Warriors on pace for about 160 tonight.

No team in nba history could beat this Warriors team. LeBron about to lose his 5th finals and 3 of them weren't his fault at all.

Is there any defense being played?

 

Is this really in the best interest of the NBA...? Lots of casual/bandwagon fans like "superteams," but only when there's a sense that there's a fair fight to be had with opponents.

 

Not to mention that all the other games/teams are doomed to being afterthoughts and also-rans.

 

Is there any defense being played?

 

Is this really in the best interest of the NBA...? Lots of casual/bandwagon fans like "superteams," but only when there's a sense that there's a fair fight to be had with opponents.

 

Not to mention that all the other games/teams are doomed to being afterthoughts and also-rans.

It is definitely 100% NOT in the interest of the NBA to have this garbage happen.

LeBron was the one who started the whole join teams with all stars. Durant took that up a few notches obviously, but you live by the sword..

That's one of the beauties of MLB, fwiw.

 

Even in the NFL, so much of a team's success revolves around the QB position. In MLB, you can have Sale/Eaton/2014 Abreu/Q and not even get a whiff of the playoffs.

That's one of the beauties of MLB, fwiw.

 

Even in the NFL, so much of a team's success revolves around the QB position. In MLB, you can have Sale/Eaton/2014 Abreu/Q and not even get a whiff of the playoffs.

 

NFL and MLB are very similar in that respect. Sure, QB is important, but you can have a great QB and still not win many championships. Hell, having a great QB isn't even a prerequisite for winning a championship in the NFL.

LeBron was the one who started the whole join teams with all stars. Durant took that up a few notches obviously, but you live by the sword..

That is one, great take! Very very true.

Even in the NFL, so much of a team's success revolves around the QB position. In MLB, you can have Sale/Eaton/2014 Abreu/Q and not even get a whiff of the playoffs.

NFL is still probably the best, though. Any year, unless you fall into a certain subcategory of incompetent teams (Browns, Bears), you're in it. And the playoffs are single elimination so anything can really happen.

Anyone else find it ironic that a Chicago sports message board is complaining about the same team being in the NBA Finals every year?

If Warriors win in 4 or 5, they will go down as the greatest team of all time. We're in the Finals and they haven't even been tested.

If Warriors win in 4 or 5, they will go down as the greatest team of all time. We're in the Finals and they haven't even been tested.

 

4 yes, 5 they're in the conversation, as silly as that is.

 

If they had just won one more game last year they'd already be the greatest, cementing their legacy this year.

Anyone else find it ironic that a Chicago sports message board is complaining about the same team being in the NBA Finals every year?

 

Not really. It's the way they are getting there with this "Super Team" crap that's annoying (speaking about GS this year not Cleveland, although James started it with Miami so it's nice to see him get beaten by one like this). And it's common that in one conference you can pick the finals team before the year started, but now there was no doubt it was going to be Cleveland and GS this year. Why even watch until the finals?

4 yes, 5 they're in the conversation, as silly as that is.

 

If they had just won one more game last year they'd already be the greatest, cementing their legacy this year.

 

I don't have all the number in front of me, even if they win in 5, it's hard to argue that they aren't the greatest team of all time. How many teams actually went 16-1 or better in the playoffs with a better margin of victory than the Warriors currently have? That plus their regular season record and margin of victory, and credentialized by a 73 win season last year and have a better team on paper this year, it's hard to argue against that.

Anyone else find it ironic that a Chicago sports message board is complaining about the same team being in the NBA Finals every year?

Yes but the Bulls were at least built the old school way. The Warriors probably are in the finals without Durant, but at least the series would be interesting. They were great when they did it the old way, when stars wanted to lead their team to the championship not join one already in progress.

 

Barkley gets a lot of crap for no titles. He could have signed with the Bulls for the minimum and won several. I don't know why that would make him better.

 

The invention of the super team kind of turned me off. In the NBA they win more frequently. In other sports, not as much, and when they lose it's fun.

I don't have all the number in front of me, even if they win in 5, it's hard to argue that they aren't the greatest team of all time. How many teams actually went 16-1 or better in the playoffs with a better margin of victory than the Warriors currently have? That plus their regular season record and margin of victory, and credentialized by a 73 win season last year and have a better team on paper this year, it's hard to argue against that.

 

Lakers went 15-1 in 2001. Bulls went 15-2 and 15-3. I think the Sixers or Bucks went 12-1 back in the day.

 

 

Yeah I really, really enjoyed nba from 2008-2016 and would defend it but this year really, really sucked.

 

Part of it is that basketball is a game where slight advantages can have big results. How much better is GS than San Antonio? Cleveland? In other sports you'd say GS was the lead but each team could compete and would be no shocker to take a playoff series. But when you have a really good team that 3-5% advantage you have over the other team just adds up really quickly each possession.

