Warriors playing the Grizzlies on 4/13, def gonna be an interesting game.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
batmon said:
Big_Stacks said:
I would qualify this notion by saying I think the concern is more relevant against The Spurs.
Hey Batmon,
Yeah, I have no idea if GSW has matured enough to beat a team like the Spurs in a 7-game series. Again, as I have said previously, GSW reminds me a bit of the late 80s/early 90s Bulls. They had to undergo a learning process (and playoff disappointments) to eventually overcome the perennial contenders like the Celtics and Pistons. The primary question I have always stated is, "Have they reached a sufficient level of maturity to knock off the more experienced teams deep in the playoffs?" They're relatively new to winning at such a high level, so it's largely unknown. For some reason (and I do not understand), my analysis has been construed as 'hatin', yet I have merely based my views on past history. After all, GSW has a line-up of seemingly likable, non-asshole guys, so I have nothing against them personally. I apply similar analyses to boxing, wherein I'm slow to consider an up-and-coming fighter as 'the next so-and-so' (e.g., Gennady Golovkin, the Charlo brothers, Leo Santa Cruz, Badou Jack, J'Leon Love, etc.), until I have more data on his potential to actually win a belt (e.g., wins against credible top-10 contenders versus stiffs tailored made to make them look good). I remember how folks were gushing over Ricardo Williams, David Reid, Davey Moore (the younger one), Howard Davis, Tommy Morrison, Alex Garcia, Jermain Taylor, Jeff Lacy, etc. who came up short when truly tested. So, uncertainty aside, GSW will definitely defy history if they win it all since their squad (as currently configured) has not been a contending team for very long. It is all very interesting.
Yep, anything can happen in the playoffs.
Who picked Wisc and Duke? Both #1s, but the smart money was on Kentucky.
I had 3 of the 4, final four teams. Ky and Villanova in the final.
Right now GS looks unstoppable, SAS look long in the tooth.
Who knows, maybe it will be the Pelicans and Pacers in the final.
Why do continue to use regular season success as a barometer for Playoff success?
Why?
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
batmon said:
LaserWolf said:
Right now GS looks unstoppable.
Why do continue to use regular season success as a barometer for Playoff success?
Why?
Key difference: Game-to-game adjustments are possible in a 7-game series. Again, this is the great unknown for GSW and any relatively inexperienced team at playoff time. How well will such teams make adjustments as well as adjust to the adjustments made by the opposing side? How will these teams adapt to pressure? Which 'others' will step up when a team's 'main man' (or 'main men') has (have) a bad game(s) and so on? Which star will shrink under the spotlight (e.g., Paul George, Lamar Odom, Sidney Moncrief)? Which star will emerge (e.g., Kawhi Leonard, Chauncey Billups, Andrew Toney)? These stories have yet to be told, but they will be very soon.
Why do continue to use regular season success as a barometer for Playoff success?
Why?
Key difference: Game-to-game adjustments are possible in a 7-game series. Again, this is the great unknown for GSW and any relatively inexperienced team at playoff time. How well will such teams make adjustments as well as adjust to the adjustments made by the opposing side? How will these teams adapt to pressure? Which 'others' will step up when a team's 'main man' (or 'main men') has (have) a bad game(s) and so on? These stories have yet to be told, but will be very soon.
The Warriors are 11 games better than the closest Western team and 5 better than the Hawks.
No one has shown they can adjust. Yet.
GS has shown they can adjust.
If GS were Houston or OKC I would be worried about who would step up.
Yes Curry scores a lot of points. But Green, Cuzmik, Barnes, Speights and Thompson have already shown they can step up.
Their big men share the rebounds, so there are 3 guys you need to shut down, not one.
Unlike some other stars, Curry averages 8 assists a game. If his shooting is off he knows how to get the ball where it needs to be.
Steve Kerr has already shown he knows what he is doing as a coach. There is no reason to think that once the playoffs start he will forget how to make adjustments.
A lot of people think because they put up a lot of points they don't play defense.
I have seen that said here.
They are the #1 defensive team in the NBA.
Yes. They could lose in the first round to the NOP. Anything can happen.
But to doubt they the best, and the favorite. That's crazy talk.
