# Does the Warriors win streak Make them look worse in a way?



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

No this is not a joke. Hear me out. They won the most games last year out of the whole NBA. They have the best record this year. And despite all of that, Lebron still beat them in the Finals 2 games without sufficient help. Doesn't it just make Lebron look that much more powerful the more the Warriors actually win? Because they just show that even with all the records and glory, they still couldn't beat a man without his 2 best players and a bunch of crippled players. It took 5 guys to try to take down one man.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Stop Posting please. All comments make no sense.

1) No winning 20 games in a row does not make them look worse. Current win streak has nothing to do with last years finals. 

2) They did beat the Lebrons 4 times.

I really don't know if you are serious, or if you are trolling but these topics are awful. The reasoning behind seems like it comes from a 2 year old.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> No this is not a joke. Hear me out. They won the most games last year out of the whole NBA. They have the best record this year. And despite all of that, Lebron still beat them in the Finals 2 games without sufficient help. Doesn't it just make Lebron look that much more powerful the more the Warriors actually win? Because they just show that even with all the records and glory, they still couldn't beat a man without his 2 best players and a bunch of crippled players. It took 5 guys to try to take down one man.


A six game set is a TINY sample size. Had Lebron and those particular Cavs played that particular Warriors team 20 more times - those Cavs would not have managed to win 1/3 of those games. Probably 1/4? I dunno, straw man argument... but even winning 2 of every 4, that's only a 27 win pace over a full season. Not exactly crushing the Warriors to win two games.

The playoffs are the "real season" so to speak, yeah. But things are always skewed by the small-sample-size demon. Were the Warriors better than the Mavs as a team when they beat them in the playoffs as an 8 seed (B-Diddy led Dubs)? Hell no. The Mavericks were a MUCH better team and proved as much over the following year in getting to the Finals. Things happen in the playoffs.

Now, is Lebron a small-sample-size demon? Yes he is. He's a physical force, and in a short-set with extra days off he is going to be able to truly bulldoze. But to say that the Warriors winning 20 in a row in any way empowers Lebron and his Finals performance? Hell no. The two things are completely unrelated.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Vegan Gains said:


> No this is not a joke. Hear me out. They won the most games last year out of the whole NBA. They have the best record this year. And despite all of that, Lebron still beat them in the Finals 2 games without sufficient help. Doesn't it just make Lebron look that much more powerful the more the Warriors actually win? Because they just show that even with all the records and glory, they still couldn't beat a man without his 2 best players and a bunch of crippled players. It took 5 guys to try to take down one man.


Why do you only post in threads you start? Attention whore?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> A six game set is a TINY sample size. Had Lebron and those particular Cavs played that particular Warriors team 20 more times - those Cavs would not have managed to win 1/3 of those games. Probably 1/4? I dunno, straw man argument... but even winning 2 of every 4, that's only a 27 win pace over a full season. Not exactly crushing the Warriors to win two games.
> 
> The playoffs are the "real season" so to speak, yeah. But things are always skewed by the small-sample-size demon. Were the Warriors better than the Mavs as a team when they beat them in the playoffs as an 8 seed (B-Diddy led Dubs)? Hell no. The Mavericks were a MUCH better team and proved as much over the following year in getting to the Finals. Things happen in the playoffs.
> 
> Now, is Lebron a small-sample-size demon? Yes he is. He's a physical force, and in a short-set with extra days off he is going to be able to truly bulldoze. But to say that the Warriors winning 20 in a row in any way empowers Lebron and his Finals performance? Hell no. The two things are completely unrelated.



But you're also forgetting that Lebron was one shot away from winning game 1. If he didn't miss that shot, not only would Cleveland had won an extra game, but Irving would have not got hurt.

Bottomline is that the Cavs only were playing with 7 guys against a whole entire squad. It's a shame that the Warriors didn't win every game playing against a team that was basically dying out there. 

Also, in game 5, the game was basically tied with like 5 minutes left on the Warriors home floor. That could have went either way. 

Still in game 6, Cavaliers were only down by 4 points with 30 seconds left and Curry almost lost the ball. 

Cavs could have easily won 4 out of 6 if some things went right and that is without Superstars Love and Irving.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

And the Warriors could have easily won 4 out 4 if some small things when differently in their losses. Poop argument


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

AllRim said:


> And the Warriors could have easily won 4 out 4 if some small things when differently in their losses. Poop argument



Except the Warriors were at 100 percent full strength. The Cavaliers had 7 players and were missing 2 of their top superstars.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> But you're also forgetting that Lebron was one shot away from winning game 1. If he didn't miss that shot, not only would Cleveland had won an extra game, but Irving would have not got hurt.
> 
> Bottomline is that the Cavs only were playing with 7 guys against a whole entire squad. It's a shame that the Warriors didn't win every game playing against a team that was basically dying out there.
> 
> ...


Again: 2 wins is the same as a 27 win pace. It is not "amazing" that a team with Lebron alone, even against Golden State, could win 27 games. Additionally - you're changing your tone now. We prove you're wrong, that in no way does this reduce what GSW has done - but you're trying to change the scope of the debate saying it was "basically 7 guys against a whole entire squad" - no your point wasn't 7 guys against GSW's rotation. But if you INSIST on taking it there: GSW had 7 guys play all six games. Thats it. And a nine man rotation tops.

I get what you mean - by common sense a non-playoff squad like the Cavs minus Lebron/Love/Irving suddenly without 2/3 of that tripod shouldn't be able to win a pair of games against the most prolific team we've seen in ages. But the fact remains that, logically, winning two out of six is not that amazing. It happened. Sure. But once the Warriors saw the strategy a couple of times - they basically ran over the Cavs with an average margin of victory of almost 15 points over the next three games.

Its not like the Cavs came around and gutted out wins to "get back in" to the series, no: once the Warriors saw the strategy and planned to beat it they pretty much won out comfortably.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Except the Warriors were at 100 percent full strength. The Cavaliers had 7 players and were missing 2 of their top superstars.


There is no concrete evidence out there that a fully healthy Cleveland team wins even two games. Is it likely? Yeah, it is. But by every metric last season Golden State was the superior team. Compared to full Cavs units. If I recall correctly even the Cavs' late January-February surge alone barely had stats on par with the full season Warriors numbers. You're pushing that the Cavs would have won more had they been fully healthy - well I push, especially considering the evidence in front of us right now this season, that the Warriors seeing a Cavs team that was playing the same ol' offense they did all season would have been shut down in comparable manner.

In reality the Warriors dealt with an unexpected gameplan - no one knew how Cleveland would react to losing both of their top support guys. They struggled to battle it for a minute. But as soon as they made adjustments it all came around. In your fantasy world the Warriors would be seeing what they'd been seeing all season out of the Cavs. And frankly: there is no evidence out there that that Cavs team would have run over the Warriors.

You need to look at the world using all of the evidence available to you, let the evidence drive your argument. Don't let the point you want to make influence the evidence you care to pursue.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Again: 2 wins is the same as a 27 win pace. It is not "amazing" that a team with Lebron alone, even against Golden State, could win 27 games. Additionally - you're changing your tone now. We prove you're wrong, that in no way does this reduce what GSW has done - but you're trying to change the scope of the debate saying it was "basically 7 guys against a whole entire squad" - no your point wasn't 7 guys against GSW's rotation. But if you INSIST on taking it there: GSW had 7 guys play all six games. Thats it. And a nine man rotation tops.
> 
> I get what you mean - by common sense a non-playoff squad like the Cavs minus Lebron/Love/Irving suddenly without 2/3 of that tripod shouldn't be able to win a pair of games against the most prolific team we've seen in ages. But the fact remains that, logically, winning two out of six is not that amazing. It happened. Sure. But once the Warriors saw the strategy a couple of times - they basically ran over the Cavs with an average margin of victory of almost 15 points over the next three games.
> 
> Its not like the Cavs came around and gutted out wins to "get back in" to the series, no: once the Warriors saw the strategy and planned to beat it they pretty much won out comfortably.


You are from Ohio and you are saying this? 2 out of 6 isn't good as far as percentage, but yo Lebron missed that shot in game 1 to go into overtime. If he made that shot, then it's 3 wins for Cleveland and that would be 50 percent for both parties just off of that one made shot.

GS only had one game where they won comfortably. Game 5 was tied up until 5 minutes. Cleveland simply ran out of gas because they didn't have bodies. That was a very close game on Golden States floor. 

Game 6, the Cavaliers were within 4 points with 30 seconds and Deli almost striped the ball from Curry to get another possession in that last 30 seconds, but they called a foul. 

So essentially Cleveland could have won both of those games as well. And like I said game 1 was a toss up, but Lebron missed that last shot. The Cavs were up by double digits or more in game 3. Then Curry got hot, but other than the the Cavs were comfortably winning that one. 

So you keep saying that 2 out of 6 is no good, but Golden State got lucky to win 3 of those games. It was almost an even series and yet Cavaliers didn't have Love and Irving. That's at least 35 points they are missing. A lot of people said Cleveland would have swept if they had full squad.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Vegan Gains said:


> Bottomline is that the Cavs only were playing with 7 guys against a whole entire squad. It's a shame that the Warriors didn't win every game playing against a team that was basically dying out there.


No, the bottom line is that the Warriors won 67 regular season games, went 16-5 in the playoffs, and are now 20-0. That means they have won 103 out of the 123 games they have played with this core and Kerr's system. That a winning percentage of 83.7%. 

So do they look bad? No. I would say they look pretty good.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> You are from Ohio and you are saying this? 2 out of 6 isn't good as far as percentage, but yo Lebron missed that shot in game 1 to go into overtime. If he made that shot, then it's 3 wins for Cleveland and that would be 50 percent for both parties just off of that one made shot.
> 
> GS only had one game where they won comfortably. Game 5 was tied up until 5 minutes. Cleveland simply ran out of gas because they didn't have bodies. That was a very close game on Golden States floor.
> 
> ...


That is called revisionist history. Lebron James did not make that shot. The Cavs did not win that game. The Cavs won two games out of three to start the series, not three games out of three. And there is absolutely no guarantee that the Warriors come out with the same gameplan the next two games and the Cavs win those games. By changing any one element of history you begin a cascade effect that topples all that came after. Had Lebron James made his shot in game 1, had the Cavs won game 1: there is absolutely no existing evidence that shows the results of game 2 and game 3 would have been the same.

I'm going to go off the stat mentioned above and state that the Warriors have gone 103-20 in their past 123 games... And they're 19-4 in that period of time in the sort of games you're talking about: close games. In games decided by 5 points or fewer the Warriors have won 19 out of 23 games. Maybe, just maybe, the reason that the team that every metric says is better won those close games over the Cavs is because the Warriors are damn fine at playing close games. The Cavs didn't lose those games, a team that knew what it was doing won those games.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> You are from Ohio and you are saying this? 2 out of 6 isn't good as far as percentage, but yo Lebron missed that shot in game 1 to go into overtime. If he made that shot, then it's 3 wins for Cleveland and that would be 50 percent for both parties just off of that one made shot.
> 
> GS only had one game where they won comfortably. Game 5 was tied up until 5 minutes. Cleveland simply ran out of gas because they didn't have bodies. That was a very close game on Golden States floor.
> 
> ...


And I'm just curious, because your posts are really really juvenile in reasoning - are you still in high school? Your style of reasoning reminds me a LOT of my 9th grade students. (thats all of your posts, not just this one)


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

I like a full strength Cavs over the Warriors too, but even then, no way are they sweeping the Warriors. Curry is simply too big an Xfactor.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

With Irving's 25 points, Cavs lost last year.

Fairly speaking, with healthy Love and Irving, Warriors would win 6 out of 10 game because Love is just a bit better than T Thompson.

Warriors only spent 73 million in salaries last year, Cavs spent 180 million this year. Cavs have better talents, Warriors are a better team.

Cavs overperformed two games. Warriors figured out at Game 4.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> That is called revisionist history. Lebron James did not make that shot. The Cavs did not win that game. The Cavs won two games out of three to start the series, not three games out of three. And there is absolutely no guarantee that the Warriors come out with the same gameplan the next two games and the Cavs win those games. By changing any one element of history you begin a cascade effect that topples all that came after. Had Lebron James made his shot in game 1, had the Cavs won game 1: there is absolutely no existing evidence that shows the results of game 2 and game 3 would have been the same.
> 
> I'm going to go off the stat mentioned above and state that the Warriors have gone 103-20 in their past 123 games... And they're 19-4 in that period of time in the sort of games you're talking about: close games. In games decided by 5 points or fewer the Warriors have won 19 out of 23 games. Maybe, just maybe, the reason that the team that every metric says is better won those close games over the Cavs is because the Warriors are damn fine at playing close games. The Cavs didn't lose those games, a team that knew what it was doing won those games.


