all the hedging in the beginning all of the denial lol
this shit is a great read.
this shit is a great read.
NBA Finals 2016-2017 - Golden State wins NBA title 4-1 vs Cleveland Cavaliers...great series!!!
Lebronze during the finals!
are you from ohio???
My location doesn't matter sir...What Durant did as a superstar is absurd...
Not even remotely.
Same dudes that think it's cool to run away and join 2 top 10 NBA players and lose 2 out of 4 championships with a super team?
Or the same dudes that think it's cool to run from the spurs when your super team falls a part and a mass the highest paid group of basketball players in history only to go 1-3 in the finals
Or is it the same dudes that think the goat could be 3-5 in the finals after being passed around the league like his mom got passed around the locker room.?
My bad that's a different group of dudes
Last edited:
Nah... him and QueenT are sharing real estate on LeBrons balls!
Gods n Kings
Damn...
The Warriors Didn’t Need Kevin Durant To Be This Good
By Benjamin Morris
The Warriors won more than 80 percent of their combined regular-season and playoff games this season. And last season. And the season before.
NATHANIEL S. BUTLER / GETTY IMAGES
The narrative going into the 2016-17 Warriors season was how unfair it was that one of the best teams of all time added one of the best players of all time to become unstoppable. And after the Warriors posted the best winning percentage in NBA postseason history and their star acquisition won the NBA Finals MVP, the narrative coming out of the season is much the same, only louder. But easy to lose in this narrative is the simple fact that the Warriors probably didn’t need Kevin Durant for the team to be this good — or at least almost this good. While adding Durant has been a success, it didn’t end up breaking basketball any more than the Warriors had broken it already.
Counting the regular season and playoffs, the Warriors won 84 percent of their games this year — up from 83 percent last year and 81 percent the year before. Teams have only won 80+ percent of their combined season games 11 times in the 70-year history of the NBA.1 The Warriors have now done it three years in a row.2
But the Warriors’ mission isn’t just to win titles, it’s to guarantee them. And Durant is both icing and insurance policy — a guarantee that the Warriors will always have an MVP-caliber, one-man offense available. Though he makes them a little bit better in his own right, his main value comes from making what happened to them in the 2016 playoffs less likely.
So what does make them so good? And, more broadly, is greatness a matter of refining all aspects of a discipline, or does it stem from being freakishly good at one thing? The Warriors are the first dynasty in the ball-tracking era,since the 2013-14 season." style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 143, 213); position: relative;">3 which gives us an opportunity to measure their greatness in ways that we couldn’t for dynasties past.
This, in turn, may also help answer the question of just how likely the Warriors are to regress to the mean. If their greatness is a confluence of factors, then there’s a whole lot of things that could go wrong to bring them back to earth. On the other hand, if their greatness is more about one thing, then maybe they can keep crushing the game indefinitely.
The most dominant three-year dynasty ever
The Warriors are an offensive juggernaut — but they’re more than that as well. We can see how much they’re contributing to their margins elsewhere by comparing their offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions) to their SRS (margin of victory adjusted for strength of schedule), like so:
While they’ve scored about 7 more points per 100 possessions than league average, they’ve also been 10.6 points better than their opponents overall — so about a third of their edge seems to come from something other than offensive efficiency.
But it isn’t rare for teams with stronger-than-average offenses to also have stronger-than-average defenses. This is a bit counterintuitive — it seems like a great offensive team would be more likely to be weak on defense, since those are two very different skillsets and trade-offs must be made. And teams do, in fact, have to choose between more offense or more defense, so it’s significant that the relationship isn’t negative at all.
The offense can make the defense
To understand the sometimes complicated relationship between offense and defense, take the case of Dennis Rodman. Despite being known as a great defensive player, Rodman’s teams defended just about as well with or without him. And despite him being unable (or unwilling) to score himself, his teams were significantly more efficient on offense when he was on the court (even after accounting for his offensive rebounding). I suspect this is because having Rodman in the game allowed his teams to devote fewer resources to defending and rebounding, diverting those energies to offense instead. Similarly, having a highly efficient outside offense may allow a team to divert resources to the other end of the floor — not to mention that having your offensive players hang out more in the space between their opponents and their opponent’s basket can make their defensive job easier.