I will 2nd this: " Oh well, all questions will be answered soon as the '2nd season' is just over the horizon. I can't wait!"
not to be a homer but I agree w/ most of what Laserwolf said. the Warriors have shown they can adjust, they have a lot of role players that step up, they're solid defensively and when they're on, they're very very hard to beat. Will Curry all of a sudden lose his shot? Thompson can drop 40(+). Green can go 25+. Iguodala, Barnes, Speights, Livingston, Barbosa (!), Lee can all pick up some of the slack. If Bogut remains healthy through the playoffs they will be very formidable.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
LaserWolf said:
The Warriors are 11 games better than the closest Western team and 5 better than the Hawks.
No one has shown they can adjust. Yet.
GS has shown they can adjust.
If GS were Houston or OKC I would be worried about who would step up.
Yes Curry scores a lot of points. But Green, Cuzmik, Barnes, Speights and Thompson have already shown they can step up.
Their big men share the rebounds, so there are 3 guys you need to shut down, not one.
Unlike some other stars, Curry averages 8 assists a game. If his shooting is off he knows how to get the ball where it needs to be.
Steve Kerr has already shown he knows what he is doing as a coach. There is no reason to think that once the playoffs start he will forget how to make adjustments.
A lot of people think because they put up a lot of points they don't play defense.
I have seen that said here.
They are the #1 defensive team in the NBA.
Yes. They could lose in the first round to the NOP. Anything can happen.
But to doubt they the best, and the favorite. That's crazy talk.
I will 2nd this: " Oh well, all questions will be answered soon as the '2nd season' is just over the horizon. I can't wait!"
Go Blazers!
Hey LW,
My questions are specifically targeted toward later rounds of the playoffs (translation: I expect them to go deep into the playoffs, thereby acknowledging their obvious talent). Again, for a lot of the guys you've named, it will be their first time playing in that context. As you'll read in all my comments, the question is not their talent (just as it wasn't for the late 80s/early 90s Chicago Bulls). The issue was learning how to play through high-pressure moments against possibly their biggest nemesis in the conference who will be making game-to-game adjustments against them every 2-3 days. Emotionally, I would say the experienced team will have an edge having played through such moments previously (e.g., current Spurs and Grizzlies, late 80s/early 90s Pistons and Spurs, as in my earlier example), sort of like Roberto Duran's experience advantage over the arguably more talented Davey Moore in 1983. Again, GSW could very well 'be ready' (i.e., a very atypical 'quick study' historically like the 1977 Trailblazers), but they haven't played in those situations yet, hence, my questions.
The early 90s Bulls?
I might not be remembering correctly, but I thought their nemesis were the young Pistons and the young Lakers. Were the Bulls that much more inexperienced?
I spose it could be easily googled.
I think I earlier googled youth v experience in the NBA championship and found that results were about even.
But if the GSW lose, I will be happy to blame it on inexperience.
Since it clearly wont be because the other team was better.
Go Blazers!
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
LaserWolf said:
Your question is fair.
But I still don't see it.
The early 90s Bulls?
I might not be remembering correctly, but I thought their nemesis were the young Pistons and the young Lakers. Were the Bulls that much more inexperienced?
I spose it could be easily googled.
I think I earlier googled youth v experience in the NBA championship and found that results were about even.
But if the GSW lose, I will be happy to blame it on inexperience.
Since it clearly wont be because the other team was better.
Go Blazers!
Hey LW,
I meant experience as in having previously reached later rounds of the playoffs and/or the finals. Clearly, the Celtics and Pistons had decidedly more deep playoff experience than the Bulls. That is why the Bulls fell to those teams before finally learning how to overcome them en route to winning the crown. Similarly, it took the Pistons a few attempts before finally knocking off the Celtics (and also the less-experienced Bulls) to earn their 1989 and 1990 championships. Then again, this is the historical trend yet the 1977 Trailblazers did not follow the 'learn to win' championship trajectory. They sort of came out of nowhere and won it, so it is possible for GSW to do the same. My only point is that this trend is atypical, as it takes most championship contenders a few playoff tries before finally winning it. Alternatively, some teams (the mid-90s Knicks and late 90s-early 2000s Pacers) did overcome their perennial playoff foes (e.g., Bulls and Pacers, Knicks, respectively), but failed to win the chip in the end. So, who knows, the playoffs can be a real crap shoot. I was only prognosticating based on past history which may or may not be accurate.
