Quantcast
NBA Finals Discussion- warriors clean up in five games, win it all 129-120

Forums - Sports Discussion - NBA Finals Discussion- warriors clean up in five games, win it all 129-120

Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:

Your second line reveals you don't have a clue what you are talking about.  The Celtics, Lakers, 76ers, the players back then where athletic as hell.  You had to be, the league was punishing and fast paced.  If you weren't athletic, you were fairly useless for anything but a bench warmer. 

And no, that's not "just how it goes."  Many analysts will agree with me that most of the stars of today don't stack up to the biggest stars of past decades, the 60s included. 

And your third paragraph exposes your ignorance and lack of respect.  Wilt Chamberlain is easily top 5 all time.  I would take him over Shaq.  I'd take him over anyone other than Jordan and Kareem.  And even then it would be a tough call.  And the talent pool was smaller but it was also very dense.  The 60s had fewer teams and therefore more talent per team.  There were very few teams that existed only to be stepped on.  There were numerous great players back then, you just don't see them because you are stuck in your ways and refuse to respect history.  Do you're research. 

And your comment on shooting percentages also showcases more lack of knowledge.  The game was played at an absurd tempo back then, resulting in far, far more posessions but therefore also far fewer clean looks.  Teams regularly took over 100 shots in a game.  Today's style of play drives up the shooting percentage.  And a lot of that can be credited to the 3 point line's impact on the floor and how the game had to be played. 

Wilt is basically a 90s player ... in the 60s. That's why he was abe to put up ridiculous numbers. But he is basically the exception. 

Taking a 100 shots a game indicates a ridiculous style of play, playing in the modern era would be a rude awakening for these guys. 

The 60s was not great basketball, I'm sorry if you think so, but come on. Things improve, and get better, sports in general have improved massively over the last 30 years due to things like TV (yes, being able to watch/study/break down game tape of every other athlete over and over again is a huge, and that footage being shown to millions of poeple worldwide encourages millions more to try and play the sport), training in the weight room, not to mention huge financial incentive (become a multi-millionaire, etc.), wildly more advanced coaching techniques, far superior development of players from a young age, etc. etc. etc. 

Most athletes from the 60s would get their ass handed to them today against modern athletes and basketball is probably more extreme not less because it's by its nature a sport more dependant on athletcism and size.  

You take the best tennis player from the 60s and put the against Nadal or Federer in their peak and they'd get wrecked. You take the best hockey team from the 60s and they would lose 10-1 to the Pittsburgh Penguins of today, I mean shit in the 60s/70s players in hockey would go have a cigarette in between periods, lol. 

Definitely agree with your post.
Modern athletes are better than past ones and that's basically a fact. Just look at all the world records in athletics, swimming etc. and tell me how many of them still haven't been beaten since the 60s.
Same can be said for team sports. In football (you know which one), it's very obvious as the game has become so much faster that even teams from the early 90s wouldn't stand 60 minutes on the pitch if they tried to keep up with modern teams.

And that's just the athelicism aspect. As you mentioned there have been many improvements in studying past games, more tactics, new rules, which alone could totally invalidate tactics that used to be advantageous and so on.

Now if these old athletes were born much later and thus still active today, I bet they could still be the best of their (new) era, but defintiely vastly superior to their past alter egos.



Around the Network
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time is a myth created by Orange Gatorade commercial and the Nike Jordan marketing campaigns. Numerous legends of the NBA including Magic, Kareem, Dr J., Larry Bird, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain do not rate Michael Jordan as a top 5 player of all time. Players like: Charles Barkley and Scottie Pippen claim Michael Jordan is the greatest because their legacies are boosted by claiming Jordan is the greatest. Is Michael Jordan the greatest or not the greatest NBA player of all time?

This is not true. Idk about all of them, but back in 2013, Magic said his top 3 all time is MJ, himself, and Bird. Bird called Jordan God on the baskteball floor, and that was BEFORE he won 6 rings.....so you're either pulling shit out of your ass, or you're just being purposefully disingenuous



As I said, game 3 was the most important, and the Cavs threw it away by being careless and going scoreless for the last 3 minutes. My 117-109 was pretty close too, along with me predicting KD would close it out. Maybe I should hit Vegas and test my luck? :p

Anyways, I don't see this game being a turning point for the Cavs. Their defense is simply pathetic, and it seems the experts' worries about it in the regular season were justified. With a 3-0 deficit and a Kevin Durant who is on another level, this may be the time for the Cavs' organization to reflect on their mistakes.