So let’s compare the Warriors’ offense and defense a bit more directly:
This uses the SportsVu optical tracking data to judge offensive and defensive shooting versus league averages — it’s pretty similar to offensive and defensive ratings, but with rebounding and fouls taken out so we can concentrate on just shots taken and defended. Over their three-year run, the Warriors have been the best on both ends of the floor when it comes to both making and defending shots. Even so, their offensive prowess is particularly absurd.
Another thing we can do to compare their offense and defense is to break them down two-dimensionally: by the quality of the shots taken or allowed (based on each shot’s modeled expectation), and then by how good a team was at scoring or preventing each shot, given that expectation. This relies heavily on my shot-value model, which accounts for shot type, shot location, shot clock, dribbles, time held, home court, defender position, defender distance, defender height and more.4
This shows that the Warriors appear to have a lot of players who are better at defense than they should be. Perhaps being free to focus on defense more than rebounding and offense helps. Perhaps they play bigger than their size in part because they’re typically in better position than you would expect from players on a more conventional offense whose goal is literally to get behind the other team. Perhaps opponents have to play offense with an extra eye on defense, or with more defenders than they would usually play.
Also, having people like Stephen Curry and Durant as the offensive centerpieces may allow you to surround them with players who are more defense-oriented. Much like Rodman, someone like Draymond Green’s value may be fully realized precisely because he isn’t required to carry his offense. For a power forward, his responsibilities don’t include that much penetrating and collapsing the Warriors opponents’ defenses. Thus, despite being somewhat undersized for his position, Green has thrived — and indeed, may be one of the most valuable players in the league — in his current role.
And Curry’s shooting makes the offense
While the link between Golden State’s offense and defense is speculative, the relationship between their 3-point shooting and their other shooting is easier to track.
Golden State’s relentless barrage of 3s tends to make people forget that the Warriors are also good at 2-point shooting. The difference is that much more of their value on 2s comes from getting good shots, while more of their value on 3s comes from making the shots they get. Typically there is a relationship between how good a team is compared to expectation for both 3- and 2-point shooting, which is unsurprising since we’d expect good shooters to be good shooters, no matter where they’re shooting from. But the Warriors are not only unusually good at 3-point shooting, they’re also better at 3-point shooting than other shooting by an unusual margin. Comparing the two directly, we can see where the Warriors really butter their bread:
The Warriors are respectable at shooting inside the arc, but have been more than twice as good as the next-best team at shooting 3s in this period. They’re so good at it that there’s an argument that they should be doing it even more often, and that Curry — still the best shooter the game has ever seen — should be doing it way more often.
You can throw more defense at them, and teams have done so — as you see in the breakdown chart above, they’re pretty close to average in 3-point shot quality already. But the Warriors are still better at shooting 3s than any other team is at anything — 3s, 2s or defense. And diverting more and more resources toward keeping them from scoring 130+ points per game (as they would if they got off a typical Warriors dynasty-era 3 on every possession), comes at a price. Opponents are working so hard to stop the 3 that they’re almost certainly losing something from their offense or 2-point defense, which likely helps explain why the Warriors get so many open looks inside the arc.
Part of being good at lots of things is being really good at a couple of things. Curry’s ridiculous shooting opens up the Warriors’ offense. Not only are his shots incredibly efficient, but he also draws so much of his opponents’ attention that he makes his teammates look amazing — and makes his team immensely better. Looking at NBAWowy, which tracks how teams perform with a given player on the court versus on the bench, the Warriors outscored their opponents by 3.1 points per 100 possessions when Durant was playing and Curry was not; that number jumped to 16.1 points per 100 possessions with Curry on the court and Durant on the sidelines.5
While Durant may be the story of the season, the Warriors’ dynasty was built and is still being propped up by Curry’s ability to throw the ball into the hoop from great distances. Provided he keeps being able to do that, expect Golden State to keep the game broken.
They didn't need KD to beat the cavs.. The needed KD to beat the the league front office and refs.