The early 90s Bulls?
I might not be remembering correctly, but I thought their nemesis were the young Pistons and the young Lakers. Were the Bulls that much more inexperienced?
The "old" Pistons were two time defending Champs in by the time The Bulls finally got by them in '91. After that The Pistons werent a threat anymore. The Knicks and Cleveland were their "enemies" in the East from then until Jordan's first retirement.
Pippen joined in '87 and it took them 4 years from there to win it all.
The Lakers they met werent young either and were experienced in the Playoffs. Magic, Scott,and Perkins were years deep.
But that was a Jabbar-less downsliding Lakers who still made it to the Finals.
This was also during a time when there was handchecking, less three point barrages, and pro-perimeter rules.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
batmon said:
LaserWolf said:
The early 90s Bulls?
I might not be remembering correctly, but I thought their nemesis were the young Pistons and the young Lakers. Were the Bulls that much more inexperienced?
The "old" Pistons were two time defending Champs in by the time The Bulls finally got by them in '91. After that The Pistons werent a threat anymore. The Knicks and Cleveland were their "enemies" in the East from then until Jordan's first retirement.
Pippen joined in '87 and it took them 4 years from there to win it all.
The Lakers they met werent young either and were experienced in the Playoffs. Magic, Scott,and Perkins were years deep.
But that was a Jabbar-less downsliding Lakers who still made it to the Finals.
This was also during a time when there was handchecking, less three point barrages, and pro-perimeter rules.
Hey Batmon,
Am I right in summarizing our perspective(s) as saying that, typically, winning an NBA championship is a learning process? So, based upon history, I am hedging in predicting that a team with virtually no deep (or later-round) playoff experience such as GSW (or Atlanta, Toronto, Washington, etc.) will win the championship. Heck, I would be hard pressed to predict the Cavs to represent the East in the title game as Irving, Love, and others are very green when it comes to playoff experience (i.e., Can they perform under the hotter lights of later playoff rounds?). As I have said, exceptions exist (the 1977 Trailblazers), but I cannot think of another single instance of a team emerging to win their conference and the chip without prior deep playoff experience. To use a boxing analogy, it would be hard to predict that Davey Moore (12-0) would defeat Roberto Duran (76-4) to capture the WBA super welterweight boxing title. Ironically, Moore (owing to his superior physical gifts and talent) was favored to win the fight. In the end, Moore took a brutal beatdown, and his handlers were harshly criticized for pushing him too quickly to fight a veteran of Duran's pedigree. So, conventional wisdom suggests that teams (or boxers) must learn how to win it all through experience. Then again, GSW could prove to be the 2nd coming of the '77 Trailblazers (or Leon Spinks in 1978 who beat Muhammad Ali to win the heavyweight title with only a 7-0 record). We'll soon see!!!
To add info to the experience debate here are the likely coaches playoff records:
EASTERN CONFERENCE
2014-15 Record Career Playoffs Record
1. Mike Budenholzer, Atlanta 41-9 3-4
2. Dwane Casey, Toronto 33-17 3-4
3. David Blatt, Cleveland 30-20 0-0
4. Randy Wittman, Washington 31-19 6-5
5.Tom Thibodeau, Chicago 30-20 17-22
6. Jason Kidd, Milwaukee 37-22 5-7
7. Steve Clifford, Charlotte 21-27 0-4
8. Erik Spoelstra, Miami 21-28 63-36
WESTERN CONFERENCE
2014-15 Record Career Playoffs Record
1. Steve Kerr, Golden State 39-8 0-0
2. Dave Joerger, Memphis 37-12 3-4
3. Kevin McHale, Houston 34-15 4-8
4. Terry Stotts, Portland 33-16 6-10
5. Doc Rivers, L.A. Clippers 33-16 70-64
6. Rick Carlisle, Dallas 33-18 56-54
7. Gregg Popovich, San Antonio 31-18 149-90
8. Jeff Hornacek, Phoenix 28-22 0-0
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
LaserWolf said:
2006 Finals: Dallas Mavericks vs. Miami Heat neither team had ever been to a final.
2004 inexperienced Pistons beat the favored experienced Lakers.