It's also time for many of the players to change. It's pathetic how Tristen Thompson has 13 rebounds the entire series, and yet Curry had 13 in game 3 alone. This man is being paid $80 million, and yet he simply disappear offensively and defensively?

This team is highly flawed. They have an aging LeBron, Jefferson is gonna retire, and Korver/Smith/others aren't getting any younger. Kyrie and Love are still bad on defense, and Thompson disappears when it matters most. What is the future for this team? Instead of being patient like the Warriors, they slapped on a bunch of contracts and tried to make it work.

Final score prediction: 127-112, Warriors win for the sweep
Finals MVP: Javale McGee



monocle_layton said:
As I said, game 3 was the most important, and the Cavs threw it away by being careless and going scoreless for the last 3 minutes. My 117-109 was pretty close too, along with me predicting KD would close it out. Maybe I should hit Vegas and test my luck? :p

Anyways, I don't see this game being a turning point for the Cavs. Their defense is simply pathetic, and it seems the experts' worries about it in the regular season were justified. With a 3-0 deficit and a Kevin Durant who is on another level, this may be the time for the Cavs' organization to reflect on their mistakes.

It's also time for many of the players to change. It's pathetic how Tristen Thompson has 13 rebounds the entire series, and yet Curry had 13 in game 3 alone. This man is being paid $80 million, and yet he simply disappear offensively and defensively?

This team is highly flawed. They have an aging LeBron, Jefferson is gonna retire, and Korver/Smith/others aren't getting any younger. Kyrie and Love are still bad on defense, and Thompson disappears when it matters most. What is the future for this team? Instead of being patient like the Warriors, they slapped on a bunch of contracts and tried to make it work.

Final score prediction: 127-112, Warriors win for the sweep
Finals MVP: Javale McGee

The flaws I saw in this game weren't their team in terms of capabilities, it's fight.  They had none.  They showed me 2 things:  they have to tools to go toe to toe with this Warriors team but not the heart.   This is most obvious in Tristan Thompson as you pointed out, who is at his best when he's aggressively fighting for the win.  


All I want in this next game is some urgency, some fire.  I want to see multiple Cavs contesting every rebound.  I want every player hustling to keep up with their man.  I want to see them stick to the gameplay that works and pound away until the game ends.  I just want them to play like they're the champs defending their title, not like this is some regular season game.  

IMO this is a classic case of overconfidence.  They should have spent this whole season toughening up for this fight.  But they didn't.  Defense, rebounds, these are aspects you can improve through grit, hustle, and plain old practice.  The Cavs clearly haven't been putting in any of those things.  Right now, they could have Jordan leading and they wouldn't win.  Cause the team has no fire.  If you're going to stand around on defense, not fight for rebounds, and constantly look to engage cruise control whenever you are up 2 posessions, you can't win against a team that wants it.  

The Warriors want it.  The Cavs don't.  Plain and simple.

Which is what makes me furious right now.  This Cavs has potential and they are just freaking wasting it.  It's a disgrace to play with this little determination in the Finals.



Angelus said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time is a myth created by Orange Gatorade commercial and the Nike Jordan marketing campaigns. Numerous legends of the NBA including Magic, Kareem, Dr J., Larry Bird, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain do not rate Michael Jordan as a top 5 player of all time. Players like: Charles Barkley and Scottie Pippen claim Michael Jordan is the greatest because their legacies are boosted by claiming Jordan is the greatest. Is Michael Jordan the greatest or not the greatest NBA player of all time?

This is not true. Idk about all of them, but back in 2013, Magic said his top 3 all time is MJ, himself, and Bird. Bird called Jordan God on the baskteball floor, and that was BEFORE he won 6 rings.....so you're either pulling shit out of your ass, or you're just being purposefully disingenuous

If Jordan is not in your top 5 you're blind or biased beyond belief. That's like a hockey player saying Wayne Gretzky is not top 5, it's ridiculous, and you're wrong on several of those, Magic and Bird have said Jordan is the best. Even Isiah Thomas who has every reason to hate Jordan for being left off the 92 Dream Team, lol, has varied between Jordan is the Best to Jordan is top 3. 



Around the Network
Barozi said:
Soundwave said:

Wilt is basically a 90s player ... in the 60s. That's why he was abe to put up ridiculous numbers. But he is basically the exception. 

Taking a 100 shots a game indicates a ridiculous style of play, playing in the modern era would be a rude awakening for these guys. 