Last year you put curry in foul trouble the warriors are fucked. This year you can't fuckin do that.. They tried in game 4 and 3
Last year you put curry in foul trouble the warriors are fucked. This year you can't fuckin do that.. They tried in game 4 and 3
The Warriors Didn’t Need Kevin Durant To Be This Good
By Benjamin Morris
The Warriors won more than 80 percent of their combined regular-season and playoff games this season. And last season. And the season before.
NATHANIEL S. BUTLER / GETTY IMAGES
The narrative going into the 2016-17 Warriors season was how unfair it was that one of the best teams of all time added one of the best players of all time to become unstoppable. And after the Warriors posted the best winning percentage in NBA postseason history and their star acquisition won the NBA Finals MVP, the narrative coming out of the season is much the same, only louder. But easy to lose in this narrative is the simple fact that the Warriors probably didn’t need Kevin Durant for the team to be this good — or at least almost this good. While adding Durant has been a success, it didn’t end up breaking basketball any more than the Warriors had broken it already.
Counting the regular season and playoffs, the Warriors won 84 percent of their games this year — up from 83 percent last year and 81 percent the year before. Teams have only won 80+ percent of their combined season games 11 times in the 70-year history of the NBA.1 The Warriors have now done it three years in a row.2
But the Warriors’ mission isn’t just to win titles, it’s to guarantee them. And Durant is both icing and insurance policy — a guarantee that the Warriors will always have an MVP-caliber, one-man offense available. Though he makes them a little bit better in his own right, his main value comes from making what happened to them in the 2016 playoffs less likely.
So what does make them so good? And, more broadly, is greatness a matter of refining all aspects of a discipline, or does it stem from being freakishly good at one thing? The Warriors are the first dynasty in the ball-tracking era,since the 2013-14 season." style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 143, 213); position: relative;">3 which gives us an opportunity to measure their greatness in ways that we couldn’t for dynasties past.
This, in turn, may also help answer the question of just how likely the Warriors are to regress to the mean. If their greatness is a confluence of factors, then there’s a whole lot of things that could go wrong to bring them back to earth. On the other hand, if their greatness is more about one thing, then maybe they can keep crushing the game indefinitely.
The most dominant three-year dynasty ever
The Warriors are an offensive juggernaut — but they’re more than that as well. We can see how much they’re contributing to their margins elsewhere by comparing their offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions) to their SRS (margin of victory adjusted for strength of schedule), like so:
While they’ve scored about 7 more points per 100 possessions than league average, they’ve also been 10.6 points better than their opponents overall — so about a third of their edge seems to come from something other than offensive efficiency.
But it isn’t rare for teams with stronger-than-average offenses to also have stronger-than-average defenses. This is a bit counterintuitive — it seems like a great offensive team would be more likely to be weak on defense, since those are two very different skillsets and trade-offs must be made. And teams do, in fact, have to choose between more offense or more defense, so it’s significant that the relationship isn’t negative at all.
The offense can make the defense
To understand the sometimes complicated relationship between offense and defense, take the case of Dennis Rodman. Despite being known as a great defensive player, Rodman’s teams defended just about as well with or without him. And despite him being unable (or unwilling) to score himself, his teams were significantly more efficient on offense when he was on the court (even after accounting for his offensive rebounding). I suspect this is because having Rodman in the game allowed his teams to devote fewer resources to defending and rebounding, diverting those energies to offense instead. Similarly, having a highly efficient outside offense may allow a team to divert resources to the other end of the floor — not to mention that having your offensive players hang out more in the space between their opponents and their opponent’s basket can make their defensive job easier.
So let’s compare the Warriors’ offense and defense a bit more directly:
This uses the SportsVu optical tracking data to judge offensive and defensive shooting versus league averages — it’s pretty similar to offensive and defensive ratings, but with rebounding and fouls taken out so we can concentrate on just shots taken and defended. Over their three-year run, the Warriors have been the best on both ends of the floor when it comes to both making and defending shots. Even so, their offensive prowess is particularly absurd.