Believe what you want to believe. All I know is that a whole army of men almost got beat by a one man team. Even ask Steven A Smith who would have won the Championship.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> And I'm just curious, because your posts are really really juvenile in reasoning - are you still in high school? Your style of reasoning reminds me a LOT of my 9th grade students. (thats all of your posts, not just this one)


He doesn't really believe what he's writing. His stance on any topic is the one that gets him the most attention. There's a reason he quotes Stephen a smith.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the more they win the worse they are...


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Does Stephen Curry use a flip phone?


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> He doesn't really believe what he's writing. His stance on any topic is the one that gets him the most attention. There's a reason he quotes Stephen a smith.


Yeah, I'm going to call him dumb. For the shits of it.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Believe what you want to believe. All I know is that a whole army of men almost got beat by a one man team. Even ask Steven A Smith who would have won the Championship.


Dumb.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Dumb.



Dumb? So you're denying the fact the Lebron didn't have his 2 best players to help him?


----------



## Baller4eva (Dec 5, 2015)

WTF??? How can winning games look bad. Oh the team goes 82-0 in the regular season and loses a few games in the playoffs in route to the Championship. Yeah really that isn't a bad thing.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Dumb? So you're denying the fact the Lebron didn't have his 2 best players to help him?


No, I'm just saying you don't understand the nature of cause and effect in the real world. Which is a whole lot more fundamentally damaging to your argument than anything related to Lebron and his teammates. But it WOULD make sense if you were still a high school kid, and so I'd feel more like helping you understand than simply calling you an idiot if you'd answer with how old you are as I asked. It kinda effects whether I think you're a fully formed moron, or someone that still can be taught and may be capable of learning.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> No, I'm just saying you don't understand the nature of cause and effect in the real world. Which is a whole lot more fundamentally damaging to your argument than anything related to Lebron and his teammates. But it WOULD make sense if you were still a high school kid, and so I'd feel more like helping you understand than simply calling you an idiot if you'd answer with how old you are as I asked. It kinda effects whether I think you're a fully formed moron, or someone that still can be taught and may be capable of learning.


I used to manage people and quickly realized I don't have patience to deal with lazy or stupid employees. The fact that Im watching you put this much effort into a bored kid just reaffirms my belief in myself. Im not built for this, you are. 

You can tell the difference between a kid like IrvingXx who actually believes what he's saying versus this kid who talks about cam girls to get people to pay attention to him.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

they should make all internet forums require you to upload pics of yourself and personal information before you can register and have it so everyone can see who is behind the person typing all this shit if they start doing thus trolling bullshit. Guarantee these loser trolls would never troll because they're ashamed of themselves. I'll give a free pass to dumb ass teenagers but anyone from their 20's onwards should not be doing this kind of shit.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

jayk009 said:


> they should make all internet forums require you to upload pics of yourself and personal information before you can register and have it so everyone can see who is behind the person typing all this shit if they start doing thus trolling bullshit. Guarantee these loser trolls would never troll because they're ashamed of themselves. I'll give a free pass to dumb ass teenagers but anyone from their 20's onwards should not be doing this kind of shit.



I completely hear where you are coming from. However this discussion is only about Lebron. Not about other things outside of basketball. Lebron was 2 games short of a ring last year despite not having his 2 best players.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

@Vegan Gains - Be smarter.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Basel said:


> @Vegan Gains - Be smarter.



That's just another way of saying you don't want to discuss the fact that Lebron won 2 games vs the Warriors. It's just a way to deflect my statement.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> That's just another way of saying you don't want to discuss the fact that Lebron won 2 games vs the Warriors. It's just a way to deflect my statement.


Yes, he did. How does that make your thread any better?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Go post in the million post thread. You can be as inane as you want there.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> That's just another way of saying you don't want to discuss the fact that Lebron won 2 games vs the Warriors. It's just a way to deflect my statement.


Just as you deflect the facts. The facts are as follows:

1. 2 wins in 6 games is not an impressive ratio.
2. The Cavs did not make the shot in game 1.
3. Had the Cavs made the shot in game 1 there is no guarantee that the flow of history would have run identical and led to the Cavs still winning games 2 and 3 both, as they did in reality.

You seem to desperately want this point to be correct, but it flies in the direct face of logic, the actual chain of events, and the way that things function in the real world. This is where you give it up and admit that the clear majority of people do not agree with this viewpoint and without popular opinion any conjecture that lacks concrete evidence is lost. Its over kid, go home, shower off, come back again tomorrow with something new.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> I used to manage people and quickly realized I don't have patience to deal with lazy or stupid employees. The fact that Im watching you put this much effort into a bored kid just reaffirms my belief in myself. Im not built for this, you are.
> 
> You can tell the difference between a kid like IrvingXx who actually believes what he's saying versus this kid who talks about cam girls to get people to pay attention to him.


At least you could fire them. I can't fire my students. And honestly don't want to, for all the stress it provides me. I feel like I'm being socially irresponsible if I'm throwing these kids out for the myriad stupid shit: the laziness, the lack of impulse control... most of these kids have records a mile long in the school system and once they're in the suspension cycle in high school, its over for their futures. Can't wait until I'm a college professor and I don't have to deal with this bullshit anymore.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Just as you deflect the facts. The facts are as follows:
> 
> 1. 2 wins in 6 games is not an impressive ratio.
> 2. The Cavs did not make the shot in game 1.
> ...



How are you supposed to win 4 when your team is crippled bro


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> How are you supposed to win 4 when your team is crippled bro


You aren't. And he didn't. And 2 wins isn't as impressive as you seem to think it is. And everyone agrees with me. And you have no evidence proving otherwise. You're overstating the importance of Lebron winning two against the Dubs. He is a monster. An absolute monster. You're right. But the fact is that he only won 2. Lebron James SHOULD be able to lead a team without help to 27 out of 82 against the Warriors. He's a monster. But that doesn't make winning 27 games impressive. We call that a lottery pick. None of what we've said undersells how incredible Lebron James was in the Finals. But everything you're saying is overselling the importance of two out of six wins. It just isn't as impressive as you think it is. And like it or not: they did NOT get the win in game one. And nothing you can say can change that fact.

And so, you are completely absent any evidence showing and without the support of public opinion. Which makes you wrong. It just is. Again: go home, shower off, masturbate a little to relieve all this tension you're feeling, and come back when you feel like you've got a better question to pose to us.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> You aren't. And he didn't. And 2 wins isn't as impressive as you seem to think it is. And everyone agrees with me. And you have no evidence proving otherwise. You're overstating the importance of Lebron winning two against the Dubs. He is a monster. An absolute monster. You're right. But the fact is that he only won 2. Lebron James SHOULD be able to lead a team without help to 27 out of 82 against the Warriors. He's a monster. But that doesn't make winning 27 games impressive. We call that a lottery pick. None of what we've said undersells how incredible Lebron James was in the Finals. But everything you're saying is overselling the importance of two out of six wins. It just isn't as impressive as you think it is. And like it or not: they did NOT get the win in game one. And nothing you can say can change that fact.
> 
> And so, you are completely absent any evidence showing and without the support of public opinion. Which makes you wrong. It just is. Again: go home, shower off, masturbate a little to relieve all this tension you're feeling, and come back when you feel like you've got a better question to pose to us.



CHRIS. All things equal, he was ONE Shot away from making it 3-3 with out his 2 best players. That's pretty impressive. If all things are equal in that series, it would have been 3-0 Cavs. Warriors were lucky. Oh yea and Shumpert almost made the shot to in game 1 just off the rim.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> CHRIS. All things equal, he was ONE Shot away from making it 3-3 with out his 2 best players. That's pretty impressive. If all things are equal in that series, it would have been 3-0 Cavs. Warriors were lucky. Oh yea and Shumpert almost made the shot to in game 1 just off the rim.


Again: that is called REVISIONIST HISTORY. It is a very real concept that we are all very aware of, but you are ignorant of. You have absolutely no proof that the arrow of history would have traveled in exactly the same way had the Cavs won game 1. If Lebron James hits his layup, the Cavs take Game 1 - do you have any *definitive proof* that in this scenario, this alternate world, do you have *definitive proof* that every single Cav player and every single Warrior player would have gone through the next few days in _exactly_ the same way leading to _exactly_ the same result in games 2 and 3?

If not, then your point is useless. If Lebron makes his layup in game 1, we have no idea how game 2 and 3 would have been. Maybe the Warriors take those games behind hot shooting nights from Curry and Thompson instead, with Steph taking advantage of Kyrie playing less inspired defense than Dellevadova did in playing way over his head. You don't know. We don't know. *And so as a result of simple true to world events logic* we can not say that had Lebron made his layup, the Cavs would have been up 3-0.

What did happen is the Warriors went 1-2 in the first three games, and then figured out the puzzle and rolled over the Cavs, just like they did every other opponent last season and have for 21 games this season. There is nothing to say they would not have figured out a Lebron and Kyrie, or a Lebron and Kyrie and Love variation of the Cavs. _Because it did not happen._ Instead: the Cavs won 2 out of 6 games, a 27 win pace, which is exactly the rate a team of NBA players led by Lebron James and no one else *should* be at. He did what we expected, but there's nothing to say he could have done anything more. Nothing at all.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Again: that is called REVISIONIST HISTORY. It is a very real concept that we are all very aware of, but you are ignorant of. You have absolutely no proof that the arrow of history would have traveled in exactly the same way had the Cavs won game 1. If Lebron James hits his layup, the Cavs take Game 1 - do you have any *definitive proof* that in this scenario, this alternate world, do you have *definitive proof* that every single Cav player and every single Warrior player would have gone through the next few days in _exactly_ the same way leading to _exactly_ the same result in games 2 and 3?
> 
> If not, then your point is useless. If Lebron makes his layup in game 1, we have no idea how game 2 and 3 would have been. Maybe the Warriors take those games behind hot shooting nights from Curry and Thompson instead, with Steph taking advantage of Kyrie playing less inspired defense than Dellevadova did in playing way over his head. You don't know. We don't know. *And so as a result of simple true to world events logic* we can not say that had Lebron made his layup, the Cavs would have been up 3-0.
> 
> What did happen is the Warriors went 1-2 in the first three games, and then figured out the puzzle and rolled over the Cavs, just like they did every other opponent last season and have for 21 games this season. There is nothing to say they would not have figured out a Lebron and Kyrie, or a Lebron and Kyrie and Love variation of the Cavs. _Because it did not happen._ Instead: the Cavs won 2 out of 6 games, a 27 win pace, which is exactly the rate a team of NBA players led by Lebron James and no one else *should* be at. He did what we expected, but there's nothing to say he could have done anything more. Nothing at all.



I understand all the concepts you are saying Chris. You aren't an idiot obviously. But you have to look at things again. We're talking about a team crippled that shouldn't even win more than a game at all. Forget about the 27 win season you suggested, just hear me out. 

Warriors were at FULL STRENGTH and Cavaliers were tied on the Warriors home court with 5 minutes to go DESPITE not having bodies or any energy left in the tank. In game 6, they got to within 4 points with 30 seconds DESPITE having no bodies left and they were on their last legs. Hell, if Deli didn't go in the hospital, he might have been enough. 

In other words Chris, Cleveland was shots away from PULLING out the impossible and they would have made the Warriors look like a 27 win team. 

We don't know if history would have unfolded the same path it did. However, Cleveland won games 2 and 3 and still made game 1 as close as it could ever get. And like I said, this is without 2 of their best players. So it's safe to assume Cleveland would have killed Golden State if they weren't hurt. They were missing 35 points.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> I understand all the concepts you are saying Chris. You aren't an idiot obviously. But you have to look at things again. We're talking about a team crippled that shouldn't even win more than a game at all. Forget about the 27 win season you suggested, just hear me out.
> 
> Warriors were at FULL STRENGTH and Cavaliers were tied on the Warriors home court with 5 minutes to go DESPITE not having bodies or any energy left in the tank. In game 6, they got to within 4 points with 30 seconds DESPITE having no bodies left and they were on their last legs. Hell, if Deli didn't go in the hospital, he might have been enough.
> 
> ...