Hey LW,
I think you've missed my points. I am not talking about finals experience, but deep playoff experience (i.e., making it to deeper rounds of the playoffs). Dallas (throughout Dirk Nowitzki's career), Miami (e.g., in the late 90s to early 2000s with Alonzo Mourning, Tim Hardaway, P.J. Brown and them), and Detroit had been playoff contenders for years. None of those teams appeared from nowhere, they knocked on the door several times before finally winning it.
For the Heat, I quote:
"The Heat underwent a dramatic turnaround in the 1996–97 season, improving to a 61–21 record – a franchise record at the time, and currently second-best in team history. That same year, Miami earned the moniker of "Road Warriors" for its remarkable 32–9 record on the road. On the backs of Hardaway and Mourning, the Heat achieved their first two victories in the playoffs, making it to the Conference Finals against the Chicago Bulls before bowing out in five games. Their biggest rivals of the time were the New York Knicks, Riley's former team, who would eliminate the Heat in the playoffs from 1998 through 2000."
and
"Behind Van Gundy's leadership, Wade's stellar rookie year and Odom's break out season, the Heat made the 2004 NBA Playoffs, beating the New Orleans Hornets 4–3 in the 1st round and losing to the Indiana Pacers 4–2 in the 2nd round. In the offseason, Riley engineered a summer blockbuster trade for Shaquille O'Neal from the Los Angeles Lakers.[4] Alonzo Mourning returned to the Heat in the same season, serving as a backup to O'Neal. Returning as championship contenders, Miami finished with a 59–23 record, consequently garnering the first overall seed in the Eastern Conference. Sweeping through the first round and the semifinals, Miami went back to the Conference Finals for the first time in eight years, where it met the defending champion Detroit Pistons. Despite taking a 3–2 lead, Miami lost Wade to injury for Game 6. It would go on to lose Game 7 at home despite Wade's return."
For the Mavericks, they made the playoffs from 2001-2010. They lost in the finals in 2006 and won it in 2011. Batmon covered Detroit, which I missed in my initial response.
2006 Finals: Dallas Mavericks vs. Miami Heat neither team had ever been to a final.
2004 inexperienced Pistons beat the favored experienced Lakers.
In 2004 the Pistons had went to the Eastern Conference Finals in '02 and '03. Far from inexperienced.
Dallas was well oiled in the Playoffs by the time the finally beat the newly minted Lebron joined Heat.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
batmon said:
LaserWolf said:
2006 Finals: Dallas Mavericks vs. Miami Heat neither team had ever been to a final.
2004 inexperienced Pistons beat the favored experienced Lakers.
In 2004 the Pistons had went to the Eastern Conference Finals in '02 and '03. Far from inexperienced.
Dallas was well oiled in the Playoffs by the time the finally beat the newly minted Lebron joined Heat.
Then, those Heat went on to win the title the following year; however, this team contained veteran guys with playoff experience like LeBron, Wade, Ray Allen, and Shane Battier.
Then we are agreed.
GSW are the best team, by far, in the NBA right now.
But because of lack of deep play off experience they might not win the championship.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
LaserWolf said:
Then we are agreed.
GSW are the best team, by far, in the NBA right now.
But because of lack of deep play off experience they might not win the championship.
Hey LW,
Yes, GSW are the best team in the league and their record confirms it. Again, based upon decades of past NBA playoff history, their deep playoff inexperience may prevent them from winning a championship [em]right now[/em] (i.e., if they stay together, I think they will win it at some point). This is what was cool about the past NBA, seeing relatively intact teams grow into champions over the years (when there was less free-agent movement). I used to think that maybe THIS YEAR my Sixers will beat the Celtics and get to the championship (only to lose to the Trailblazers or Lakers in the finals until 1983!). Yet, for GSW, winning a championship now is not impossible as the 1977 Trailblazers violated the historical trend. In fact, the Trailblazers virtually went from the toilet to becoming champions, so their chances were infinitely worse than today's GSW team which is returning to the playoffs. So, anything can happen during 'the second season.'