 

And so even though we've had teams building up and up, there were still these awesome playoffs of grizz v spurs and clips v okc and okc v spurs / GS. But then GS and CLE got that edge with Durant just too much higher over where "anything could happen" can't really happen.

 

And it turns out that's remarkably not fun. ANd it also turns out that the responsible distribution of minutes in the regular season is remarkably not fun when it's not just the spurs doing it.

 

These are two really great teams playing beautiful basketball. But is it high stakes? I don't know, when it is this preordained, and when the outcome is so determined, it just feels like an all star game.

 

So yeah, I'd love if the Bulls were the ones dominating. But even though times change I'm still just thinking how much I love Russ for wanting to beat everyone on his own. Didn't win s***, won't win s***, but I'd rather ride with that honestly.

Yes but the Bulls were at least built the old school way. The Warriors probably are in the finals without Durant, but at least the series would be interesting. They were great when they did it the old way, when stars wanted to lead their team to the championship not join one already in progress.

 

Barkley gets a lot of crap for no titles. He could have signed with the Bulls for the minimum and won several. I don't know why that would make him better.

 

The invention of the super team kind of turned me off. In the NBA they win more frequently. In other sports, not as much, and when they lose it's fun.

 

I can see the argument about how the teams were built, I was just saying that the NBA has always been about a few top teams. The Lakers and Celtics were superteams of their own all through the 80. From 91-99, only two franchises won titles. Then the Lakers & Spurs came along in the 00s. If you go through the historical Finals matchups, it's always periods of the same teams.

 

The NBA screwed it up on their own a little bit. Top free agents can sign their largest contracts if they stay with their current teams, so it's hard for mid-tier team to buy a great player and improve. But the superstars like LBJ and Durant make so much off the court, they can easily pass up the max contracts to create a superteam.

Ok fellas...contemplating a big play on Cavs ML tonight...

 

How do we all feel about this one?

Ok fellas...contemplating a big play on Cavs ML tonight...

 

How do we all feel about this one?

 

In 2016 the Warriors won games 1 & 2 by a combined 48 points, then CLE won game 3 by 30.

 

In 2017 the Warriors won games 1 & 2 by a combined 41 points. But Kevin Durant and healthy rested Curry.

Ok fellas...contemplating a big play on Cavs ML tonight...

 

How do we all feel about this one?

I would not. The Warriors got blown out in game 3 last year and it seems like they're not going to let that happen this year. I've thought for a bit that game 3 would be a good opportunity to bet the Warriors just because people will be on cleveland. Lowe also talked about how the attitude of the Warriors seems so different between games 2 and 3 from last year. Says he thinks they're "out for blood".

I would not. The Warriors got blown out in game 3 last year and it seems like they're not going to let that happen this year. I've thought for a bit that game 3 would be a good opportunity to bet the Warriors just because people will be on cleveland. Lowe also talked about how the attitude of the Warriors seems so different between games 2 and 3 from last year. Says he thinks they're "out for blood".

Yeah, I am sure you are right, but LeBron was "out for blood" in game 2 and they still lost by 20 or whatever.

 

The public is all over the Warriors and the line has gone from Cavs -2 to Warriors -3.5.

 

Between the refs cheating, the crowd, and LeBron, I really think the Cavs get it done tonight going away.

 

I guess we will see.

Yeah, I am sure you are right, but LeBron was "out for blood" in game 2 and they still lost by 20 or whatever.

 

The public is all over the Warriors and the line has gone from Cavs -2 to Warriors -3.5.

 

Between the refs cheating, the crowd, and LeBron, I really think the Cavs get it done tonight going away.

 

I guess we will see.

Lebron was out for blood, but the Warriors are just much better than the Cavs. The Cavs had a defense ranked in the 20s. I do think they have a shot at winning tonight due to the refs and role players playing better at home, but it just seems like the Warriors really want to sweep and they have so much more talent that they could get it done.

 

 

Lebron was out for blood, but the Warriors are just much better than the Cavs. The Cavs had a defense ranked in the 20s. I do think they have a shot at winning tonight due to the refs and role players playing better at home, but it just seems like the Warriors really want to sweep and they have so much more talent that they could get it done.

Yeah, I generally agree, although I think the first two games in Oakland have distorted the delta between the two a bit.

I would not. The Warriors got blown out in game 3 last year and it seems like they're not going to let that happen this year. I've thought for a bit that game 3 would be a good opportunity to bet the Warriors just because people will be on cleveland. Lowe also talked about how the attitude of the Warriors seems so different between games 2 and 3 from last year. Says he thinks they're "out for blood".

 

Last year the Warriors were already printing their "Repeat" championship t-shirts. This year they are much more in focus I think and aren't gonna blow their chance.

 

Oh, and you know, they added Kevin Durant.