Your absolute refusal to give the Warriors credit for winning these close games is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. This team is now 20-4 since the start of last season in games decided by 5 points or less. The reason the Warriors consistently win close games is because they know how to win close games, not because the Cavs underperformed. Your decision to give all of the credit for the Warriors championship to the Cavs' being injured is beyond the pale. The Warriors were the finest team in a conference full of teams that people thought were finer than the Cavs even when the Cavs were at full strength. The Cavs were championship favorites all season because they were in a horse-shit eastern conference and were the most likely team to wind up in the finals, and therefore to have a punchers chance to win. But in reality the Warriors were the best team out of a group of teams ALL thought of as better than the Cavs. And they won close games, and won that series because they were the better team. And there's a fair to strong chance that they would have won that series going away even if the Cavs had been at full strength.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Your absolute refusal to give the Warriors credit for winning these close games is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. This team is now 20-4 since the start of last season in games decided by 5 points or less. The reason the Warriors consistently win close games is because they know how to win close games, not because the Cavs underperformed. Your decision to give all of the credit for the Warriors championship to the Cavs' being injured is beyond the pale. The Warriors were the finest team in a conference full of teams that people thought were finer than the Cavs even when the Cavs were at full strength. The Cavs were championship favorites all season because they were in a horse-shit eastern conference and were the most likely team to wind up in the finals, and therefore to have a punchers chance to win. But in reality the Warriors were the best team out of a group of teams ALL thought of as better than the Cavs. And they won close games, and won that series because they were the better team. And there's a fair to strong chance that they would have won that series going away even if the Cavs had been at full strength.



But the firepower of Cleveland would have been too much for Golden State to even keep it close. A one man team almost beating an army of men isn't impressive? Add 3 top guys and it would be obvious who the winner is. It's like if I almost beat you one handed with one hand tied up, then obviously I would beat you with 2 hands. 

Those Warriors looked dead in the water. Cleveland had the blueprint to beat them even with their crippled guys, but ran out of gas. 

I understand all the things you are saying about how the Warriors win close games. But you are forgetting that Dellevedova, the Curry stopper was dehydrated and had to go to the hospital. That would have been a big factor cuz he was stopping Curry. Not only did Cavs not have Love or Irving, but no Anderson Verajao. Mosgov was benched by the coach. He could have been a whole other factor. I mean we're talking about a 6 man rotation, Deli not at full strength against a 67 win team. It was Lebron all by himself. You don't think a little more firepower would get them enough points to win?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:|


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> I understand all the concepts you are saying Chris. You aren't an idiot obviously. But you have to look at things again. We're talking about a team crippled that shouldn't even win more than a game at all. Forget about the 27 win season you suggested, just hear me out.
> 
> Warriors were at FULL STRENGTH and Cavaliers were tied on the Warriors home court with 5 minutes to go DESPITE not having bodies or any energy left in the tank. In game 6, they got to within 4 points with 30 seconds DESPITE having no bodies left and they were on their last legs. Hell, if Deli didn't go in the hospital, he might have been enough.
> 
> ...


You still haven't addressed the fact almost shot the Cavs out of winning game 2, and if it wasn't the rest of the "corpses" picking up the slack, the Cavs would have lost.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

PauloCatarino said:


> You still haven't addressed the fact almost shot the Cavs out of winning game 2, and if it wasn't the rest of the "corpses" picking up the slack, the Cavs would have lost.



And if he didn't do that, it would have been an even easier victory


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> And if he didn't do that, it would have been an even easier victory


So, who won the game for the Cavs? Smith? Dellavedova? Was it a team effort picking up Lebron james atrocious shooting?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

PauloCatarino said:


> So, who won the game for the Cavs? Smith? Dellavedova? Was it a team effort picking up Lebron james atrocious shooting?


I'm saying it's crazy how Lebron could beat the Warriors even when he shoots his worse. Imagine if he shot it at his best, it wouldn't have been close.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

it's crazy that Lebron sucking means he's so good? is that what you're saying? in the same thread where you're saying that the Warriors winning means they're bad? is that what's happening here?


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> But the firepower of Cleveland would have been too much for Golden State to even keep it close. A one man team almost beating an army of men isn't impressive? Add 3 top guys and it would be obvious who the winner is. It's like if I almost beat you one handed with one hand tied up, then obviously I would beat you with 2 hands.
> 
> Those Warriors looked dead in the water. Cleveland had the blueprint to beat them even with their crippled guys, but ran out of gas.
> 
> I understand all the things you are saying about how the Warriors win close games. But you are forgetting that Dellevedova, the Curry stopper was dehydrated and had to go to the hospital. That would have been a big factor cuz he was stopping Curry. Not only did Cavs not have Love or Irving, but no Anderson Verajao. Mosgov was benched by the coach. He could have been a whole other factor. I mean we're talking about a 6 man rotation, Deli not at full strength against a 67 win team. It was Lebron all by himself. You don't think a little more firepower would get them enough points to win?


No. Because you're failing to account for the points lost as a result of all of those bench guys playing fewer minutes. If you add in Love and Irving you're taking away points elsewhere. Maybe you're adding more than you take away, but a basketball game is only 100 possessions long. They can only add so many points. And more Love and more Irving means more opportunities for the Warriors to take advantage offensively on the other end of the floor. And so the Cavs with Irving and Love healthy are dealing with a Warriors team performing even better themselves offensively because the Cavs no longer have their best defenders on the floor.

So do the Cavs likely get MORE points with Love/Irving healthy? Yes. But not as many as you think. And the Warriors get more points with Love/Irving healthy as well because the Cavs' defense is worse. Of course, pure conjecture, but again: you're assuming everything happens in a vacuum. You have absolutely no way of knowing that the Cavs would perform at full speed with all three of those guys healthy. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Until a team proves it can slow down the Warriors, you can't say "well if they'd been healthy enough they would have......." - my reply is NOBODY has. Not Lebron not anybody, not YET. And so, no: I do not give the Cavs more credit than they are due for winning a pair of games.

Lebron James is the best all around basketball player on the planet. But he alone was nowhere near good enough to win more than a couple of games while the Warriors adjusted to his unconventional approach to abusive steamrolling hero ball.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Does the 76ers record make them look better? I mean they have had a top 3 pick not even play a game for them. The fact they even have 1 win is really impressive. Just imagine if they were trying to win. We'd be crowning them the Champs.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> No. Because you're failing to account for the points lost as a result of all of those bench guys playing fewer minutes. If you add in Love and Irving you're taking away points elsewhere. Maybe you're adding more than you take away, but a basketball game is only 100 possessions long. They can only add so many points. And more Love and more Irving means more opportunities for the Warriors to take advantage offensively on the other end of the floor. And so the Cavs with Irving and Love healthy are dealing with a Warriors team performing even better themselves offensively because the Cavs no longer have their best defenders on the floor.
> 
> So do the Cavs likely get MORE points with Love/Irving healthy? Yes. But not as many as you think. And the Warriors get more points with Love/Irving healthy as well because the Cavs' defense is worse. Of course, pure conjecture, but again: you're assuming everything happens in a vacuum. You have absolutely no way of knowing that the Cavs would perform at full speed with all three of those guys healthy. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Until a team proves it can slow down the Warriors, you can't say "well if they'd been healthy enough they would have......." - my reply is NOBODY has. Not Lebron not anybody, not YET. And so, no: I do not give the Cavs more credit than they are due for winning a pair of games.
> 
> Lebron James is the best all around basketball player on the planet. But he alone was nowhere near good enough to win more than a couple of games while the Warriors adjusted to his unconventional approach to abusive steamrolling hero ball.



See, you even admit the Cavaliers would have scored more. Deli and Thompson wouldn't have to play less. They could have played them together. Or the fact that they'd have 2 more bodies would mean less fatigue for everyone. Imagine that, just fatigue alone was gifting the Warriors some wins.

I do have evidence. At full strength in the season, the Cavs handed the Warriors a fat loss. It was easy.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

so you think Kevin Love guarding Green and Thompson guarding a three would be a net net positive for the Cavs? because:


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> See, you even admit the Cavaliers would have scored more. Deli and Thompson wouldn't have to play less. They could have played them together. Or the fact that they'd have 2 more bodies would mean less fatigue for everyone. Imagine that, just fatigue alone was gifting the Warriors some wins.
> 
> I do have evidence. At full strength in the season, the Cavs handed the Warriors a fat loss. It was easy.


I also admit that the Warriors would have scored more.

As for evidence: Congratulations one regular season game months before. Please do research on what a "sample size" is and what makes something "statistically relevant" and then return to the argument. You are not allowed to make any response until you can demonstrate an understanding of statistical relevance.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> I also admit that the Warriors would have scored more.
> 
> As for evidence: Congratulations one regular season game months before. Please do research on what a "sample size" is and what makes something "statistically relevant" and then return to the argument. You are not allowed to make any response until you can demonstrate an understanding of statistical relevance.



That's nonsense. A cop out if anything. They only meet each other twice in the regular season and were only at full roster that one time. So that is all we have to go by. But the Cavs dismantled the Warriors in that game. That and the fact that the Cavs put up a fight without full roster proves they have the power to take them down. At least I pointed out that game. Golden State was out of sorts because of the way Cleveland played. I can't give you more samples but that did show that they can take them down.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> That's nonsense. A cop out if anything. They only meet each other twice in the regular season and were only at full roster that one time. So that is all we have to go by. But the Cavs dismantled the Warriors in that game. That and the fact that the Cavs put up a fight without full roster proves they have the power to take them down. At least I pointed out that game. Golden State was out of sorts because of the way Cleveland played. I can't give you more samples but that did show that they can take them down.


The Cavs "dismantled" the Warriors by 11, you're right. In one game. And guess what: that is one game out of a total of 8 that the two teams played. The Cavs won 3 games out of those 8. They won that one by 11. And it means nothing with regard to what happened in the Finals and what has happened so far this year. It means more with regard to what might happen on December 25. But it means nothing with regard to what happened in June of 2015. Which is the event you're seeking to discredit. You're trying to take all of the credit away from Golden State and say that the only reason that the Cavs lost is because they weren't healthy, whereas Golden State gets no credit. Your arguments are absurd. Your points have some predictive value going forward - but they are completely flawed with regard to analysis of the past.

You are wrong.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Dumb? So you're denying the fact the Lebron didn't have his 2 best players to help him?


You keep mentioning he didn't have two superstar players to help him but you're completely ignoring the impact his teammates made on those two games the Cavs won.



Vegan Gains said:


> I'm saying it's crazy how Lebron could beat the Warriors even when he shoots his worse. Imagine if he shot it at his best, it wouldn't have been close.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Oh and to answer the OP, no, the current streak doesn't make the Warriors look worse. They are clearly a better team this year than they were last year, even though it is early. What happened last year (even though how you are describing it is wrong) is irrelevant. They look like an unstoppable force with little to no weaknesses. 

Now, I do believe that a Cavs team with Irving or Kevin Love in last years finals would have won. I still believe this. Last year, Cavs when healthy were very good and I have no doubts that once Irving and Shumpert come back and they get used to playing in the system again, the Cavs will be one of the top teams in the NBA. It will be interesting to see how good they are when they are at top form with a much deeper team.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> I'm saying it's crazy how Lebron could beat the Warriors even when he shoots his worse. *Imagine if he shot it at his best*, it wouldn't have been close.


Hard to imagine, considering it's a konwn fact that Lebron James usually shoots worse (or much worse) in a Finals series.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Hard to imagine, considering it's a konwn fact that Lebron James usually shoots worse (or much worse) in a Finals series.


Not just the finals, but in the playoffs in general.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Oh and to answer the OP, no, the current streak doesn't make the Warriors look worse. They are clearly a better team this year than they were last year, even though it is early. What happened last year (even though how you are describing it is wrong) is irrelevant. They look like an unstoppable force with little to no weaknesses.
> 
> Now, I do believe that a Cavs team with Irving or Kevin Love in last years finals would have won. I still believe this. Last year, Cavs when healthy were very good and I have no doubts that once Irving and Shumpert come back and they get used to playing in the system again, the Cavs will be one of the top teams in the NBA. It will be interesting to see how good they are when they are at top form with a much deeper team.



The warriors are better and were better. Deal with it.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> The warriors are better and were better. Deal with it.


Hey now, don't distract him. I want to see Irving versus Vegan here. Vegan what do you have to say to the Cavs fan calling you wrongheaded?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> Hey now, don't distract him. I want to see Irving versus Vegan here. Vegan what do you have to say to the Cavs fan calling you wrongheaded?


