claim you want about the results, knowing that you have a semantical out AND you have an actual out, since you are purposely making claims that can never be shown to be inaccurate.
And you call me a sophist?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
My first point was the broader context that spanned five years, umpteen extra playoff series and all the extra minutes, mileage that that entails.
You are largely off base – though characteristically myopic – to fixate on Iggy’s miniscule contribution within that broader context.
Because he’s not a cold-blooded scorer type; it’s not in his makeup. These Earvin/Lebron types are literally seeing different things while they beat their defender off the dribble in an iso-set.
MJ/Bryant-types approach offensive possessions – particularly at that juncture of the game – differently. You know, it’s called the ‘shooting guard’ position. It’s why I earlier stated that Jordan/Bryant/Harden would’ve at least ensured two FTs on that possession, worst-case scenario.
Its a DNA thing, go ahead and take my word for it.
Always cracks me up when you play that in-person spectator card (see also: Rams at Niners that ended in a tie, few years back) to suggest whatever you seem to think it suggests.
I’ll agree that ‘fatigue’ provides the lion’s share of why he settled for that pullup, but I already addressed that and with a much grander perspective than yours.
[quote]Besides, that shot wasn’t going to keep Irving any healthier no matter how it went down. The guy had already played for 40+ minutes at that point. As anyone who has had knee tendinitis can tell you, he would have been done for the next game anyways.
Irving’s fate for the series was already sealed. He would have been playing, most likely, every other game or he would have been increasingly ineffective as the series wore on. And he would have had a big drop-off from Game 1 to Game 2.
Keep in mind that Irving had played about 35 mpg coming into the Finals. That isn’t the way to handle someone with tendinitis in the knee. [/quote]
Agreed that Irving wasn’t getting to a Game 6. But his presence, for however much longer he may have lasted, would’ve only hurt GS’s chances of both winning and keeping SG-Thompson fresh.
Ezeli played well and I’ll never understand why Lee didn’t get more Finals run. (as I’ve mentioned previously, I do have a soft spot for high-IQ bigs)
But seriously, get that Barbosa garbage the fuck outta here. Nevermind the facilitating cuckoldry aspect, his bench minutes in that series were the easiest minutes he’ll EVER see at the pro-level. That is, unless he gets to face another injury-decimated squad whose forced-into-starting backup PG has been expending every ounce of energy chasing the one guy who must be chased over all ninety-four feet of every single possession (ie. S Curry)
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It wasn’t historically bad until they lost. I don’t know from what basis you derive your “historical” comparison.[/quote]
I posted the above URL while I was out, didn’t have time to write anything. Here here’s an excerpt I wanted to share:
[quote]:
If we look at a multi-year Statistical Plus/Minus talent projection for every NBA Finals team,2 this Cavs team ranks as the ninth-least talented NBA finalist since 1985. (By contrast, Clevelandâ??s opponents, the mighty Golden State Warriors, rank as the 14th-most talented.) Remove James, and things get even more dire; his supporting cast ranks as the third-worst team carried by its best player3 to the NBA Finals since 1985.[/quote]
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Are you really on here trying to argue that the Warriors weren’t clearly the best team in the NBA because they didn’t win the Finals quickly enough? Take a step back and think about what you’re saying here. [/quote]
I am saying that based on the fact they needed 6 games to beat this injury riddled Cavs team, I am doubtful the Warriors would have won this series against a healthy Cavs team. This doesn’t mean the Warriors aren’t deserving of the championship.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
First of all, I never said the Warriors were anything other than the best team in the NBA this year.[/quote]
They were certainly the best regular season team and the deepest team in the league.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And now the ipse dixit fallacy, to really drive home the point that you’re a sophist. I like your style.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It wasn’t historically bad until they lost. I don’t know from what basis you derive your “historical” comparison.[/quote]
I posted the above URL while I was out, didn’t have time to write anything. Here here’s an excerpt I wanted to share:
[quote]:
If we look at a multi-year Statistical Plus/Minus talent projection for every NBA Finals team,2 this Cavs team ranks as the ninth-least talented NBA finalist since 1985. (By contrast, Clevelandâ??s opponents, the mighty Golden State Warriors, rank as the 14th-most talented.) Remove James, and things get even more dire; his supporting cast ranks as the third-worst team carried by its best player3 to the NBA Finals since 1985.[/quote]
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Are you really on here trying to argue that the Warriors weren’t clearly the best team in the NBA because they didn’t win the Finals quickly enough? Take a step back and think about what you’re saying here. [/quote]
I am saying that based on the fact they needed 6 games to beat this injury riddled Cavs team, I am doubtful the Warriors would have won this series against a healthy Cavs team. This doesn’t mean the Warriors aren’t deserving of the championship.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
First of all, I never said the Warriors were anything other than the best team in the NBA this year.[/quote]
They were certainly the best regular season team and the deepest team in the league.
[/quote]
Look, I understand your point, sort of.
You claim that the Warriors most likely would have lost the series if the Cavs had Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving on the floor. I think you’re wrong, for all the reasons I have put forth earlier. You have provided absolutely NOTHING of substance, other than someone else’s argument. You’re engaging in the very definition of sophistry while accusing me of such a thing. Be honest with yourself for once and you might realize this.
But that’s besides the real point here. The real point is that I think your assessment is wrong.
First of all, the only game of the series in which Irving was playing was a game the Warriors still won. Did they win it in overtime? Sure, but they also scored the first 10 points of overtime and I think all but 8 of those points were scored with Irving still on the court.