Another thing we can do to compare their offense and defense is to break them down two-dimensionally: by the quality of the shots taken or allowed (based on each shot’s modeled expectation), and then by how good a team was at scoring or preventing each shot, given that expectation. This relies heavily on my shot-value model, which accounts for shot type, shot location, shot clock, dribbles, time held, home court, defender position, defender distance, defender height and more.4
This shows that the Warriors appear to have a lot of players who are better at defense than they should be. Perhaps being free to focus on defense more than rebounding and offense helps. Perhaps they play bigger than their size in part because they’re typically in better position than you would expect from players on a more conventional offense whose goal is literally to get behind the other team. Perhaps opponents have to play offense with an extra eye on defense, or with more defenders than they would usually play.
Also, having people like Stephen Curry and Durant as the offensive centerpieces may allow you to surround them with players who are more defense-oriented. Much like Rodman, someone like Draymond Green’s value may be fully realized precisely because he isn’t required to carry his offense. For a power forward, his responsibilities don’t include that much penetrating and collapsing the Warriors opponents’ defenses. Thus, despite being somewhat undersized for his position, Green has thrived — and indeed, may be one of the most valuable players in the league — in his current role.
And Curry’s shooting makes the offense
While the link between Golden State’s offense and defense is speculative, the relationship between their 3-point shooting and their other shooting is easier to track.
Golden State’s relentless barrage of 3s tends to make people forget that the Warriors are also good at 2-point shooting. The difference is that much more of their value on 2s comes from getting good shots, while more of their value on 3s comes from making the shots they get. Typically there is a relationship between how good a team is compared to expectation for both 3- and 2-point shooting, which is unsurprising since we’d expect good shooters to be good shooters, no matter where they’re shooting from. But the Warriors are not only unusually good at 3-point shooting, they’re also better at 3-point shooting than other shooting by an unusual margin. Comparing the two directly, we can see where the Warriors really butter their bread:
The Warriors are respectable at shooting inside the arc, but have been more than twice as good as the next-best team at shooting 3s in this period. They’re so good at it that there’s an argument that they should be doing it even more often, and that Curry — still the best shooter the game has ever seen — should be doing it way more often.
You can throw more defense at them, and teams have done so — as you see in the breakdown chart above, they’re pretty close to average in 3-point shot quality already. But the Warriors are still better at shooting 3s than any other team is at anything — 3s, 2s or defense. And diverting more and more resources toward keeping them from scoring 130+ points per game (as they would if they got off a typical Warriors dynasty-era 3 on every possession), comes at a price. Opponents are working so hard to stop the 3 that they’re almost certainly losing something from their offense or 2-point defense, which likely helps explain why the Warriors get so many open looks inside the arc.
Part of being good at lots of things is being really good at a couple of things. Curry’s ridiculous shooting opens up the Warriors’ offense. Not only are his shots incredibly efficient, but he also draws so much of his opponents’ attention that he makes his teammates look amazing — and makes his team immensely better. Looking at NBAWowy, which tracks how teams perform with a given player on the court versus on the bench, the Warriors outscored their opponents by 3.1 points per 100 possessions when Durant was playing and Curry was not; that number jumped to 16.1 points per 100 possessions with Curry on the court and Durant on the sidelines.5
While Durant may be the story of the season, the Warriors’ dynasty was built and is still being propped up by Curry’s ability to throw the ball into the hoop from great distances. Provided he keeps being able to do that, expect Golden State to keep the game broken.
I have my issues with LeBron as you do...I think he's too friendly to his opponents..All that time dancing before the game should be used to mentally get in the opponents head by talking shit or at least staring them down...That handshake bullshit urk me to..
From what I saw Cleveland could have beat golden state...GS is one hell of a team but they have weaknesses...The main weakness they showed was calling Durant after game 7...They fear LeBron but Bron don't take advantage of it..
Golden State's dominance is shooting 3's
A shooter can mentally be taken out of the game...LeBron is up in age now as far as NBA years...If he had been mentally tougher over the years he would have 6 rings already....
Keeping on point though Durants move to Golden State was the pussiest shit in free agency history.
Exactly!!! So this season, you could see after GS started dominating they were on that fuck shit again, but KD wasn't having it so the league said fuck it and called the refs off and you see the difference between games 3-4 and game 5... GS beat the shit out of them fools! :yes;
We got charts and graphs out here now?
Man bro's is serious about some basketball. I like that.