Yeah @Jamel Irief, go be an attention seeking slut somewhere else.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> I completely hear where you are coming from. *However this discussion is only about Lebron.* Not about other things outside of basketball. Lebron was 2 games short of a ring last year despite not having his 2 best players.


Dude the title of your thread has nothing to do LBJ......

Stay on point


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> Hey now, don't distract him. I want to see Irving versus Vegan here. Vegan what do you have to say to the Cavs fan calling you wrongheaded?


Looks like your plea didn't work. He got distracted. 



XxIrvingxX said:


> Yeah @Jamel Irief, go be an attention seeking slut somewhere else.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Looks like your plea didn't work. He got distracted.


You're right, it was too much to hope for.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

AllRim said:


> Dude the title of your thread has nothing to do LBJ......
> 
> Stay on point



You know what's funny? Even IF The Warriors head undefeated into Christmas Day, the whole world knows Cavs will win on Xmas. That would be hilarious. Warriors can win as many games as they want, but as long as The KING has something to do with it, they won't be winning. He had them literally sweating bullets in the Finals last year.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> You know what's funny? Even IF The Warriors head undefeated into Christmas Day, the whole world knows Cavs will win on Xmas. That would be hilarious. Warriors can win as many games as they want, but as long as The KING has something to do with it, they won't be winning. He had them literally sweating bullets in the Finals last year.


The "King" is 14-7, the Warriors are 23-0. The Warriors beat the "King" last year. The Warriors are an improved team, Cleveland seems to be worse. 

If you're going to troll, troll better.










Spock finds you illogical


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> You're right, it was too much to hope for.


I don't know what you're talking about. All we need is Vegan Gains to reply to one of my posts and we can jump start this thing. 



AllRim said:


> The "King" is 14-7, the Warriors are 23-0. The Warriors beat the "King" last year. The Warriors are an improved team, *Cleveland seems to be worse*.


I don't expect this to last long. Once Irving and Shumpert are back, the Cavs will obviously need a little time to readjust the players who have their roles changed, but they will be a scary good team. 

With that said, I seriously doubt they'll be that team by the time the Christmas game happens. Doesn't mean they can't pull out a victory though (for the record, I think the Warriors are going to win the game, but we'll see).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

No, the Warriors do not look worse. Everyone else is just playing for 2nd place at this point.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> No, the Warriors do not look worse. Everyone else is just playing for 2nd place at this point.


The Spurs are 4 back, a massive margin when you're winning at these rates yes, but playing with a margin of +11.9 - that's on pace for a top 5 all time differential. This is not a team playing for second place, they're still very capable of moving alongside the Warriors if they suffer a single small stumble (stumble being a couple of games some week, basically).


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd be interested (don't want it to happen) to see what kind of team they would be if Curry was out for 2-3 weeks.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I think right now if I were to put money on a team it's the Spurs. Which is saying a lot since I'm usually conservative in my championship picks in the sense I don't like going up against the team that's already won and has the best chemistry.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the Spurs are just being very 'Spurry' right now - keeping under cover and doing business quietly


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

e-monk said:


> the Spurs are just being very 'Spurry' right now - keeping under cover and doing business quietly


What is so quiet about the way they're playing? If not for the Warriors we'd be asking if they could be the most dominant regular season team of all time at the end of it, they're that close to those top teams in point differential, this year's Warriors notwithstanding. They're only "keeping under cover" because the Warriors are radioactive.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Regular season doesn't mean shit. I remember when the Dirk led Mavs were just wrecking everyone back in the day. Houston with TMac and Yao got a ton of hype when they went on their streak. The Nash/Amare Suns did the same thing in terms of looking dominant. Granted, the Warriors are champions, I don't see them as some unstoppable juggernaut. They're just a very very good regular season team right now. Guarantee you that they don't scare Pop or the Spurs in a seven game series. Same for a healthy Cavs team. The Clippers haven't beat them this year but they've played them as well as anyone. With all that said, I don't think they look any different in my eyes. They're fun as hell to watch.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Regular season doesn't mean shit. I remember when the Dirk led Mavs were just wrecking everyone back in the day. Houston with TMac and Yao got a ton of hype when they went on their streak. The Nash/Amare Suns did the same thing in terms of looking dominant. Granted, the Warriors are champions, *I don't see them as some unstoppable juggernaut. They're just a very very good regular season team right now. *Guarantee you that they don't scare Pop or the Spurs in a seven game series. Same for a healthy Cavs team. The Clippers haven't beat them this year but they've played them as well as anyone. With all that said, I don't think they look any different in my eyes. They're fun as hell to watch.


As of right now, THAT is an understatement. They have been "unstoppable" due to the fact they have won every game so far, thus shattering that NBA record. They have been "unstoppable" because they have won every time.

That being said, it's obvious they won't finish the season 82-0.

About "scaring" teams/coaches, i think it's quite obvious for everybody that IF the Splash Brothers keep on hitting their threes, they won't loose a playoff series. Doesn't matter if they are playing Lebron/Irving/Love or Blake/Paul or Duncan/Kwahni/Adldrige, a 3 trumps a 2 everytime.

Now, i don't put an asterisk in their championship, but it's true the Warriors didn't face the toughest opposition to get there. We shall see this season.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> As of right now, THAT is an understatement. They have been "unstoppable" due to the fact they have won every game so far, thus shattering that NBA record. They have been "unstoppable" because they have won every time.
> 
> That being said, it's obvious they won't finish the season 82-0.
> 
> ...


Miami went on a streak like this a few years ago. Houston a few years before that. People just have short term memory. It's impressive but the hype is getting ridiculous. The best team they've beat is a Clippers team that's has been struggling and who else? Memphis?? If they blow out Cleveland, SA, and OKC then I'll be impressed.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

They beat a Raptors team by only 3 points. A Raptors team who just beat the Spurs


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Miami went on a streak like this a few years ago. Houston a few years before that. People just have short term memory. It's impressive but the hype is getting ridiculous. The best team they've beat is a Clippers team that's has been struggling and who else? Memphis?? If they blow out Cleveland, SA, and OKC then I'll be impressed.



The more the Warriors win, the worse they look. They can win 70 or even 80 games and still lose 2 in San Antonio, and they haven't won there in like 20 years. No matter how much The warriors win, they'll still be a team that gets manhandled by one man teams too. That's the point I'm trying to make. They can win the most games ever and still look pathetic when it comes down to business, even against ONE guy.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

scdn said:


> They beat a Raptors team by only 3 points. A Raptors team who just beat the Spurs



They're more like a 17 and 6 team tbqh. Utah had a chance to beat them but they messed up. Lopez was half an inch from tipping in a game winner. Raptors almost beat them twice. Clippers dominated them before running out of gas. Even Sac took them to the last few minutes. This team is fools gold.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> They're more like a 17 and 6 team tbqh. Utah had a chance to beat them but they messed up. Lopez was half an inch from tipping in a game winner. Raptors almost beat them twice. Clippers dominated them before running out of gas. Even Sac took them to the last few minutes. This team is fools gold.


personal attacks be damned. You have to be the dumbest poster I have come across in quite some time. 

Teams that are in another level find a way to win those close games. I am a die hard Raps fan, and I watched (obviously) both those GSW games. The Raps may have a chance to win both those games, but they were never going to. GSW just has that "it" factor (poise in crunch time), even though the game was close the Warriors never seemed flustered, and in the dying moments did everything right on defense and offense to pull out the win. 

If you actually believe what you type, you absolutely blow my mind. How are the Spurs a 1 man team? Have they ever been a 1 man team? Their whole offensive scheme is predicated on elite ball movement and their defense is almost always help D, switching on screens etc.... To say the Spurs (I think in a previous post) are a 1 man is even more ridiculous than saying the GSW are fools gold. 

The only fact that can come out of any of your nonsensical posts is that you're a fool.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> They're more like a 17 and 6 team tbqh. Utah had a chance to beat them but they messed up. Lopez was half an inch from tipping in a game winner. Raptors almost beat them twice. Clippers dominated them before running out of gas. Even Sac took them to the last few minutes. This team is fools gold.


No team has ever gone through a stretch 17-6 and held a +14.6 point differential. I say this without fact-checking it because it is simply patently absurd. "They're more like a 17-6 team" my ass. They're NOTHING like a 17-6 team. And when you watch them on the court - you realize it as well. There's nothing 17-6 about this team. They're absolutely on fire right now. Steph Curry could pass less and take more threes than he is now, and they would remain the most efficient offense in the NBA. And all around - Curry inclusive - their defense has improved on a possession by possession basis. As a matter of fact both offensively and defensively their true shooting percentages have improved. In large part because Steph Curry is, according to both numbers and analysts, a much improved defender. Somehow this team is moving even faster AND playing even more efficiently than ever before. This is a 67 win team that is visibly and clearly BETTER than they were before. They're not a 17-6 team, they don't look like a 17-6 team.

The Golden State Warriors had the best winning percentage in the NBA in close games last year, and no one has beaten them period this year. At some point you've gotta just agree that this team is phenomenal in close games, that it is something more than luck. They had almost FIVE MONTHS OFF to cool down and prove that a small-sample-size error, but they're right back to it despite a five month break. That's not luck. That's skill.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Miami went on a streak like this a few years ago. Houston a few years before that. People just have short term memory. It's impressive but the hype is getting ridiculous. The best team they've beat is a Clippers team that's has been struggling and who else? Memphis?? If they blow out Cleveland, SA, and OKC then I'll be impressed.


Chris Woj (above) said it better than i could have.

Are the Warriors getting too much hype? Sure. But it's basketball, what would you expect? You've got the World Champions starting the season undefeated for 23 games; their best player is leading the league in scoring and laying like the best basketball player in the world. It's like the perfect storm, really, for fans and media.

Have there been other streaks like this one? with a +14ppg diferencial in 23 games? With the franchise player sitting out fourth quarters? I highly doubt that.

That being said, you are right that the Warriors haven't yet faced the strongest teams in the league, like Cleveland or San Antonio. True. But that is, in itself, an endorsement for the Warriors, ehn fans are thinking the likes of "well, maybe the Spurs or Cavs can defeat them"...

Are we witnessing something spetial? Yes. 
Should we hand out the championship rings right now? Off course not.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> No team has ever gone through a stretch 17-6 and held a +14.6 point differential. I say this without fact-checking it because it is simply patently absurd. "They're more like a 17-6 team" my ass. They're NOTHING like a 17-6 team. And when you watch them on the court - you realize it as well. There's nothing 17-6 about this team. They're absolutely on fire right now. Steph Curry could pass less and take more threes than he is now, and they would remain the most efficient offense in the NBA. And all around - Curry inclusive - their defense has improved on a possession by possession basis. As a matter of fact both offensively and defensively their true shooting percentages have improved. In large part because Steph Curry is, according to both numbers and analysts, a much improved defender. Somehow this team is moving even faster AND playing even more efficiently than ever before. This is a 67 win team that is visibly and clearly BETTER than they were before. They're not a 17-6 team, they don't look like a 17-6 team.
> 
> The Golden State Warriors had the best winning percentage in the NBA in close games last year, and no one has beaten them period this year. At some point you've gotta just agree that this team is phenomenal in close games, that it is something more than luck. They had almost FIVE MONTHS OFF to cool down and prove that a small-sample-size error, but they're right back to it despite a five month break. That's not luck. That's skill.



Bro slow down. Did you know that Brooke Lopez was less than an inch away from beating them? All he had to do was tap the ball in. Plus, Brooklyn was beating them in the 2nd game all the way until the end. So it's not like they're just blowing teams out of the water. 

Like I said, Clippers dominated them for the majority of both games until GS came back and Clippers made bad decisions. 

Warriors have not played SA, OKC, or Cavs. If Cavs knock them off on Xmas, you'll see what I mean. They haven't played some of the best teams.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

PauloCatarino said:


> Chris Woj (above) said it better than i could have.
> 
> Are the Warriors getting too much hype? Sure. But it's basketball, what would you expect? You've got the World Champions starting the season undefeated for 23 games; their best player is leading the league in scoring and laying like the best basketball player in the world. It's like the perfect storm, really, for fans and media.
> 
> ...




Yea but most of the games are close. Of course some blowouts like the 50 point one against Memphis are going to inflate the stats a little. I named a bunch of games off the top of my head where the Warriors were neck and neck.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

AllRim said:


> personal attacks be damned. You have to be the dumbest poster I have come across in quite some time.
> 
> Teams that are in another level find a way to win those close games. I am a die hard Raps fan, and I watched (obviously) both those GSW games. The Raps may have a chance to win both those games, but they were never going to. GSW just has that "it" factor (poise in crunch time), even though the game was close the Warriors never seemed flustered, and in the dying moments did everything right on defense and offense to pull out the win.
> 
> ...