Outside of Spurs in the West, and Lebron in the East, none of these teams have DEEP PENETRATING PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE. Shit is wide open.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
yuichi said:
Who the fuck cares. You dudes don't even have a home team.
Hey Yuichi
Actually I do, ridin' for the Grizz. You're from the Bay Area, now? Barbershop debate has been part of sports for ages, so we fucking care. If you don't, feel free to tune out.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
yuichi said:
Outside of Spurs in the West, and Lebron in the East, none of these teams have DEEP PENETRATING PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE. Shit is wide open.
Don't forget the Hrizz, but yes you're right.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
yuichi said:
Outside of Spurs in the West, and Lebron in the East, none of these teams have DEEP PENETRATING PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE. Shit is wide open.
Hey Yuichi,
Don't forget the Grizz and Bulls (to a lesser extent), but otherwise, yes you're right.
Who the fuck cares. You dudes don't even have a home team.
Hey Yuichi
Actually I do, ridin' for the Grizz. You're from the Bay Area, now? Barbershop debate has been part of sports for ages, so we fucking care. If you don't, feel free to tune out.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Grizz since '12 or so?
I'm not even pulling for the Warriors (maybe I am now, just to prove a point), but they are different from "BELIEVE". And I sure as hell ain't riding for the Spurs, who all of a sudden seem to have a fanbase. or the Cavs or the Grizzlies, who are tough as hell, but don't really care much for.
If my Lakers have been out since day 10 in the NBA season, I'm riding for And1 moves and good ball movement all day. I am a fan of that shit. Pre-Spurs championship last year, I barely heard any of these cats talking about the Spurs. Now everybody and their mamas are down.
Let's stop beating a dead horse and turn this into a pissing contest of pseudo-knowledge, Bill-Simmons stats-guy shit. It's one thing to be Rob Pelinke or Hubie Brown and to actually have some weight behind our words. Another for some regular ass dudes to start name-dropping a bunch of NBA players and teams from past years and act like we know something. Warriors are good. Spurs are good. Grizz are good. Put up some records. Leave it at that.
So, based upon history, I am hedging in predicting that a team with virtually no deep (or later-round) playoff experience such as GSW (or Atlanta, Toronto, Washington, etc.) will win the championship. Heck
History can be a good starting point. But the climate changes. For example, how many bigs are winning Finals MVP these days?
Answer, not many.
And I hate it when you lump a bunch of current "stars" and "hot teams" together like they are equals. It's clear you aren't catching the nuances, perhaps from not watching enough?
And maybe when all is said and done, Cavs will win it all and we will be watching Lebron pull up in his Kia900, Jay-Z at his side with the new Samsung, and Kyrie in some gold-tinted shades on the parade route. and all will be good for ESPN and NBA (sarcasm).
Comments
Hey Batmon,
Yeah, I have no idea if GSW has matured enough to beat a team like the Spurs in a 7-game series. Again, as I have said previously, GSW reminds me a bit of the late 80s/early 90s Bulls. They had to undergo a learning process (and playoff disappointments) to eventually overcome the perennial contenders like the Celtics and Pistons. The primary question I have always stated is, "Have they reached a sufficient level of maturity to knock off the more experienced teams deep in the playoffs?" They're relatively new to winning at such a high level, so it's largely unknown. For some reason (and I do not understand), my analysis has been construed as 'hatin', yet I have merely based my views on past history. After all, GSW has a line-up of seemingly likable, non-asshole guys, so I have nothing against them personally. I apply similar analyses to boxing, wherein I'm slow to consider an up-and-coming fighter as 'the next so-and-so' (e.g., Gennady Golovkin, the Charlo brothers, Leo Santa Cruz, Badou Jack, J'Leon Love, etc.), until I have more data on his potential to actually win a belt (e.g., wins against credible top-10 contenders versus stiffs tailored made to make them look good). I remember how folks were gushing over Ricardo Williams, David Reid, Davey Moore (the younger one), Howard Davis, Tommy Morrison, Alex Garcia, Jermain Taylor, Jeff Lacy, etc. who came up short when truly tested. So, uncertainty aside, GSW will definitely defy history if they win it all since their squad (as currently configured) has not been a contending team for very long. It is all very interesting.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Who picked Wisc and Duke? Both #1s, but the smart money was on Kentucky.