.... Not That @RoadRage shit though
but just putting shit in perspective
That's classic man. Got me laughing over here. Basketball as well as other sports are spiritual to me. It's serious business to me too. But, man man. Y'all taking it to levels as far as debate. Good stuff.
The Warriors Didn’t Need Kevin Durant To Be This Good
By Benjamin Morris
The Warriors won more than 80 percent of their combined regular-season and playoff games this season. And last season. And the season before.
NATHANIEL S. BUTLER / GETTY IMAGES
The narrative going into the 2016-17 Warriors season was how unfair it was that one of the best teams of all time added one of the best players of all time to become unstoppable. And after the Warriors posted the best winning percentage in NBA postseason history and their star acquisition won the NBA Finals MVP, the narrative coming out of the season is much the same, only louder. But easy to lose in this narrative is the simple fact that the Warriors probably didn’t need Kevin Durant for the team to be this good — or at least almost this good. While adding Durant has been a success, it didn’t end up breaking basketball any more than the Warriors had broken it already.
Counting the regular season and playoffs, the Warriors won 84 percent of their games this year — up from 83 percent last year and 81 percent the year before. Teams have only won 80+ percent of their combined season games 11 times in the 70-year history of the NBA.1 The Warriors have now done it three years in a row.2
But the Warriors’ mission isn’t just to win titles, it’s to guarantee them. And Durant is both icing and insurance policy — a guarantee that the Warriors will always have an MVP-caliber, one-man offense available. Though he makes them a little bit better in his own right, his main value comes from making what happened to them in the 2016 playoffs less likely.
So what does make them so good? And, more broadly, is greatness a matter of refining all aspects of a discipline, or does it stem from being freakishly good at one thing? The Warriors are the first dynasty in the ball-tracking era,since the 2013-14 season." style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 143, 213); position: relative;">3 which gives us an opportunity to measure their greatness in ways that we couldn’t for dynasties past.
This, in turn, may also help answer the question of just how likely the Warriors are to regress to the mean. If their greatness is a confluence of factors, then there’s a whole lot of things that could go wrong to bring them back to earth. On the other hand, if their greatness is more about one thing, then maybe they can keep crushing the game indefinitely.
The most dominant three-year dynasty ever
The Warriors are an offensive juggernaut — but they’re more than that as well. We can see how much they’re contributing to their margins elsewhere by comparing their offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions) to their SRS (margin of victory adjusted for strength of schedule), like so:
While they’ve scored about 7 more points per 100 possessions than league average, they’ve also been 10.6 points better than their opponents overall — so about a third of their edge seems to come from something other than offensive efficiency.
But it isn’t rare for teams with stronger-than-average offenses to also have stronger-than-average defenses. This is a bit counterintuitive — it seems like a great offensive team would be more likely to be weak on defense, since those are two very different skillsets and trade-offs must be made. And teams do, in fact, have to choose between more offense or more defense, so it’s significant that the relationship isn’t negative at all.
The offense can make the defense
To understand the sometimes complicated relationship between offense and defense, take the case of Dennis Rodman. Despite being known as a great defensive player, Rodman’s teams defended just about as well with or without him. And despite him being unable (or unwilling) to score himself, his teams were significantly more efficient on offense when he was on the court (even after accounting for his offensive rebounding). I suspect this is because having Rodman in the game allowed his teams to devote fewer resources to defending and rebounding, diverting those energies to offense instead. Similarly, having a highly efficient outside offense may allow a team to divert resources to the other end of the floor — not to mention that having your offensive players hang out more in the space between their opponents and their opponent’s basket can make their defensive job easier.
So let’s compare the Warriors’ offense and defense a bit more directly:
This uses the SportsVu optical tracking data to judge offensive and defensive shooting versus league averages — it’s pretty similar to offensive and defensive ratings, but with rebounding and fouls taken out so we can concentrate on just shots taken and defended. Over their three-year run, the Warriors have been the best on both ends of the floor when it comes to both making and defending shots. Even so, their offensive prowess is particularly absurd.