No. 1 man team as in Lebron. Lebron took them to 6 games all by himself. No Love, No Irving, no Verajao. He was missing 3 starters and took GSW to 6 games, and game 1 loss was in overtime.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> The more the Warriors win, the worse they look. They can win 70 or even 80 games and still lose 2 in San Antonio, and they haven't won there in like 20 years. No matter how much The warriors win, they'll still be a team that gets manhandled by one man teams too. That's the point I'm trying to make. They can win the most games ever and still look pathetic when it comes down to business, even against ONE guy.





Vegan Gains said:


> No. 1 man team as in Lebron. Lebron took them to 6 games all by himself. No Love, No Irving, no Verajao. He was missing 3 starters and took GSW to 6 games, and game 1 loss was in overtime.


You're point is completely wrong. Those two wins the Cavaliers got in the finals were a collected group effort, not because of one man. I don't know why you aren't getting this. You keep repeating yourself about something that never happened.

Do you understand that if it wasn't for Delly, that finals series would have ended in a sweep? In fact did you even watch the games?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You're point is completely wrong. Those two wins the Cavaliers got in the finals were a collected group effort, not because of one man. I don't know why you aren't getting this. You keep repeating yourself about something that never happened.
> 
> Do you understand that if it wasn't for Delly, that finals series would have ended in a sweep? In fact did you even watch the games?



Speaking of Delly, if he didn't have to go to the hospital, he would have been even better, maybe good enough to help them win it. 

But imagine all those guys with Irving and Love making them even better? You're saying not having 2 all stars don't matter?

The fact of the matter is even if they had 2 bodies period they would have had a shot due to the fact that they were depleted and barely had enough players to legally play a game.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Speaking of Delly, if he didn't have to go to the hospital, he would have been even better, maybe good enough to help them win it.
> 
> But imagine all those guys with Irving and Love making them even better? You're saying not having 2 all stars don't matter?
> 
> The fact of the matter is even if they had 2 bodies period they would have had a shot due to the fact that they were depleted and barely had enough players to legally play a game.


No, two All-Stars do NOT matter as much when they're getting TORCHED defensively. You put Irving and Love in that series and Golden State scores more points, by a significant margin. Offsetting the points those guys would have brought. So your point is moot. Could Cleveland have won with them? Possibly. But saying they definitely would have? Not in any way a statement you can make, because of the defensive deficiencies of the players mentioned.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

by adding Love and Irving you may actually be subtracting Delly and Thompson's contributions (there are only so many minutes on the floor) and winding up with a net negative result


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> No, two All-Stars do NOT matter as much when they're getting TORCHED defensively. You put Irving and Love in that series and Golden State scores more points, by a significant margin. Offsetting the points those guys would have brought. So your point is moot. Could Cleveland have won with them? Possibly. But saying they definitely would have? Not in any way a statement you can make, because of the defensive deficiencies of the players mentioned.


Well with Irving it was interesting. In the first game he looked really motivated and actually tried defensively, even with the knee issues. But of course, basic defensive tendencies that Irving lacked cost him at times anyways. None the less, a healthy Irving wouldn't have been scored on as easily as I think you're suggesting. But he wouldn't have done a better job than Delly by any means. 



Vegan Gains said:


> Speaking of Delly, if he didn't have to go to the hospital, he would have been even better, maybe good enough to help them win it.


Cavs weren't winning game 4, regardless of Delly's health.



Vegan Gains said:


> But imagine all those guys with Irving and Love making them even better? You're saying not having 2 all stars don't matter?


When did I ever once say this in any of my posts? Hell, I'm one of the few people here who are still of the belief that if Love and Irving were healthy, the Cavs would have won that series. 

But you keep saying that LeBron had no help in this series and beat the Warriors twice on his own, which is wrong. Delly and Thompson had a big impact on the series, and Mozgov was an important player for the Cavs in both games 2 and 3.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

There can be no logical questioning that Golden State is the best team in basketball right now. They'll get beat at some point and will lose some games but they were the best last year and got better. Saying their streak makes them look worse is just plain idiotic.

The only teams I think that might have a chance of beating GS assuming relative health are the Spurs and Cavs. But in most cases the best team ends up winning and it is hard to see anyone beating GS 4 out of 7 games and that includes a fully healthy Cavs team.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

the main thing that worries me about the Cavs chances is JR Smith. I just have a hard time believing any team, no matter how talented can win with guys like that


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

wait...misread post


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

JNice said:


> There can be no logical questioning that Golden State is the best team in basketball right now. They'll get beat at some point and will lose some games but they were the best last year and got better. Saying their streak makes them look worse is just plain idiotic.
> 
> The only teams I think that might have a chance of beating GS assuming relative health are the Spurs and Cavs. But in most cases the best team ends up winning and it is hard to see anyone beating GS 4 out of 7 games and that includes a fully healthy Cavs team.


We don't know how good a fully healthy Cavs team is yet. They've added new players to the roster and the big three will only get better together with time. Last years Cavs team towards the end of the year was scary good. Now this year when they have their same starting line up back, they'll have a bench team consisting of Williams, Thompson, Smith, Varejao, Jefferson, Delly. There's a lot of potential in this team.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Bulls looked so bad losing 2 games to the 1 man Barkley led Suns in the finals. And also the 2 man Sonics and Jazz teams. 

They should have had to beat better teams for their championships.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> We don't know how good a fully healthy Cavs team is yet. They've added new players to the roster and the big three will only get better together with time. Last years Cavs team towards the end of the year was scary good. Now this year when they have their same starting line up back, they'll have a bench team consisting of Williams, Thompson, Smith, Varejao, Jefferson, Delly. There's a lot of potential in this team.


The moral of the story is that there is a lot of time for other teams to become legitimate threats. OKC has looked unbeatable in stretches this year, and then pretty bad other times. When Durant doesn't look rusty, out of sync and isn't turning the ball over countless times, I'll take my chances with OKC against anyone. 

Still, at this point, Golden State is the clear favorite right now. There is no argument against that. They're the defending champs and are 23-0. The only comment you could make is that being the clear favorite in December is pretty meaningless.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

scdn said:


> Bulls looked so bad losing 2 games to the 1 man Barkley led Suns.


KJ, Tom Chambers, Dan Majerle and Cedric Ceballos were also on that '1 man' team that won 62 games during the regular season and knocked off the Admiral's Spurs and the Glove's Sonics on the way to the finals







also a man


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The moral of the story is that there is a lot of time for other teams to become legitimate threats. OKC has looked unbeatable in stretches this year, and then pretty bad other times. When Durant doesn't look rusty, out of sync and isn't turning the ball over countless times, I'll take my chances with OKC against anyone.
> 
> Still, at this point, Golden State is the clear favorite right now. There is no argument against that. They're the defending champs and are 23-0. The only comment you could make is that being the clear favorite in December is pretty meaningless.


Oh I agree fully, I'm just pointing out that the way the Cavs look right now shouldn't mean much to anyone. For all we know, the Cavs could be more dominant than the Warriors when fully healthy (although I seriously doubt it).


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

e-monk said:


> KJ, Tom Chambers, Dan Majerle and Cedric Ceballos were also on that '1 man' team that won 62 games during the regular season and knocked off the Admiral's Spurs and the Glove's Sonics on the way to the finals
> 
> 
> Kevin Johnson dunks over Hakeem Olajuwon - YouTube
> ...


But imagine if Barkley had some REAL help in the finals! He was a one man team! The Bulls were overrated.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> KJ, Tom Chambers, Dan Majerle and Cedric Ceballos were also on that '1 man' team that won 62 games during the regular season and knocked off the Admiral's Spurs and the Glove's Sonics on the way to the finals


Bro, so many things wrong in here...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> Bro, so many things wrong in here...


for instance?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> for instance?


Well, Chambers was by then a shell of his former self and was coming from the bench; Ceballos was no more than a role player who lost his starting job to the rookie Richard Dumas.
Majerle was a very good complementary player, though, and KJ was close to great.

That Spurs team was nothing spetial, although with a prime David Robinson, and Payton wasn't the player he would have become (although the Sonics did have a very good team).

Oh, and on a sad note, that Suns team was 0-2 in the first round of the playoffs for a very weak Lakers squad...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> Well, Chambers was by then a shell of his former self and was coming from the bench; Ceballos was no more than a role player who lost his starting job to the rookie Richard Dumas.


7 guys on that "1 man squad" (including Chambers who went on to play another 6 seasons and Ceballos who at 23 was just entering his prime) averaged double digit points per game - does that sound like a "1 man squad"? I think maybe the right answer is to add Dumas to my incomplete list and further cement my point


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

e-monk said:


> KJ, Tom Chambers, Dan Majerle and Cedric Ceballos were also on that '1 man' team that won 62 games during the regular season and knocked off the Admiral's Spurs and the Glove's Sonics on the way to the finals
> 
> 
> Kevin Johnson dunks over Hakeem Olajuwon - YouTube
> ...


I think he was being sarcastic...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Warriors just won double overtime, and are now 24-0 to start out the season. I eagerly await Vegan's input on this matter.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Warriors just won double overtime, and are now 24-0 to start out the season. I eagerly await Vegan's input on this matter.




You see? They didn't blow out the team again! Took them double overtime and Isiah Thomas to mess up twice when he had opportunity! 

That game was NECK on NECK. Be honest. There's been so many times this year where Golden State could have lost. 

If Iguodala didn't hit that 3 point shot, Warriors lose in first overtime. Bottomline is that it took them TWO overtimes to win. That is hardly convincing. Curry shot 9 for 27.

How can you say there is no luck involved in this streak? The only reason why they are trying so hard to win these meaningless games is to prove to people that they weren't a fluke. Deep down they feel disrespected.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> 7 guys on that "1 man squad" (including Chambers who went on to play another 6 seasons and Ceballos who at 23 was just entering his prime) averaged double digit points per game - does that sound like a "1 man squad"? I think maybe the right answer is to add Dumas to my incomplete list and further cement my point


Oh no no no. I wasn't trying to defend the Suns being a "1 man squad". Just pointing out that some of the players you mentioned out weren't that impactfull.
The Suns WERE a very well rounded team: an MVP-caliber in Chuck, a very good PG in KJ and a bunch of usefull role players (Majerle, Dumas, Ceballos, Chambers, Ainge...). Althoughthey were awfully thin at the Center spot (West/Miller) and weren't much of a defensive unit.

Obvioulsy, Chuck was the "bread and butter" of the team, and much better than all the other guys, but calling the Suns a "1 man team" would be like calling this seasons' Warriors a "1 man team".


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I think he was being sarcastic...


probably


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Well, Chambers was by then a shell of his former self and was coming from the bench; Ceballos was no more than a role player who lost his starting job to the rookie Richard Dumas.
> Majerle was a very good complementary player, though, and KJ was close to great.
> 
> That Spurs team was nothing spetial, although with a prime David Robinson, and Payton wasn't the player he would have become (although the Sonics did have a very good team).
> ...


Huh?

kJ, ainge, majerle, ceballos and chambers all played in all star games between 90-95. These were the 93 suns.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> You see? They didn't blow out the team again! Took them double overtime and Isiah Thomas to mess up twice when he had opportunity!
> *
> That game was NECK on NECK. Be honest. There's been so many times this year where Golden State could have lost.
> 
> ...


So? What is that supposed to prove?

Yeah, sure, there have been times where they were close to losing, but the fact is they didn't, and that is what's so impressive about this team right now. They've faced adversity on multiple occasions and they overcame it every single time. They are motivated, they want to win. They aren't willing to settle for a loss. They do everything in their power to make it out alive with the W. That's what a great team does. They don't panic when in the face of adversity, and they motivate themselves to keep pushing until it's truly over. They don't give up. Ever.

That is what makes this Warriors team so dangerous. They see a large deficit in the other teams favor, they take that personally. It encourages them. It inspires them. And it doesn't bother them in the least bit. They just use it to add more fuel to the fire.

Top all of that off with having arguably the best player in the world right now, one of the top players at the SG position, a top ten player at the PF position, a loaded bench team and a great coach, you have what has the potential to be one of the greatest teams we have ever seen in the past 20 years. There is a reason they are 24-0 and it's not because of luck. It's because of determination and the simple fact that they are that fucking good.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Huh?
> 
> kJ, ainge, majerle, ceballos and chambers all played in all star games between 90-95. These were the 93 suns.