I had 3 of the 4, final four teams. Ky and Villanova in the final.
Right now GS looks unstoppable, SAS look long in the tooth.
Who knows, maybe it will be the Pelicans and Pacers in the final.
Why do continue to use regular season success as a barometer for Playoff success?
Why?
Key difference: Game-to-game adjustments are possible in a 7-game series. Again, this is the great unknown for GSW and any relatively inexperienced team at playoff time. How well will such teams make adjustments as well as adjust to the adjustments made by the opposing side? How will these teams adapt to pressure? Which 'others' will step up when a team's 'main man' (or 'main men') has (have) a bad game(s) and so on? Which star will shrink under the spotlight (e.g., Paul George, Lamar Odom, Sidney Moncrief)? Which star will emerge (e.g., Kawhi Leonard, Chauncey Billups, Andrew Toney)? These stories have yet to be told, but they will be very soon.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
bingo
No one has shown they can adjust. Yet.
GS has shown they can adjust.
If GS were Houston or OKC I would be worried about who would step up.
Yes Curry scores a lot of points. But Green, Cuzmik, Barnes, Speights and Thompson have already shown they can step up.
Their big men share the rebounds, so there are 3 guys you need to shut down, not one.
Unlike some other stars, Curry averages 8 assists a game. If his shooting is off he knows how to get the ball where it needs to be.
Steve Kerr has already shown he knows what he is doing as a coach. There is no reason to think that once the playoffs start he will forget how to make adjustments.
A lot of people think because they put up a lot of points they don't play defense.
I have seen that said here.
They are the #1 defensive team in the NBA.
Yes. They could lose in the first round to the NOP. Anything can happen.
But to doubt they the best, and the favorite. That's crazy talk.
I will 2nd this: " Oh well, all questions will be answered soon as the '2nd season' is just over the horizon. I can't wait!"
Go Blazers!
Hey LW,
My questions are specifically targeted toward later rounds of the playoffs (translation: I expect them to go deep into the playoffs, thereby acknowledging their obvious talent). Again, for a lot of the guys you've named, it will be their first time playing in that context. As you'll read in all my comments, the question is not their talent (just as it wasn't for the late 80s/early 90s Chicago Bulls). The issue was learning how to play through high-pressure moments against possibly their biggest nemesis in the conference who will be making game-to-game adjustments against them every 2-3 days. Emotionally, I would say the experienced team will have an edge having played through such moments previously (e.g., current Spurs and Grizzlies, late 80s/early 90s Pistons and Spurs, as in my earlier example), sort of like Roberto Duran's experience advantage over the arguably more talented Davey Moore in 1983. Again, GSW could very well 'be ready' (i.e., a very atypical 'quick study' historically like the 1977 Trailblazers), but they haven't played in those situations yet, hence, my questions.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
But I still don't see it.
The early 90s Bulls?
I might not be remembering correctly, but I thought their nemesis were the young Pistons and the young Lakers. Were the Bulls that much more inexperienced?
I spose it could be easily googled.
I think I earlier googled youth v experience in the NBA championship and found that results were about even.
But if the GSW lose, I will be happy to blame it on inexperience.
Since it clearly wont be because the other team was better.
Go Blazers!
Hey LW,
I meant experience as in having previously reached later rounds of the playoffs and/or the finals. Clearly, the Celtics and Pistons had decidedly more deep playoff experience than the Bulls. That is why the Bulls fell to those teams before finally learning how to overcome them en route to winning the crown. Similarly, it took the Pistons a few attempts before finally knocking off the Celtics (and also the less-experienced Bulls) to earn their 1989 and 1990 championships. Then again, this is the historical trend yet the 1977 Trailblazers did not follow the 'learn to win' championship trajectory. They sort of came out of nowhere and won it, so it is possible for GSW to do the same. My only point is that this trend is atypical, as it takes most championship contenders a few playoff tries before finally winning it. Alternatively, some teams (the mid-90s Knicks and late 90s-early 2000s Pacers) did overcome their perennial playoff foes (e.g., Bulls and Pacers, Knicks, respectively), but failed to win the chip in the end. So, who knows, the playoffs can be a real crap shoot. I was only prognosticating based on past history which may or may not be accurate.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
The "old" Pistons were two time defending Champs in by the time The Bulls finally got by them in '91. After that The Pistons werent a threat anymore. The Knicks and Cleveland were their "enemies" in the East from then until Jordan's first retirement.