The 60s was not great basketball, I'm sorry if you think so, but come on. Things improve, and get better, sports in general have improved massively over the last 30 years due to things like TV (yes, being able to watch/study/break down game tape of every other athlete over and over again is a huge, and that footage being shown to millions of poeple worldwide encourages millions more to try and play the sport), training in the weight room, not to mention huge financial incentive (become a multi-millionaire, etc.), wildly more advanced coaching techniques, far superior development of players from a young age, etc. etc. etc. 

Most athletes from the 60s would get their ass handed to them today against modern athletes and basketball is probably more extreme not less because it's by its nature a sport more dependant on athletcism and size.  

You take the best tennis player from the 60s and put the against Nadal or Federer in their peak and they'd get wrecked. You take the best hockey team from the 60s and they would lose 10-1 to the Pittsburgh Penguins of today, I mean shit in the 60s/70s players in hockey would go have a cigarette in between periods, lol. 

Definitely agree with your post.
Modern athletes are better than past ones and that's basically a fact. Just look at all the world records in athletics, swimming etc. and tell me how many of them still haven't been beaten since the 60s.
Same can be said for team sports. In football (you know which one), it's very obvious as the game has become so much faster that even teams from the early 90s wouldn't stand 60 minutes on the pitch if they tried to keep up with modern teams.

And that's just the athelicism aspect. As you mentioned there have been many improvements in studying past games, more tactics, new rules, which alone could totally invalidate tactics that used to be advantageous and so on.

Now if these old athletes were born much later and thus still active today, I bet they could still be the best of their (new) era, but defintiely vastly superior to their past alter egos.

I think people underestimate the effect of television too ... imagine being an athlete in the 50s/60s any basically never having seen some of your opponents play or only seeing it maybe once a month at best, lol. NBA was basically not televised except for the Finals until the 70s. 

The talent pool for sports is so much bigger as TV become a staple and all games were televised. You could study/watch the greats, get inspiried, want to be like that, etc. etc. etc. Today an athlete watches constant footage of other competitors, breaking down every little nuance of their game and adjusting their training towards that, you have guy's like Kobe who obviously watched every little thing Jordan did for example and copied that. In the 60s half the players didn't even train in the summer (that's what training camp literally was for), they had to have part time jobs to pay their bills. 

How can you compare that to a modern player who trains 2-6 hours almost every day in the summer with regimented diet and hours also spent in the weight room?

Wilt, Russell, and Jerry West IMO could still play well in today's era, though not nearly as dominant, but a lot of other guys from the 50s/60s would be completely exposed as mediocre players if they had to play against modern talent. 



Soundwave said:
Angelus said:

This is not true. Idk about all of them, but back in 2013, Magic said his top 3 all time is MJ, himself, and Bird. Bird called Jordan God on the baskteball floor, and that was BEFORE he won 6 rings.....so you're either pulling shit out of your ass, or you're just being purposefully disingenuous

If Jordan is not in your top 5 you're blind or biased beyond belief. That's like a hockey player saying Wayne Gretzky is not top 5, it's ridiculous, and you're wrong on several of those, Magic and Bird have said Jordan is the best. Even Isiah Thomas who has every reason to hate Jordan for being left off the 92 Dream Team, lol, has varied between Jordan is the Best to Jordan is top 3. 

Actually, there are a lot that try to come up with excuses, saying how Gretzky was lucky that he wasn't playing in today's NHL



VGPolyglot said:
Soundwave said:

If Jordan is not in your top 5 you're blind or biased beyond belief. That's like a hockey player saying Wayne Gretzky is not top 5, it's ridiculous, and you're wrong on several of those, Magic and Bird have said Jordan is the best. Even Isiah Thomas who has every reason to hate Jordan for being left off the 92 Dream Team, lol, has varied between Jordan is the Best to Jordan is top 3. 

Actually, there are a lot that try to come up with excuses, saying how Gretzky was lucky that he wasn't playing in today's NHL

Anyone who doesn't have Gretzky is their top 5 is freaking ridiculous. Now if the arguement is Gretzky wouldn't score 2.0+ ppg in the modern NHL, ok fine, but Gretzky still played into the late 90s and was a near 100 point player even against the modern slower paced trap game and better goalies and that was like in his mid-30s, so way past his prime. 



Soundwave said:
Barozi said:

Definitely agree with your post.
Modern athletes are better than past ones and that's basically a fact. Just look at all the world records in athletics, swimming etc. and tell me how many of them still haven't been beaten since the 60s.
Same can be said for team sports. In football (you know which one), it's very obvious as the game has become so much faster that even teams from the early 90s wouldn't stand 60 minutes on the pitch if they tried to keep up with modern teams.