Huh? What claims of mine you are disputing? Please explain.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Huh? What claims of mine you are disputing? Please explain.


Your "bro so many things wrong here" post in response to emonk saying the Suns weren't a one man team.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Bahahahahahahahaha!!!!! :cheers:

Warriors got their butts kicked by Milwaukee! Can't believe they think they can 70 games! They are so lucky they didn't lose against Celtics too! They can't even beat mediocre teams! 

BACK to reality!!!!! Luke Walton bitter AF!!!!!


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> So? What is that supposed to prove?
> 
> Yeah, sure, there have been times where they were close to losing, but the fact is they didn't, and that is what's so impressive about this team right now. They've faced adversity on multiple occasions and they overcame it every single time. They are motivated, they want to win. They aren't willing to settle for a loss. They do everything in their power to make it out alive with the W. That's what a great team does. They don't panic when in the face of adversity, and they motivate themselves to keep pushing until it's truly over. They don't give up. Ever.
> 
> ...



The fact IS that Milwakuee is has the Warriors number lol


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:|


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Bahahahahahahahaha!!!!! :cheers:
> 
> Warriors got their butts kicked by Milwaukee! Can't believe they think they can 70 games! They are so lucky they didn't lose against Celtics too! They can't even beat mediocre teams!
> 
> BACK to reality!!!!! Luke Walton bitter AF!!!!!





Vegan Gains said:


> The fact IS that Milwakuee is has the Warriors number lol


Please mods, check this persons IP Address. His posts are borderline Pablo in terms of stupidity.

And because I'm curious, Vegan, why does this loss to Milaukee prevent the Warriors from winning 70 games?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> And because I'm curious, Vegan, why does this loss to Milaukee prevent the Warriors from winning 70 games?



Warriors fans claimed Cleveland made excuses last year for being hurt. Well they say they were tired and that's why they lost. Now they are the ones making excuses. The bottom line is that the Bucks beat them fair. Bucks were missing players and also played a back to back. Warriors sound like they're starting to use the Excuse card now when things ain't going their way. If Bucks can beat them, just about anybody can. And they almost did, but things went Warriors way. Now the table is starting to turn.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

And the Warriors still have Cleveland's number.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Bahahahahahahahaha!!!!! :cheers:
> 
> Warriors got their butts kicked by Milwaukee! Can't believe they think they can 70 games! They are so lucky they didn't lose against Celtics too! They can't even beat mediocre teams!
> 
> BACK to reality!!!!! Luke Walton bitter AF!!!!!


If the Warriors win streak made them look worse, then when the streak ends it makes them look better, no?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

scdn said:


> And the Warriors still have Cleveland's number.



Cuz they was hurt


----------



## JusticeWhiteside (Nov 22, 2015)

scdn said:


> And the Warriors still have Cleveland's number.


Yeah the number of injuries the Cavs had in the finals on their banner


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)




----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)




----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Bahahahahahahahaha!!!!! :cheers:
> 
> Warriors got their butts kicked by Milwaukee! Can't believe they think they can 70 games! They are so lucky they didn't lose against Celtics too! They can't even beat mediocre teams!
> 
> BACK to reality!!!!! Luke Walton bitter AF!!!!!


The only one bitter in this thread is yourself. And oh is it palpable.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Warriors fans claimed Cleveland made excuses last year for being hurt.





Vegan Gains said:


> Cuz they was hurt


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

RollWithEm said:


> Golden State Warriors Top 24 Plays of Historic Win Streak - YouTube


Incredible.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> The only one bitter in this thread is yourself. And oh is it palpable.



Now the Warriors have a taste of what it's like to play when not at 100


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Now the Warriors have a taste of what it's like to play when not at 100


You do realize that they've been unhealthy before, right? That their ascent was delayed a hair by injuries to guys like Bogut, and Curry himself? You do recall, right, that during Curry's third year his ankle problems seemed so confounding that people wondered if he'd be forced to retire? He was one doctor's advice from a total reconstruction of his ankle. So to act like these guys don't know what its like to experience setbacks is asinine. If that's why you're bitter, chill the shit out.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> You do realize that they've been unhealthy before, right? That their ascent was delayed a hair by injuries to guys like Bogut, and Curry himself? You do recall, right, that during Curry's third year his ankle problems seemed so confounding that people wondered if he'd be forced to retire? He was one doctor's advice from a total reconstruction of his ankle. So to act like these guys don't know what its like to experience setbacks is asinine. If that's why you're bitter, chill the shit out.



But in the Finals that wasn't the case. Let's not dodge that fact.

Cavs missing Kyrie, Love and Andy in the finals impacted the series outcome. By Shump playing with a hurt shoulder in the finals impacted the series outcome. Delly going to the hospital after game 3 impacted the series outcome. JR being a 2nd scoring option vs a 4th scoring option in the finals(due to Love and Irving missing) impacted the outcome of the series. King James playing 46 MPG had some type of impact on the outcome of the series.


Warriors didn't have nearly the adversity the the Cavs did in the finals and they got blown out by one of the worst teams in the NBA based upon the CIRUMSTANCES at hand, their fatigue and injuries. 

If you take away Green, Klay and Bogut(due to injury). Have Iggy be hobbled, Livingston sent to the hospital from fatigue/exhaustion/dehydration and Barnes made into the 2nd scoring option role. All while Steph has to average 46 MPG, then you might understand why Warriors wouldn't have won.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> But in the Finals that wasn't the case. Let's not dodge that fact.
> 
> Cavs missing Kyrie, Love and Andy in the finals impacted the series outcome. By Shump playing with a hurt shoulder in the finals impacted the series outcome. Delly going to the hospital after game 3 impacted the series outcome. JR being a 2nd scoring option vs a 4th scoring option in the finals(due to Love and Irving missing) impacted the outcome of the series. King James playing 46 MPG had some type of impact on the outcome of the series.
> 
> ...


I'm aware of the past. I'm also aware that we've already shown you how your logic is broke. You're like a stupid drunk fumbling his way through an argument. You keep repeating the same dumb shit over and over again, and no matter how much we tell you that your analysis is horse-shit you keep saying the same thing over and over again in the vain hope that somehow maybe it'll sound different to us the next time around.

You're right. The Cavs lost that series because, in part, they were hurt. But there is also zero, read me: ZERO guarantee that they would have won the series with both of their main guys healthy. Absolutely ZERO guarantee. Because it didn't happen. Because we didn't get to see it. Because we didn't get to see Golden State's game-plan for a Kyrie-Love-Lebron Cavs squad. Because we didn't get to see how Steph would have scored on a much-less-bothersome Kyrie. Because we didn't get to see how Draymond Green would have toyed with Kevin Love's poor defensive positioning to bend the Cavs defense in ways favorable to the Warriors.

The guys you're talking about had and still have weaknesses that can be exploited. And as we've seen by virtue of this 24-0 start is that Golden State absolutely can be an elite team night-in-and-night-out. Clearly. It took having to travel immediately after a double-OT thriller to get them off their game for the Bucks. So no, you can not say that a healthy Cavs team WOULD have won. They MAY have won, but this Warriors team is ELITE. Clearly ELITE. Clearly CREAM OF THE CROP. As in no other team has ever, no matter how cupcake their schedule, pulled off a 24-0 start with a 14+ point differential. You point to their close wins? I point to the sheer quantity of insane blowouts as they've run teams off of the floor. 

They don't run teams off of the floor because they're lucky. They run teams off of the floor because they're good. Teams have been lucky before. A lot. The Warriors were lucky yeah. But they were lucky AND elite.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

here's how you beat the warriors:

catch them in the final game of a 7 game road trip, the night after a double OT game and with one of their starters out

then you stand a chance against them


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> I'm aware of the past. I'm also aware that we've already shown you how your logic is broke. You're like a stupid drunk fumbling his way through an argument. You keep repeating the same dumb shit over and over again, and no matter how much we tell you that your analysis is horse-shit you keep saying the same thing over and over again in the vain hope that somehow maybe it'll sound different to us the next time around.
> 
> You're right. The Cavs lost that series because, in part, they were hurt. But there is also zero, read me: ZERO guarantee that they would have won the series with both of their main guys healthy. Absolutely ZERO guarantee. Because it didn't happen. Because we didn't get to see it. Because we didn't get to see Golden State's game-plan for a Kyrie-Love-Lebron Cavs squad. Because we didn't get to see how Steph would have scored on a much-less-bothersome Kyrie. Because we didn't get to see how Draymond Green would have toyed with Kevin Love's poor defensive positioning to bend the Cavs defense in ways favorable to the Warriors.
> 
> ...


You can only repeat yourself so many times before I wonder who the dumb person in the thread truly is.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

e-monk said:


> here's how you beat the warriors:
> 
> catch them in the final game of a 7 game road trip, the night after a double OT game and with one of their starters out
> 
> then you stand a chance against them



That's the level of adversity Cleveland faced for the whole playoffs last year. Also, other teams did too because they were hurt. 

Also, Warriors are still young so they have no excuse for being on the road. The other teams they played also played back to backs. Warriors simply couldn't play big vs Milwaukee. Monroe...


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> I'm aware of the past. I'm also aware that we've already shown you how your logic is broke. You're like a stupid drunk fumbling his way through an argument. You keep repeating the same dumb shit over and over again, and no matter how much we tell you that your analysis is horse-shit you keep saying the same thing over and over again in the vain hope that somehow maybe it'll sound different to us the next time around.
> 
> You're right. The Cavs lost that series because, in part, they were hurt. But there is also zero, read me: ZERO guarantee that they would have won the series with both of their main guys healthy. Absolutely ZERO guarantee. Because it didn't happen. Because we didn't get to see it. Because we didn't get to see Golden State's game-plan for a Kyrie-Love-Lebron Cavs squad. Because we didn't get to see how Steph would have scored on a much-less-bothersome Kyrie. Because we didn't get to see how Draymond Green would have toyed with Kevin Love's poor defensive positioning to bend the Cavs defense in ways favorable to the Warriors.
> 
> ...



See? Even you admit the Warriors may have won. There's NO guarantees in life. 99.9 percent chance Cavs would have took it in my opinion. And like I said, image if Warriors had no Iggy, Green, or Livinstaun and Curry and Barnes had to do it all versus a fully healthy Cavs. What do you think the outcome would be? That just goes to show who the better team is when you flip the switch. 

Right now Spurs have the best point differential, so the Warriors are not the feared, head honcho anymore. And they've put 100 percent effort into their games. Spurs have had the better season and they are just getting to know each other. Spurs top in defense and point differential. The fact that the Warriors have a smaller point difference means they got a bit lucky in some close games. 

You're from Ohio and you don't think Cleveland would have won?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Vegan Gains said:


> That's the level of adversity Cleveland faced for the whole playoffs last year... etc


you're wasting your breath newb - I've already earmarked you as a troll so don't expect much give and take between us


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> That's the level of adversity Cleveland faced for the whole playoffs last year. Also, other teams did too because they were hurt.
> 
> Also, Warriors are still young so they have no excuse for being on the road. The other teams they played also played back to backs. Warriors simply couldn't play big vs Milwaukee. Monroe...


Lol.



Vegan Gains said:


> See? Even you admit the Warriors may have won. There's NO guarantees in life. 99.9 percent chance Cavs would have took it in my opinion. *And like I said, image if Warriors had no Iggy, Green, or Livinstaun and Curry and Barnes had to do it all versus a fully healthy Cavs.* What do you think the outcome would be? That just goes to show who the better team is when you flip the switch.


How exactly is this supposed to prove anything? First off it wouldn't be Curry and Barnes carrying the team because Thompson would still be playing if Iggy and Green were the ones injured...not sure how you missed that. Second, you're just rewriting history here. What is the point of doing this? It's idiotic and just a waste of our time to have to read it.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> See? Even you admit the Warriors may have won. There's NO guarantees in life. 99.9 percent chance Cavs would have took it in my opinion. And like I said, image if Warriors had no Iggy, Green, or Livinstaun and Curry and Barnes had to do it all versus a fully healthy Cavs. What do you think the outcome would be? That just goes to show who the better team is when you flip the switch.
> 
> Right now Spurs have the best point differential, so the Warriors are not the feared, head honcho anymore. And they've put 100 percent effort into their games. Spurs have had the better season and they are just getting to know each other. Spurs top in defense and point differential. The fact that the Warriors have a smaller point difference means they got a bit lucky in some close games.
> 
> You're from Ohio and you don't think Cleveland would have won?