Pippen joined in '87 and it took them 4 years from there to win it all.
The Lakers they met werent young either and were experienced in the Playoffs. Magic, Scott,and Perkins were years deep.
But that was a Jabbar-less downsliding Lakers who still made it to the Finals.
This was also during a time when there was handchecking, less three point barrages, and pro-perimeter rules.
Hey Batmon,
Am I right in summarizing our perspective(s) as saying that, typically, winning an NBA championship is a learning process? So, based upon history, I am hedging in predicting that a team with virtually no deep (or later-round) playoff experience such as GSW (or Atlanta, Toronto, Washington, etc.) will win the championship. Heck, I would be hard pressed to predict the Cavs to represent the East in the title game as Irving, Love, and others are very green when it comes to playoff experience (i.e., Can they perform under the hotter lights of later playoff rounds?). As I have said, exceptions exist (the 1977 Trailblazers), but I cannot think of another single instance of a team emerging to win their conference and the chip without prior deep playoff experience. To use a boxing analogy, it would be hard to predict that Davey Moore (12-0) would defeat Roberto Duran (76-4) to capture the WBA super welterweight boxing title. Ironically, Moore (owing to his superior physical gifts and talent) was favored to win the fight. In the end, Moore took a brutal beatdown, and his handlers were harshly criticized for pushing him too quickly to fight a veteran of Duran's pedigree. So, conventional wisdom suggests that teams (or boxers) must learn how to win it all through experience. Then again, GSW could prove to be the 2nd coming of the '77 Trailblazers (or Leon Spinks in 1978 who beat Muhammad Ali to win the heavyweight title with only a 7-0 record). We'll soon see!!!
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
EASTERN CONFERENCE
2014-15 Record Career Playoffs Record
1. Mike Budenholzer, Atlanta 41-9 3-4
2. Dwane Casey, Toronto 33-17 3-4
3. David Blatt, Cleveland 30-20 0-0
4. Randy Wittman, Washington 31-19 6-5
5.Tom Thibodeau, Chicago 30-20 17-22
6. Jason Kidd, Milwaukee 37-22 5-7
7. Steve Clifford, Charlotte 21-27 0-4
8. Erik Spoelstra, Miami 21-28 63-36
WESTERN CONFERENCE
2014-15 Record Career Playoffs Record
1. Steve Kerr, Golden State 39-8 0-0
2. Dave Joerger, Memphis 37-12 3-4
3. Kevin McHale, Houston 34-15 4-8
4. Terry Stotts, Portland 33-16 6-10
5. Doc Rivers, L.A. Clippers 33-16 70-64
6. Rick Carlisle, Dallas 33-18 56-54
7. Gregg Popovich, San Antonio 31-18 149-90
8. Jeff Hornacek, Phoenix 28-22 0-0
2004 inexperienced Pistons beat the favored experienced Lakers.
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/18-James-Tarlow-Sloan-Analyitcs-Conference-Submission-in-template_updated.pdf
Hey LW,
I think you've missed my points. I am not talking about finals experience, but deep playoff experience (i.e., making it to deeper rounds of the playoffs). Dallas (throughout Dirk Nowitzki's career), Miami (e.g., in the late 90s to early 2000s with Alonzo Mourning, Tim Hardaway, P.J. Brown and them), and Detroit had been playoff contenders for years. None of those teams appeared from nowhere, they knocked on the door several times before finally winning it.