Another thing we can do to compare their offense and defense is to break them down two-dimensionally: by the quality of the shots taken or allowed (based on each shot’s modeled expectation), and then by how good a team was at scoring or preventing each shot, given that expectation. This relies heavily on my shot-value model, which accounts for shot type, shot location, shot clock, dribbles, time held, home court, defender position, defender distance, defender height and more.4
This shows that the Warriors appear to have a lot of players who are better at defense than they should be. Perhaps being free to focus on defense more than rebounding and offense helps. Perhaps they play bigger than their size in part because they’re typically in better position than you would expect from players on a more conventional offense whose goal is literally to get behind the other team. Perhaps opponents have to play offense with an extra eye on defense, or with more defenders than they would usually play.
Also, having people like Stephen Curry and Durant as the offensive centerpieces may allow you to surround them with players who are more defense-oriented. Much like Rodman, someone like Draymond Green’s value may be fully realized precisely because he isn’t required to carry his offense. For a power forward, his responsibilities don’t include that much penetrating and collapsing the Warriors opponents’ defenses. Thus, despite being somewhat undersized for his position, Green has thrived — and indeed, may be one of the most valuable players in the league — in his current role.
And Curry’s shooting makes the offense
While the link between Golden State’s offense and defense is speculative, the relationship between their 3-point shooting and their other shooting is easier to track.
Golden State’s relentless barrage of 3s tends to make people forget that the Warriors are also good at 2-point shooting. The difference is that much more of their value on 2s comes from getting good shots, while more of their value on 3s comes from making the shots they get. Typically there is a relationship between how good a team is compared to expectation for both 3- and 2-point shooting, which is unsurprising since we’d expect good shooters to be good shooters, no matter where they’re shooting from. But the Warriors are not only unusually good at 3-point shooting, they’re also better at 3-point shooting than other shooting by an unusual margin. Comparing the two directly, we can see where the Warriors really butter their bread:
The Warriors are respectable at shooting inside the arc, but have been more than twice as good as the next-best team at shooting 3s in this period. They’re so good at it that there’s an argument that they should be doing it even more often, and that Curry — still the best shooter the game has ever seen — should be doing it way more often.
You can throw more defense at them, and teams have done so — as you see in the breakdown chart above, they’re pretty close to average in 3-point shot quality already. But the Warriors are still better at shooting 3s than any other team is at anything — 3s, 2s or defense. And diverting more and more resources toward keeping them from scoring 130+ points per game (as they would if they got off a typical Warriors dynasty-era 3 on every possession), comes at a price. Opponents are working so hard to stop the 3 that they’re almost certainly losing something from their offense or 2-point defense, which likely helps explain why the Warriors get so many open looks inside the arc.
Part of being good at lots of things is being really good at a couple of things. Curry’s ridiculous shooting opens up the Warriors’ offense. Not only are his shots incredibly efficient, but he also draws so much of his opponents’ attention that he makes his teammates look amazing — and makes his team immensely better. Looking at NBAWowy, which tracks how teams perform with a given player on the court versus on the bench, the Warriors outscored their opponents by 3.1 points per 100 possessions when Durant was playing and Curry was not; that number jumped to 16.1 points per 100 possessions with Curry on the court and Durant on the sidelines.5
While Durant may be the story of the season, the Warriors’ dynasty was built and is still being propped up by Curry’s ability to throw the ball into the hoop from great distances. Provided he keeps being able to do that, expect Golden State to keep the game broken.
Wow
This is the shit those muthafuckas simply don't want to face because it throws shade on last years championship. There's a reason why no team (let alone the fuckin' Cavaliers which is the first part of the joke) have never come back from being down 3-1 in the Finals. The ONLY way something like that can happen is injury to a key player and league interference.
The moment the NBA allowed that bitchass organization to whine and plead for a TWO game suspension for Green they fucked up history. By allowing the referees to foul Steph out of Game 6 and NOT give him the chance to beat the Cavs they set the tone for Golden State. Durant already had his taste of league interference (officiating one way to allow OKC to get a 3-1 and then taking it all away). Add to that the fact that OKC got rid of Ibaka and he had enough. He was getting fucked by both of them. The NBA was perfectly okay with him losing and being pliable nemesis for Golden State. OKC clearly felt the same way.
His signing basically eliminated the ability of the league to fuck over Golden State and him while they're protecting the face of the NBA and there was nothing they could do about it. Had they not interfered he'd still be in OKC. Golden State would have still won but this team would not exist.