I've heard old women screaming incoherently about bowling make more sense than you.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly is this supposed to prove anything? First off it wouldn't be Curry and Barnes carrying the team because Thompson would still be playing if Iggy and Green were the ones injured...not sure how you missed that. Second, you're just rewriting history here. What is the point of doing this? It's idiotic and just a waste of our time to have to read it.




Still. warriors didn't sweep. They got beat TWICE, almost 3 times.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Still. warriors didn't sweep. They got beat TWICE, almost 3 times.


Please read my post. All of it (and yes, I'm about to make a long post. I could care less if R-Star bitches about it again).

Yes, they did get beat twice. Now imagine if the Cavaliers had Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving. Could they have won it all? Yes, I still think they would have. But they could have definitely lost as well. Both teams were very good and it could have gone either way. This is a point you are failing to understand. 

I'm going to say this one last time. The only reason, and I mean ONLY reason the Cavaliers won two games against the Warriors was because they were lucky. That's it. They were lucky the Warriors didn't have the rebounding to deal with Tristian Thompson's bullshit on the offensive end. They were lucky they had a Delly and Shumpert who were able to put up good defensive resistance against Curry and Klay respectively. They were lucky that they had a Mozgov who not only made for a good passing option for LeBron due to his size and mobility but who was also able to somewhat limit the effects that Bogut brought on both ends of the floor. LeBron was lucky that despite the absense of two all stars, he had a very good starting five to compliment his game and put up resistance against the type of team he was facing. 

However, when any one of these guys weren't on the floor, the Cavaliers were getting outplayed. Kerr saw through this and changed the starting five, and once he did this, the Cavaliers lost their advantage. Suddenly, Mozgov had to play less minutes, Thompson had to switch to center, the Cavaliers defense was spread out a lot more, and it was pretty much all over from there on out, because having Thompson and Mozgov out there with the Warriors playing small ball killed the Cavaliers, and Thompson alone at center made the Cavaliers lose a lot of rim protection. JR Smith I think in game 5 had to start, and it cost the Cavaliers defensively. When Mozgov was out there with the original starting five, they were forced to leave Iggy open, and Iggy ended up making pay as the series went on. The Warriors on the other side got away with it, because the Cavaliers did not have an entire team out there who could stretch out the floor. The Warriors also had an incredibly good defensive scheme filled with a lot of great perimeter defense. I mean, they had Thompson, Iggy, AND Green out there to go along with Curry and Barnes. That's insane defensive pressure right there. The Warriors were very, very good. 

The only reason why I think the Cavaliers would have won if they had Irving and Love is because towards the end of the season, a healthy Cavaliers were insanely good. And I don't think Draymond Green would not have been able to abuse Kevin Love as much offensively as some here suggest, because odds are, the Cavs probably would have done the same thing they were doing with Memphis, which was switch Love onto Bogut while letting Mozgov handle Green, which actually worked out very well against the Grizzlies. As for Irving though? Who knows. It's not like I think it's a 99% chance the Cavaliers would have won. At the time, I would have said 70% chance Cavaliers win, but now, looking back and seeing all that the Warriors did in not only that series but the entire season, I think 55% in Cavaliers favor would have been more appropriate. Both teams were VERY good. But it's something we're never going to know, and basing it off of what's happened this year is meaningless and stupid, because both teams are very different. It's why I can't for the life of me understand why you are continuing to bring up last season like it proves something. It doesn't prove anything. It was a different season with a different team and different players. This is a new team. Stop living in the fucking past.

Stop being a pablo and saying stupid shit already. You've had people point out why your argument is wrong over and over again but you keep repeating yourself, and poor Chriswoj isn't giving up and it's kind of depressing. So please stop with your bullshit already. Accept that your thread idea was idiotic and pointless and move on already.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Please read my post. All of it (and yes, I'm about to make a long post. I could care less if R-Star bitches about it again).
> 
> Yes, they did get beat twice. Now imagine if the Cavaliers had Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving. Could they have won it all? Yes, I still think they would have. But they could have definitely lost as well. Both teams were very good and it could have gone either way. This is a point you are failing to understand.
> 
> ...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

that dude has the mongos


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Please read my post. All of it (and yes, I'm about to make a long post. I could care less if R-Star bitches about it again).
> 
> Yes, they did get beat twice. Now imagine if the Cavaliers had Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving. Could they have won it all? Yes, I still think they would have. But they could have definitely lost as well. Both teams were very good and it could have gone either way. This is a point you are failing to understand.
> 
> ...


Oh, no - I've given up. I'm resorting to insults now.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> Oh, no - I've given up. I'm resorting to insults now.


It made him stop though didn't it? 

I expect my ten million dollars in cash by next week with a smiley face sticker. Any later and I'll be upset.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Please read my post. All of it (and yes, I'm about to make a long post. I could care less if R-Star bitches about it again).
> 
> Yes, they did get beat twice. Now imagine if the Cavaliers had Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving. Could they have won it all? Yes, I still think they would have. But they could have definitely lost as well. Both teams were very good and it could have gone either way. This is a point you are failing to understand.
> 
> ...



Thank you for agreeing with me. Nothing is 100 percent certain in life. But you said that it was 70 percent or 55 percent. You can't decide, but the bottomline is that you admit that Cavaliers were the better team and would have won if healthy. Or not 100 percent would have won, but better chance than the Warriors. Thank you for clearing that up and only agreeing with me.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Thank you for agreeing with me. Nothing is 100 percent certain in life. *But you said that it was 70 percent or 55 percent. You can't decide*, but the bottomline is that you admit that Cavaliers were the better team and would have won if healthy. Or not 100 percent would have won, but better chance than the Warriors. Thank you for clearing that up and only agreeing with me.


I did decide. Go back and re read the post. All of it.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> We don't know how good a fully healthy Cavs team is yet. They've added new players to the roster and the big three will only get better together with time. Last years Cavs team towards the end of the year was scary good. Now this year when they have their same starting line up back, they'll have a bench team consisting of Williams, Thompson, Smith, Varejao, Jefferson, Delly. There's a lot of potential in this team.


I don't disagree they are very good and they have a lot of potential but I still think fully healthy Warriors vs fully healthy Cavs, the Warriors still have a better overall team and the better overall team usually ends up winning series. 

Lebron is obviously either 1 or 2 as best player in the NBA now, Kyrie is one of top PGs and Love I'd still consider one of best PFs in the league... however I just don't think they all really fit together well. Those 3 guys all excel when they've got the ball in their hands a lot. The Warriors have a bunch of guys who can drop 30 on you in any given night without dominating the ball and they are better and more flexible defensively.

Cavs are very good and more than likely will be in Finals for East but right now to me Warriors and Spurs are clearly better teams.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

JNice said:


> I don't disagree they are very good and they have a lot of potential but I still think fully healthy Warriors vs fully healthy Cavs, the Warriors still have a better overall team and the better overall team usually ends up winning series.
> 
> Lebron is obviously either 1 or 2 as best player in the NBA now, Kyrie is one of top PGs and Love I'd still consider one of best PFs in the league... however I just don't think they all really fit together well. Those 3 guys all excel when they've got the ball in their hands a lot. The Warriors have a bunch of guys who can drop 30 on you in any given night without dominating the ball and they are better and more flexible defensively.
> 
> Cavs are very good and more than likely will be in Finals for East but right now to me Warriors and Spurs are clearly better teams.


Well Irving's back now, and they decimated the 76ers, something everyone expected. Now of course, playing like this isn't going to win them any games against Golden State. Their defense is still struggling and needs a lot of work, but part of the reason for that can be contributed to Smith starting. Once Shumpert is back to starting at SG, the Cavs defense will improve significantly in almost an instant. And I have no doubts that once Mozgov is back to the form he had last year, the Cavs will have a top ten defense in the NBA.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

JNice said:


> I don't disagree they are very good and they have a lot of potential but I still think fully healthy Warriors vs fully healthy Cavs, the Warriors still have a better overall team and the better overall team usually ends up winning series.
> 
> Lebron is obviously either 1 or 2 as best player in the NBA now, Kyrie is one of top PGs and Love I'd still consider one of best PFs in the league... however I just don't think they all really fit together well. Those 3 guys all excel when they've got the ball in their hands a lot. The Warriors have a bunch of guys who can drop 30 on you in any given night without dominating the ball and they are better and more flexible defensively.
> 
> Cavs are very good and more than likely will be in Finals for East but right now to me Warriors and Spurs are clearly better teams.


Just imagine if last year Cavs had Verajao, Love and Irving and Golden State was missing Klay and Green. You think Curry, Barnes and Iguodala would be enough to carry them? See what I mean? It would have been a 4 to 0 sweep and every game would have been a 25 to 30 point beatdown.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> Just imagine if last year Cavs had Verajao, Love and Irving and Golden State was missing Klay and Green. *You think Curry, Barnes and Iguodala would be enough to carry them?* See what I mean? It would have been a 4 to 0 sweep and every game would have been a 25 to 30 point beatdown.


Yes.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Well I guess that settles it. Warriors > healthy Cavs.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Well I guess that settles it. Warriors > healthy Cavs.


Considering that it was the Warriors that had a missing starter and a hobbled Curry, plus the Cavs got the ugly game they obviously wanted, I'd say that should shut up the Cavs troll that started this thread.

But it won't, sadly.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Well I guess that settles it. Warriors > healthy Cavs.


What are you, some kind of Arrtard? Warriors win streak now makes them look even WORSE! They beat the Cavs again, streak looks WORSE! Arrtard.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah the Warriors are looking pretty pathetic at this point.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Well I guess that settles it. Warriors > healthy Cavs.


I don't think it necessarily proves anything but it would have been stupid for anyone to think that this was the Cavs game to take. Irving being back puts Cavs back into an adjustment period, so it's going to be a bit before we see this team at its best. 

And of course, there's that little detail where the Warriors are still an incredible team and could likely be the better team even when the Cavs are at their best.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Warriors are at 70% condition tonight. Barnes out Curry calf injury first quarter
Cavs are at 85% condition tonight - Irving and Shumpert are rusty.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Dray Green is talking about sweeping the Cavs in the regular season, January 18.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Wow. Impressive guts by the Warriors tonight, although I think this showed me that the Cavs would take them in a 7 game series. Irving still nursing an injury and yet the Cavs almost won on the road. What surprises me is as bad as they played they could have easily won. If Lebron hits his free throws like hes been doing and Mozzy makes his wide open layup cavs win. I'm surprised though the Warriors still struggled to win even with the Cavs not even playing half of what they are capable of. Irving still getting used to offense. The easy rim shots that Moz missed were the difference in the game. Cavvs win on the 18th. Cavs only shot 30 percent at halftime and were only down 3. Just saying. If the Warriors are so ''great'' how come they couldn't capitalize on that and made it a game? Plus it still doesn't change the fact that the Warriors lost twice to a crippled Cavs team in the finals.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)




----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Vegan Gains said:


> Wow. Impressive guts by the Warriors tonight, although I think this showed me that the Cavs would take them in a 7 game series. Irving still nursing an injury and yet the Cavs almost won on the road. What surprises me is as bad as they played they could have easily won. If Lebron hits his free throws like hes been doing and Mozzy makes his wide open layup cavs win. I'm surprised though the Warriors still struggled to win even with the Cavs not even playing half of what they are capable of. Irving still getting used to offense. The easy rim shots that Moz missed were the difference in the game. Cavvs win on the 18th. Cavs only shot 30 percent at halftime and were only down 3. Just saying. If the Warriors are so ''great'' how come they couldn't capitalize on that and made it a game? Plus it still doesn't change the fact that the Warriors lost twice to a crippled Cavs team in the finals.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> Sir Patchwork said:
> 
> 
> > Well I guess that settles it. Warriors > healthy Cavs.
> ...


Called it. 



Vegan Gains said:


> Wow. Impressive guts by the Warriors tonight, although I think this showed me that the Cavs would take them in a 7 game series. Irving still nursing an injury and yet the Cavs almost won on the road. What surprises me is as bad as they played they could have easily won. If Lebron hits his free throws like hes been doing and Mozzy makes his wide open layup cavs win. I'm surprised though the Warriors still struggled to win even with the Cavs not even playing half of what they are capable of. Irving still getting used to offense. The easy rim shots that Moz missed were the difference in the game. Cavvs win on the 18th. Cavs only shot 30 percent at halftime and were only down 3. Just saying. If the Warriors are so ''great'' how come they couldn't capitalize on that and made it a game? Plus it still doesn't change the fact that the Warriors lost twice to a crippled Cavs team in the finals.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Man, the Warriors suck.