For the Heat, I quote:
"The Heat underwent a dramatic turnaround in the 1996–97 season, improving to a 61–21 record – a franchise record at the time, and currently second-best in team history. That same year, Miami earned the moniker of "Road Warriors" for its remarkable 32–9 record on the road. On the backs of Hardaway and Mourning, the Heat achieved their first two victories in the playoffs, making it to the Conference Finals against the Chicago Bulls before bowing out in five games. Their biggest rivals of the time were the New York Knicks, Riley's former team, who would eliminate the Heat in the playoffs from 1998 through 2000."
and
"Behind Van Gundy's leadership, Wade's stellar rookie year and Odom's break out season, the Heat made the 2004 NBA Playoffs, beating the New Orleans Hornets 4–3 in the 1st round and losing to the Indiana Pacers 4–2 in the 2nd round. In the offseason, Riley engineered a summer blockbuster trade for Shaquille O'Neal from the Los Angeles Lakers.[4] Alonzo Mourning returned to the Heat in the same season, serving as a backup to O'Neal. Returning as championship contenders, Miami finished with a 59–23 record, consequently garnering the first overall seed in the Eastern Conference. Sweeping through the first round and the semifinals, Miami went back to the Conference Finals for the first time in eight years, where it met the defending champion Detroit Pistons. Despite taking a 3–2 lead, Miami lost Wade to injury for Game 6. It would go on to lose Game 7 at home despite Wade's return."
For the Mavericks, they made the playoffs from 2001-2010. They lost in the finals in 2006 and won it in 2011. Batmon covered Detroit, which I missed in my initial response.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
In 2004 the Pistons had went to the Eastern Conference Finals in '02 and '03. Far from inexperienced.
Dallas was well oiled in the Playoffs by the time the finally beat the newly minted Lebron joined Heat.
Then, those Heat went on to win the title the following year; however, this team contained veteran guys with playoff experience like LeBron, Wade, Ray Allen, and Shane Battier.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
GSW are the best team, by far, in the NBA right now.
But because of lack of deep play off experience they might not win the championship.
Hey LW,
Yes, GSW are the best team in the league and their record confirms it. Again, based upon decades of past NBA playoff history, their deep playoff inexperience may prevent them from winning a championship [em]right now[/em] (i.e., if they stay together, I think they will win it at some point). This is what was cool about the past NBA, seeing relatively intact teams grow into champions over the years (when there was less free-agent movement). I used to think that maybe THIS YEAR my Sixers will beat the Celtics and get to the championship (only to lose to the Trailblazers or Lakers in the finals until 1983!). Yet, for GSW, winning a championship now is not impossible as the 1977 Trailblazers violated the historical trend. In fact, the Trailblazers virtually went from the toilet to becoming champions, so their chances were infinitely worse than today's GSW team which is returning to the playoffs. So, anything can happen during 'the second season.'
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Let's not make this some kind of academic affair.
Hey Yuichi
Actually I do, ridin' for the Grizz. You're from the Bay Area, now? Barbershop debate has been part of sports for ages, so we fucking care. If you don't, feel free to tune out.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Don't forget the Hrizz, but yes you're right.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Hey Yuichi,
Don't forget the Grizz and Bulls (to a lesser extent), but otherwise, yes you're right.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Grizz since '12 or so?
I'm not even pulling for the Warriors (maybe I am now, just to prove a point), but they are different from "BELIEVE". And I sure as hell ain't riding for the Spurs, who all of a sudden seem to have a fanbase. or the Cavs or the Grizzlies, who are tough as hell, but don't really care much for.
If my Lakers have been out since day 10 in the NBA season, I'm riding for And1 moves and good ball movement all day. I am a fan of that shit. Pre-Spurs championship last year, I barely heard any of these cats talking about the Spurs. Now everybody and their mamas are down.
Let's stop beating a dead horse and turn this into a pissing contest of pseudo-knowledge, Bill-Simmons stats-guy shit. It's one thing to be Rob Pelinke or Hubie Brown and to actually have some weight behind our words. Another for some regular ass dudes to start name-dropping a bunch of NBA players and teams from past years and act like we know something. Warriors are good. Spurs are good. Grizz are good. Put up some records. Leave it at that.
History can be a good starting point. But the climate changes. For example, how many bigs are winning Finals MVP these days?
Answer, not many.
And I hate it when you lump a bunch of current "stars" and "hot teams" together like they are equals. It's clear you aren't catching the nuances, perhaps from not watching enough?