And that's just the athelicism aspect. As you mentioned there have been many improvements in studying past games, more tactics, new rules, which alone could totally invalidate tactics that used to be advantageous and so on.

Now if these old athletes were born much later and thus still active today, I bet they could still be the best of their (new) era, but defintiely vastly superior to their past alter egos.

I think people underestimate the effect of television too ... imagine being an athlete in the 50s/60s any basically never having seen some of your opponents play or only seeing it maybe once a month at best, lol. NBA was basically not televised except for the Finals until the 70s. 

The talent pool for sports is so much bigger as TV become a staple and all games were televised. You could study/watch the greats, get inspiried, want to be like that, etc. etc. etc. Today an athlete watches constant footage of other competitors, breaking down every little nuance of their game and adjusting their training towards that, you have guy's like Kobe who obviously watched every little thing Jordan did for example and copied that. In the 60s half the players didn't even train in the summer (that's what training camp literally was for), they had to have part time jobs to pay their bills. 

How can you compare that to a modern player who trains 2-6 hours almost every day in the summer with regimented diet and hours also spent in the weight room?

Wilt, Russell, and Jerry West IMO could still play well in today's era, though not nearly as dominant, but a lot of other guys from the 50s/60s would be completely exposed as mediocre players if they had to play against modern talent. 

By the mid 60s they were airing TV pretty regularly.  The 50s and 60s are not the same era, btw.  They are completely different.  Startin in 58 or so, the game changed in a really, really fast way.  The game played in 65 was nothing at all like 55.

Also talent pool was smaller but the league was a fraction of the size.  So talent pool relative to available positions was not as different as you think.  There were 8 NBA teams in 1960 and 14 in 1969.  That's a fraction of 1996's 29.  So fewer players but also far fewer teams.  That's how you could wind up with a team like the Celtics, where a player like Havlicek is a sixth man.   Also, going back to the TV thing, this also meant that was less of an issue.  Because you still played 79 games in 1960 and 82 games in 1969.  So you didn't need TV as much, you played these people crap ton of times.

And on the pay thing, the best players did not need that at all.  Again, you are using 50s info and applying it to the 60s.  No they weren't filthy rich, but they made a living.  Players did retire earlier, but that was largely due to the physical nature of the league.  No flagrant fouls meant the best players took a really bad beating.  

As for how players would do today, you have to look back and ask if their dominance was due to the state of the league or in spite of it.  West was not a 60s player.  He was undersized and playing in a league where it was all about being strong and playing physical in the paint.  He was a great range shooter in a league where a 3 point shot was just a low percentage 2.  He was a great on ball defender in a league where the pace of the game made it so he couldn't make use of that skill.  West would actually be a far better fit for today's league than the 1960s.  And Russell and Wilt would be great because the foundation of their greatness was athleticism and basketball IQ, which is forever.  WIlt Chamberlain played in a league where he was pummelled constantly, had to play at a very fast pace, and was the primary scoring option for most of his career.  And he averaged over 45 minutes played a game.  In 61-62, he averaged 48.5 minutes per game.  That is, more minutes per game than in a game.  And though not quite as in human, Russell was similarly built on athleticism and endurance.  For those kind of players, the current league with its gentler play and slower pace would be right up their alley.  Especially Wilt, who was also a very clean player, never fouling out once in his career.  I mean, I would just say in general that athleticism is the least of the problems your 60s greats would face.  

But yes, some players would struggle.  As is the case in most eras, your mid tier players would really have a hard time because a lot of them took advantage of calling tendancies and such.  But I would say that Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, and Baylor would all fit in very well in our era.  And Havlicek as well.  I mean shoot, Havlicek went on after Russell retired to lead a new Celtics squad to championships in 74 and 76, so his success was definitely not due to the 60s era.  And btw, that speaks to the quality of the 60s Celtics since he was coming off the bench for a good part of the 60s.  The all time leader in total points scored for the Celtics was their sixth man.  

Point is, in any era there are a lot of players who wouldn't transplant well to another because their success is predicated on the particulars of that league.  That's why analysis of "greatest of all time" and trying to figure out how great a player is outside of that context is challenging and interesting.



Nuvendil said:
Soundwave said:

I think people underestimate the effect of television too ... imagine being an athlete in the 50s/60s any basically never having seen some of your opponents play or only seeing it maybe once a month at best, lol. NBA was basically not televised except for the Finals until the 70s. 

