Reply With Quote
don't see how you could disagree with KP
Kevin Pelton
http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/story...e-warriors-nba
and from Reddit:
http://i.imgur.com/vmLAZZI.jpg
don't see how you could disagree with KP
Interesting read. Thankfully, the two teams should have a chance to decide who's best in the WCF.
If someone thinks the Spurs can/will beat GS in a series, that's fine. There's certainly an argument there...and the homer in me really wants to think SA will pull it off (although I sure as won't be betting on it).
But I really don't think there's much debate to be had regarding who's been more impressive in the regular season. The Warriors have played like the better team this year. Whether they can keep that up in the playoffs or whether the Spurs can step it up a notch in the playoffs is a different story.
Of course the Warriors should be#1. NBA beat reporters are bored I guess.
Well you have a lot of people bringing up the Spurs' point differential and using that to say SA has been the best team this year...but like this article points out, there's more to it than that. Point differential might be a solid indicator of team strength but in this case it doesn't paint the whole picture.
W/L. That's it and that's all here, imo
ESPN has f'd up the power rankings. They try to make it about cold numbers instead of a ulative analysis.
You don't usually think of teams that have (likely) 65-68 wins as being prohibitive underdogs, but that's what the Spurs will be if they make it to the Warriors.
As good as the Spurs have been in 2015-16, I think it's reasonable to believe that if the Spurs somehow managed to beat the Warriors in a playoff series, it would be an historically significant upset.
The Spurs should have topped the list after they beat the Dubs, and that should have been the only week that GS wasn't number one.
Actually they provide both. Humans (like Stein) have GSW at #1, computers have SA at #1.
Stein rankings week by week: http://espn.go.com/nba/team/rankings/_/name/sa
Last edited by will_spurs; 03-28-2016 at 03:00 AM.
Damn, this article is depressing.
TL;DR = the Warriors are better than the Spurs against touger opponents and when closing out games.Damn, this article is depressing.
Nothing we didn't already know.
and it is hard to argue against that since that's basically the playoff plate (hard opponent + close games)..the Spurs were probably as much of an underdog against Heat in 2013 as they are now, and we know how close we came to the upset...I genuinely trust Pop in these instances more so when he is in a toss-up or has the favourite tag
-'09 Cavs would have been prohibitive underdogs against the Lakers after winning 66 games (the Lakers owned them in the regular season)
-'96 Sonics won 64 & were a HUGE underdogs against the 72 win Bulls
-'97 Jazz won 64 & were prohibitive underdogs against 69 win Bulls
-'93 Suns won 62 & were prohibitive underdogs against the 57 win Bulls
-'00 Lakers almost blew a 3-1 lead in the WCF after winning 67 games
-'13 Heat were a defensive rebound away from losing in the Finals after winning 66 games
-'07 Mavs lost to a team that had their number after winning 67 games
-'06 Pistons lost to the Heat in the ECF after winning 64 games
-You had the 63 win Spurs losing a Gm 7 at home to the 60 win Mavs, which is the closest thing to the Spurs/Worriers (Kings/Lakers doesn't qualify b/c the Kings were a bunch of chokers & the Lakers were the defending champs)
Last year's Worriers would have been underdogs against a healthy Cavs team & actually were after Gm 2.
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 03-28-2016 at 01:35 PM.
The last time the Spurs were underdogs against a Western conference team when they were LEGIT contenders was 2007 against the Suns & Horry hip checked the doubters to the curb.and it is hard to argue against that since that's basically the playoff plate (hard opponent + close games)..the Spurs were probably as much of an underdog against Heat in 2013 as they are now, and we know how close we came to the upset...I genuinely trust Pop in these instances more so when he is in a toss-up or has the favourite tag
2008: Spurs weren't LEGIT contenders after the brutal Hornets series
2014: Spurs were favorites b/c of homecourt & Ibaka's fake injury
If the Worriers want to compare themselves to the Bulls then you had the '92 Bulls almost going down 3-2 to the Knicks during their le defense after their first le. That was their last season at Chicago Stadium & this will be the Worriers last season playing at the Oracle before moving to SF. ('99 Spurs shutdown the LA Forum" by sweeping the Lakers in the WCF so history is on our side)
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 03-28-2016 at 05:54 AM.
The warriors have played like this year... they just have the Chef gawd bailing them out with 35 foot threes in the fourth quarters lol.
Aren't these stats are to be expected when you compare the champs to a team that's finding it's iden y with the new pieces and all? Seems to be more of a reason to be optimistic about the upset imoDamn, this article is depressing.
I tend to agree with this. The Spurs had to learn to play with new players and the Warriors started 29-1. The Spurs kept pace with them up until Saturday.
No matter what the article, there's always a spurs talker complaining that it's "nothing we don't already know."
It's not just that. The point differential argument was probably the most convincing argument any Spurs fan could use when arguing against the Warriors.
This article basically takes that argument and blows it to smithereens.
An upset? Of course. Historically significant? Eh...
Yea, but it used to just be a fun not overthought sort of activity. Now, ESPN acts like it's a science.
Maybe, with factoring in the inevitable cheating; but that Jazz team was better and from the better conference.
Suns were the favorites. They blew it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