Now, if you want to argue that a fully healthy Irving would have been even tougher for the Warriors, fine. I’ll concede that point. But that is a HUGE if, since Irving has been plagued by injuries his entire career at both Duke and in the NBA.
As for Kevin Love, if you think he would have been anything relevant against the Warriors then you simply haven’t watched them enough this year to make any sort of evaluation of their chances. The Warriors are an extremely bad matchup for him. The Warriors don’t necessarily struggle when teams space the floor; they struggle when a team can put big bodies at the power forward and center positions. The fact is that while Love may be a better player than Tristan Thompson, Thompson is the superior option against the Warriors. Draymond Green isn’t a great offensive player, but he can certainly get himself 15 points a game against Love. Against Thompson, he struggled in the first three games or so.
There are my reasons for disagreeing with you. Do you have anything of actual substance to add, or are you going to put someone else’s argument up here and think that it somehow validates yours?
Not quoting anyone because in truth I think basically everything posted in the thread this year has been garbage and the playoffs were pretty much no exception. Saying KLove(and Kyrie) being healthy instantly makes the Cavs win the title is stupid, equally as stupid as saying it wouldn’t have made much of a difference.
In the second half of the season(aka, when the Cavs became the Cavs, not a lottery team), the starting 5 of Kyrie, JR, James, Love, Mozgof were putting up literally best offense in the history of the game efficiency numbers(you know, the offense everyone expected when the new big 3 was formed, it just took some trades and time to arrive). With Love on the court the Cavs were a hair shy of 120 ppp, with a +17.4 efficiency differential. Without him, those drop to 97 and -7. Kyrie had a higher orating +/- than Steph Curry, the MVP himself, and was a part of basically every high offensive efficiency Cleveland lineup. Now, obviously the games would’ve been remarkably different with them on the floor so I won’t say “Cavs easy sweep” or anything, but their offense literally goes from historically good, to some of the worst in the NBA when they play Delly/Thompson lineups, and the defense doesn’t get all that much better.
I’ve posted on here before about how Love being “awful” on defense is played up way too much(he’s actually one of the best in the NBA at closeouts, particularly of interest in a matchup against GSW, and his ‘bad’ defense is more about his post defense, which the 4s on GS can’t really exploit), and about how the Cavs were(at the time, it got rectified), largely using him wrong. They started using him in more PnRs, and got him more(but still less than at MINN) post 1 on 1s which he is able to exploit. Mozgof and Love on the floor at the same time would be an animal of a lineup for the Warriors to defend, because that’s 3 big time rebounders(count LeBron), 3 big bodies, but only 1 person that can’t shoot, but himself isn’t ignorable on offense(talking about Mozgof).
The series probably becomes more of a shootout, which really amplifies the ‘make or miss’ nature the game already has. Either team has a shot to win it, I’d probably pick the Cavs because they have the best player in the world.
BTW if the Warriors had Klay and Green injured for the series(and tbh that’s not even a comparison to Kyrie and Kevin, but it’s your #2 and 3 players going into the series, not going to hindsight Iggy), and the Cavs have a full roster? That’s a sweep with 0 close games.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Not quoting anyone because in truth I think basically everything posted in the thread this year has been garbage and the playoffs were pretty much no exception. Saying KLove(and Kyrie) being healthy instantly makes the Cavs win the title is stupid, equally as stupid as saying it wouldn’t have made much of a difference.
In the second half of the season(aka, when the Cavs became the Cavs, not a lottery team), the starting 5 of Kyrie, JR, James, Love, Mozgof were putting up literally best offense in the history of the game efficiency numbers(you know, the offense everyone expected when the new big 3 was formed, it just took some trades and time to arrive). With Love on the court the Cavs were a hair shy of 120 ppp, with a +17.4 efficiency differential. Without him, those drop to 97 and -7. Kyrie had a higher orating +/- than Steph Curry, the MVP himself, and was a part of basically every high offensive efficiency Cleveland lineup. Now, obviously the games would’ve been remarkably different with them on the floor so I won’t say “Cavs easy sweep” or anything, but their offense literally goes from historically good, to some of the worst in the NBA when they play Delly/Thompson lineups, and the defense doesn’t get all that much better.
I’ve posted on here before about how Love being “awful” on defense is played up way too much(he’s actually one of the best in the NBA at closeouts, particularly of interest in a matchup against GSW, and his ‘bad’ defense is more about his post defense, which the 4s on GS can’t really exploit), and about how the Cavs were(at the time, it got rectified), largely using him wrong. They started using him in more PnRs, and got him more(but still less than at MINN) post 1 on 1s which he is able to exploit. Mozgof and Love on the floor at the same time would be an animal of a lineup for the Warriors to defend, because that’s 3 big time rebounders(count LeBron), 3 big bodies, but only 1 person that can’t shoot, but himself isn’t ignorable on offense(talking about Mozgof).
The series probably becomes more of a shootout, which really amplifies the ‘make or miss’ nature the game already has. Either team has a shot to win it, I’d probably pick the Cavs because they have the best player in the world.
BTW if the Warriors had Klay and Green injured for the series(and tbh that’s not even a comparison to Kyrie and Kevin, but it’s your #2 and 3 players going into the series, not going to hindsight Iggy), and the Cavs have a full roster? That’s a sweep with 0 close games.[/quote]
Agreed.
Also wish you and WF had helped me re: this garbage towards the end.