The talent pool for sports is so much bigger as TV become a staple and all games were televised. You could study/watch the greats, get inspiried, want to be like that, etc. etc. etc. Today an athlete watches constant footage of other competitors, breaking down every little nuance of their game and adjusting their training towards that, you have guy's like Kobe who obviously watched every little thing Jordan did for example and copied that. In the 60s half the players didn't even train in the summer (that's what training camp literally was for), they had to have part time jobs to pay their bills. 

How can you compare that to a modern player who trains 2-6 hours almost every day in the summer with regimented diet and hours also spent in the weight room?

Wilt, Russell, and Jerry West IMO could still play well in today's era, though not nearly as dominant, but a lot of other guys from the 50s/60s would be completely exposed as mediocre players if they had to play against modern talent. 

By the mid 60s they were airing TV pretty regularly.  The 50s and 60s are not the same era, btw.  They are completely different.  Startin in 58 or so, the game changed in a really, really fast way.  The game played in 65 was nothing at all like 55.

Also talent pool was smaller but the league was a fraction of the size.  So talent pool relative to available positions was not as different as you think.  There were 8 NBA teams in 1960 and 14 in 1969.  That's a fraction of 1996's 29.  So fewer players but also far fewer teams.  That's how you could wind up with a team like the Celtics, where a player like Havlicek is a sixth man.   Also, going back to the TV thing, this also meant that was less of an issue.  Because you still played 79 games in 1960 and 82 games in 1969.  So you didn't need TV as much, you played these people crap ton of times.

And on the pay thing, the best players did not need that at all.  Again, you are using 50s info and applying it to the 60s.  No they weren't filthy rich, but they made a living.  Players did retire earlier, but that was largely due to the physical nature of the league.  No flagrant fouls meant the best players took a really bad beating.  

As for how players would do today, you have to look back and ask if their dominance was due to the state of the league or in spite of it.  West was not a 60s player.  He was undersized and playing in a league where it was all about being strong and playing physical in the paint.  He was a great range shooter in a league where a 3 point shot was just a low percentage 2.  He was a great on ball defender in a league where the pace of the game made it so he couldn't make use of that skill.  West would actually be a far better fit for today's league than the 1960s.  And Russell and Wilt would be great because the foundation of their greatness was athleticism and basketball IQ, which is forever.  WIlt Chamberlain played in a league where he was pummelled constantly, had to play at a very fast pace, and was the primary scoring option for most of his career.  And he averaged over 45 minutes played a game.  In 61-62, he averaged 48.5 minutes per game.  That is, more minutes per game than in a game.  And though not quite as in human, Russell was similarly built on athleticism and endurance.  For those kind of players, the current league with its gentler play and slower pace would be right up their alley.  Especially Wilt, who was also a very clean player, never fouling out once in his career.  I mean, I would just say in general that athleticism is the least of the problems your 60s greats would face.  

But yes, some players would struggle.  As is the case in most eras, your mid tier players would really have a hard time because a lot of them took advantage of calling tendancies and such.  But I would say that Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, and Baylor would all fit in very well in our era.  And Havlicek as well.  I mean shoot, Havlicek went on after Russell retired to lead a new Celtics squad to championships in 74 and 76, so his success was definitely not due to the 60s era.  And btw, that speaks to the quality of the 60s Celtics since he was coming off the bench for a good part of the 60s.  The all time leader in total points scored for the Celtics was their sixth man.  

Point is, in any era there are a lot of players who wouldn't transplant well to another because their success is predicated on the particulars of that league.  That's why analysis of "greatest of all time" and trying to figure out how great a player is outside of that context is challenging and interesting.

Also by "fit in very well" I think Russell would be a decent player, but he'd be no where close to the best player in the game now. LeBron is way better than him. 

The only player from the 60s that I feel could legit be a top 5 player in the modern NBA is maybe Wilt because and even he would be nowhere close to a 50 ppg player and even he would have to make big adjustments to his game IMO. 

"Pro sports" was a joke in the 60s, most players couldn't do it full time and had to have seperate jobs and the like, the training was no where close to what it is today, the player development that starts today on kids basically from junior high onwards is radically different from the 60s, etc. etc. etc. 

Virtually every sport is far better today than it was in the 60s ... sprinters are faster today, the best swimmer today would murder the best swimmer from the 60s, the best tennis player from the 60s would get demolished today, the best hockey team from the 60s would get blown out today, etc. etc. I don't view baskeball much differently.