2016-17 Running NBA Thread

This discussion started with people (Dick, maybe real but maybe trolling) being aghast that anyone would question anything about the Warriors.

They aren't as good as they were last year -- by W-L (barely), by stats (especially Curry's), or anecdotally by people who are watching them. (I think Strauss is ESPN's embedded reporter, right?)

There are reasons why. And given the expectations of swapping out Durant for Barnes, it's worth looking at. AND if they do finish short of the title, we will look back on that article.

 

Fair point. But it should be noted that:

1) LTL did not "just look at the record," instead that's how his point got mischaracterized here.

2) I'd say the "other teams change" factor favors last year's team in this debate. The rest of the West did not improve this year, instead it has regressed on the whole, as plenty of the W's main competitors have plainly gotten worse: the Thunder have been completely removed from contender status (and entirely because of the lost superstar added to the Ws), Portland's collapsed, the Mavs have collapsed, the Spurs lost Duncan (even if that loss doesn't show in their record), Memphis' core is fading, etc. I don't have the statistical proof before me, but I'd sure bet that last year's team played the tougher schedule to this point.

 

If it doesn't turn around quick they should move him for a kid in not yet drafted. (Devil)

They were never going to be better record wise and you bring up good points about Curry and his 3 pt % but it's midway through the year, who wouldn't make that move again?

I think complacency as much as anything would be the biggest reason the numbers aren't similar.

 

Part of the disconnect is that they are actually better than I thought they would be.

 

They do look awesome in the last two weeks. It would not surprise me at all if it turns out they've ironed out all the kinks and they win 20 in a row here. So far they're at six with margins from 11 points to 35 (against the Cavs).

 

You've done something special when you pass Stojakovic.

 

Excuse me, that's LEGEND Stojakovic.

 

If you ran an 8-minute mile, I would make fun of you. #5:54Losers

 

Perhaps it's because some of the strains of argumentation have a little strawman to them, mainly the record part?

They had the best W-L mark ever last year. So saying they're worse than that really doesn't mean anything. Considering they chased that mark, got it and ended the year with a bitter taste, it seems likely they wouldn't have a better record because they had egg on their face for chasing the number.

The stats are pretty inconclusive overall. The raw numbers are down for the stars, but that was a given. Outside Steph, Klay's numbers are off a hair, Green's 3-point shooting is down a bit, but you replace Barnes with a considerably more efficent player. At this point, the team's scoring numbers, usually a good indicator are better. That means most of the difference comes down to close games (which was basically the difference between 67 wins in the title year and 73 last year).

The anecdotes are what they are. A nice regular season thing to talk about that gets a little extra hype because of what the team is. It was a good article. Points to something interesting to chew on. But "they're probably still fine," is a more logical response than anything involving their record.

 

Been saying that. Thanks for reading.

 

If you had the Lakers and 49.5 you won.

 

Tried. There's a lot, with a lot of pointing to the record as if it mattered.