This is the kind of Ayesha Curry bitch shit that I just cant respect.
When you win its cause you good. When you lose its cause the game is rigged.
It doesnt get any more pussy then this.
Was the NBA front office trying to fuck over GS when they didnt suspend Draymond for kicking Steven Adams?
For every Championship in every sport there are REASONS muthafuckas win. You know like passing the fuckin football instead of running it. Nah, what I can't respect is still-fuckin-pi-duty.
Fuck last years win. They won because of what I noted, not because they were "good". A team that's so fuckin' good that they came back from 3-1 against a team that won 73 games would have been swept if they hadn't had a miracle shooting game.
Nah Bruh, they won because they were "good" is for the blind muthafuckas and even Ayesha Curry has 20/20.
The question is why would they intentionally do something that would interfere with a Cavs/GS rematch? C'mon man. The NBA wanted that matchup.
The NBA didn't suspend Green so that the Cavs would win. GS was deep dickin' those clowns. They didn't think suspending Green would change the outcome. They couldn't predict the Bogut injury or Steph fouling out in Game 6.
The Cavs have never been better then the Warriors.
But the Cavs won last year because they were good and PLAYED better then GS in games 5, 6 and 7.
Listen, you lose game 7 of the NBA finals on your home court... Dont blame the league.
The league didnt make Curry turn the ball over, didnt block Igudoala's shot, and didnt nail a 3 in Curry's face to win the game. Just like the league couldnt make the Falcons run the ball to win the SB.
Theres nothing to respect in your argument. Its pussy. On its face its pussy cause you know good and well that you would NEVER come here saying the league rigged it for GS to win a game.
Let me let you in on a secret. The whole us against the world talk is just motivation for the players. The league isnt actually against you.
Remember when the league suspended those Phoenix players against SA even though the LAST thing the league wanted was SA in the finals again?
You got a conspiracy theory for that one too?
Including the 96-98 Bulls in this chart was mainly done to make GS look bigger that Gods. But because of all the things that has transpired in the league since the 90s, it makes no sense to compare.
Also, GS has basically be on a roll for three straight years. Thats impressive, but imho mentioning them in the same breath with teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and even the Spurs, i.e. teams that have dominated for more 6+ years each should be criminal.
Its cool to be happy that GS won, but imho, a lot of yall are just trolling Cavs fans.
While you're at it why not toss in Kings versus Lakers. Laker fans, like Cav fans, thought they won it straight up too. That is of course until they convicted the ref and he said otherwise. Keep on pretending that shit like this doesn't happen even after it's been confirmed.
I would insult you.. But I'm sure life is already kicking your ass.
You really feel like the cavs were better than the warriors...
The team that had the highest win percentage in league history?
The team that led the league in both offense and defense?
The league has a long history of fuckery.. Ask a Sacramento Kings fan.
But let's end it here...
Fuck you and your bitch ass king james semen laced logic.
They deserve to be trolled just like Trumpsters.
The cavs won 2 games and that was games 2&7
5 6 were won by the refs and front office.
The NBA is a bussiness do you know how much money is lost when a team sweeps the finals?
No different than the 29 foul shit first half of game 4 this year
5 6 were won by the refs and front office.
The NBA is a bussiness do you know how much money is lost when a team sweeps the finals?
No different than the 29 foul shit first half of game 4 this year
Then let's just stop all the qualifiers and say curry has won twice
Cool?
No qualifiers either way
Score is 2-1 I'm absolutely fine with that
I'm not fine with qualifiers for every warrior win and none for a cav win
That's all there is to it
When ppl can concede thus point we can talk sensibly
That's not what thewe cult members say tho
Warriors got then out of there the 1st time once they simply sped up the pace which is still how they win now.
They won a 7 game series where they did the impossible in order to eek it out by 4 points
Yet
All I've read by ppl here and actual journalist is there's no way we win without Kevin Durant like this was a 7 game series in which we won by 4 points lol.
Why didn't they say there's no way the cavs can win if steph is healthy
Or
They need 4 top 5 picks 7 Olympic medalist to be a 6'3 190 point guard?
Cause we all know why lol