True that the Warriors were missing a starter (Barnes) and another thing (their freaking coach!), but the Cavs had a "rusty" Kyrie! Damn. And Varejão wasn't there! Double Damn! And Richard Jefferson wans't there! Triple Damn! And the Cavs didn't take the game seriously! That's why they missed 15 triples between Love, James and Kyrie!

And still the Warriors won by only 6 points????? With all that advantage????

They suck. Had the Cavs been healthy in the Finals they would have swept the Warriors. True story.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Wow. Impressive guts by the Warriors tonight, although I think this showed me that the Cavs would take them in a 7 game series. Irving still nursing an injury and yet the Cavs almost won on the road. What surprises me is as bad as they played they could have easily won. If Lebron hits his free throws like hes been doing and Mozzy makes his wide open layup cavs win. I'm surprised though the Warriors still struggled to win even with the Cavs not even playing half of what they are capable of. Irving still getting used to offense. The easy rim shots that Moz missed were the difference in the game. Cavvs win on the 18th. Cavs only shot 30 percent at halftime and were only down 3. Just saying. If the Warriors are so ''great'' how come they couldn't capitalize on that and made it a game? Plus it still doesn't change the fact that the Warriors lost twice to a crippled Cavs team in the finals.


Please stop posting.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Ha ha ha, even ESPN wrote that last night this shows the Cavs showed they have all that it takes to beat the Warriors. The Cavs shooting was an anomaly. 

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...possess-winning-formula-golden-state-warriors


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> Ha ha ha, even ESPN wrote that last night this shows the Cavs showed they have all that it takes to beat the Warriors. The Cavs shooting was an anomaly.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...possess-winning-formula-golden-state-warriors


Off course the Cavs own the Warriors.
If Lebron alone could win 2 games against the Warriors in the Finals, i tremble at the thought of what the Cavs can fo to the Warriors if healthy. Iy would probably be pornographic.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Wow. Impressive guts by the Warriors tonight, although I think this showed me that the Cavs would take them in a 7 game series. Irving still nursing an injury and yet the Cavs almost won on the road. What surprises me is as bad as they played they could have easily won. If Lebron hits his free throws like hes been doing and Mozzy makes his wide open layup cavs win. I'm surprised though the Warriors still struggled to win even with the Cavs not even playing half of what they are capable of. Irving still getting used to offense. The easy rim shots that Moz missed were the difference in the game. Cavvs win on the 18th. Cavs only shot 30 percent at halftime and were only down 3. Just saying. If the Warriors are so ''great'' how come they couldn't capitalize on that and made it a game? Plus it still doesn't change the fact that the Warriors lost twice to a crippled Cavs team in the finals.


Winning the game IS capitalizing. As I said earlier in the thread - the Warriors have yet to demonstrate that they CAN'T stop the Cavs. Until the Cavs prove that they can take out the Warriors again... well...


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Winning the game IS capitalizing. As I said earlier in the thread - the Warriors have yet to demonstrate that they CAN'T stop the Cavs. Until the Cavs prove that they can take out the Warriors again... well...



http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...possess-winning-formula-golden-state-warriors

Read the article. If the Cavs shot their normal percentage, would the Warriors have even stood a chance? Be honest. It was an anomaly and on the 18th the Cavs will show that.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...possess-winning-formula-golden-state-warriors
> 
> Read the article. If the Cavs shot their normal percentage, would the Warriors have even stood a chance? Be honest. It was an anomaly and on the 18th the Cavs will show that.


If the Warriors shot their normal percentage, would the Cavs have even stood a chance? Be honest. It was an anomaly and on the 18th the Warriors will show that.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...possess-winning-formula-golden-state-warriors
> 
> Read the article. If the Cavs shot their normal percentage, would the Warriors have even stood a chance? Be honest. It was an anomaly and on the 18th the Cavs will show that.


Just admit that the better team won and stop being a clown. Please.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> If the Warriors shot their normal percentage, would the Cavs have even stood a chance? Be honest. It was an anomaly and on the 18th the Warriors will show that.



You are from Ohio. Why are you saying this?

Warriors shot normal because Delly is the Curry stopper and The Cavs have the defense to always slow them.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Just admit that the better team won and stop being a clown. Please.



But you know that Kyrie is just getting back into rhythm. The Cavs shot the worst percentage all year and you didn't see them miss lay ups they normally make that were easy?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> If the Warriors shot their normal percentage, would the Cavs have even stood a chance? Be honest. It was an anomaly and on the 18th the Warriors will show that.




Did you read the ESPN article?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> You are from Ohio. Why are you saying this?


Because he's not an idiot.



Vegan Gains said:


> But you know that Kyrie is just getting back into rhythm. The Cavs shot the worst percentage all year and you didn't see them miss lay ups they normally make that were easy?


No one is denying that. It's one of the reasons why I'm not going to determine what happens in a finals series between these two just based on this one game. And what happens on the 18th probably won't change my perception. But the Warriors were the better team in this game. You are continuing to make excuses that don't apply to what happened here. The game was close down the stretch, and the Warriors outplayed the Cavaliers. The Cavs didn't lose at the end because of missed lay ups they usually make, they lost because they missed key free throws and made defensive errors. But guess what? So did the Warriors. But they found a way to battle against adversity and come out with the win. The Cavaliers didn't. 

And you're acting like LeBron, Irving, and Love are going to be able to dominate the Warriors defense. Are you aware of how insanely good the Warriors defense is? Do you understand how well the Warriors match up against the Cavaliers? 

Both teams are built to face each other. Each have their own unique advantages. But it's not to the point where it puts either team clearly over other. If you want to believe that the Cavs would win, then fine. No one blames you. But stop acting like the Warriors are some kind of fluke team that the Cavs will shit on come finals time. It's simply not the case.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Because he's not an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok fine. But at the very least it showed that the Warriors aren't better than the Cavs right? At the very least the Cavs are at least as good as them right now and aren't at full health?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

neither is Curry dipstick


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Ok fine. *But at the very least it showed that the Warriors aren't better than the Cavs right?* At the very least the Cavs are at least as good as them right now and aren't at full health?


No, it showed that the Warriors are the better team, and it's not even close.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> You are from Ohio. Why are you saying this?
> 
> Warriors shot normal because Delly is the Curry stopper and The Cavs have the defense to always slow them.


Cavaliers shot abnormal because Warriors are the Cavalier stoppers and the Warriors have the defense to always slow them.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Cavaliers shot abnormal because Warriors are the Cavalier stoppers and the Warriors have the defense to always slow them.



No they missed free throws and wide open lay ups. Most had nothing to do with anyone but Cavs beating themselves. That won't happen 99 percent of the time. Read the article I sent you from ESPN. I just think the Cavs have the Warriors number.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Vegan Gains said:


> No they missed free throws and wide open lay ups. Most had nothing to do with anyone but Cavs beating themselves. That won't happen 99 percent of the time. Read the article I sent you from ESPN. I just think the Cavs have the Warriors number.


I have never quite understood individuals who choose to be internet trolls and their motivations. I am assuming you are trolling since no one can actually be so dense.

Anyone at this point who doesn't agree that the current champs, with a HISTORIC 28-1 start led by a player putting up a HISTORIC PER rating, are anything but the best team in the NBA should get their head examined. That doesn't mean they are invincible and can't be beat but it seems unlikely right now anyone could beat them in a series.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Don't look now, but the Cavs are working in a streak of their own...


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Vegan has a good point.

With healthy Love and Irving, Warriors would have got swept without Green and Klay thompson last year.

I accept the different opinion. This maybe true because Cavs have better talents.

One thing Vegan did not figure out is Love is not better than T Thompson because thompson is a better defender, but he will play Thompson's minutes. Delly is Curry's stopper. Irving is a little bit better than Delly because he is an offensive player. Basically there is only a bit upgrade for both positions.

As a result, Warriors still can win in 6 in the Finals.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

This is Curry for the first 20 games.
If you don’t get up on him, he shoots from 25 feet. If you get up on him at 25, he shoots from 30. If you get up on him at 30, he shoots at 35. If you get up at 35, he’ll go by you. and Klay Thompson is about as good at it as Curry.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> No they missed free throws and wide open lay ups. Most had nothing to do with anyone but Cavs beating themselves. That won't happen 99 percent of the time. Read the article I sent you from ESPN. I just think the Cavs have the Warriors number.


No they missed free throws and wide open three pointers. Most had nothing to do with anyone but the Warriors beating themselves. That won't happen 99% of the time. Read this link that I'm sending you from NBA.com. I just think the Warriors have the Cavs number.

http://stats.nba.com/league/team/?ls=iref:nba:gnav#!/?sort=FT_PCT&dir=1 - Link showing the Cavs shot ABOVE their team free throw shooting percentage for the season, so they are expected to miss ONE MORE free throw than they did.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I dont think its that clear cut. I think the Warriors are better, but the Cavs aren't playing at optimal level. The team is still a work in progress. I think they have figured out how to guard Curry best, but their offense needs to evolve past over relying on Bron. Thankfully, Irving is still not at his best and Love needs to be more assertive.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> No they missed free throws and wide open three pointers. Most had nothing to do with anyone but the Warriors beating themselves. That won't happen 99% of the time. Read this link that I'm sending you from NBA.com. I just think the Warriors have the Cavs number.
> 
> http://stats.nba.com/league/team/?ls=iref:nba:gnav#!/?sort=FT_PCT&dir=1 - Link showing the Cavs shot ABOVE their team free throw shooting percentage for the season, so they are expected to miss ONE MORE free throw than they did.



Irving was 100 percent? Be honest


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Ballscientist said:


> Vegan has a good point.
> 
> With healthy Love and Irving, Warriors would have got swept without Green and Klay thompson last year.
> 
> ...


How does that make someone a better player? That's like saying the Warriors look bad because they started out the year with a historic undefeated streak. 



HB said:


> I dont think its that clear cut. I think the Warriors are better, but the Cavs aren't playing at optimal level. The team is still a work in progress. I think they have figured out how to guard Curry best, but their offense needs to evolve past over relying on Bron. Thankfully, Irving is still not at his best and Love needs to be more assertive.


The Warriors are without a doubt the better team. The Cavaliers you could argue are more talented but they have a lot they still need to figure out. They need to run a lot more plays on offense. You can't help but feel like they're forcing 70% of everything that they're doing out there. 

Christmas Day was one of the rare instances this year where Curry looked human. But even then I don't think that'll be enough. If Draymond Green is able to hit his three pointers in the finals, then the Cavaliers will be fighting a losing battle. Love's two biggest defensive woes are that he can't defend the paint and he always leaves stretch forwards open at three. Always. And you know the Warriors are going to take advantage of that. They wouldn't have been able to last season because Green wasn't hitting his open three pointers, but unfortunately for the Cavs Love was injured. I don't see them being that fortunate again this season. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and they'll get lucky again.

I will say this though. If Mozgov is able to find the form he had last year, the Cavs will be a lot closer to the Warriors level than people think. Last season Mozgov played out of his mind and had a huge impact defensively for the Cavs, and a lot of that had to do with just his presence. If he can get back on track, the Cavaliers will be able to focus a lot more on the perimeter and will once again have one of the top defenses in the league.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Cleveland has a chance in a series against Golden State, but it wouldn't be anywhere near a "pick 'em" series. You'd probably see the odds favoring Golden State in 6, leaning closer to 5 than 7. I'd expect Golden State to win 2 of every 3 games. 

San Antonio's chances would probably be a little better than Cleveland's. But San Antonio might be in trouble if they have to play OKC in the WCSF to get to the WCF. They don't match up well with OKC. I'd almost like to see OKC drop to 4th to set up OKC-GS and SAS-LAC in the 2nd round, then SAS-GS in the WCF most likely. That would be two awesome rounds of basketball.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Cleveland has a chance in a series against Golden State, but it wouldn't be anywhere near a "pick 'em" series. You'd probably see the odds favoring Golden State in 6, leaning closer to 5 than 7. I'd expect Golden State to win 2 of every 3 games.


I don't know if I agree with this.

Cleveland still matches up pretty favorably against Golden State. They matched up favorably last season, and for the most part their same advantages will hold true this season assuming everyone's healthy. On top of this, Iggy starting won't work as effectively because Cleveland will have those extra weapons. I think it's closer than you think, but I agree that Golden State would still be the favorites.

And again, I think it all depends on how well this Cavs team is able to mesh. We don't know how good they will be. For all we know, they could play on a level the likes of which we've never seen before. They have the talent, and we saw them play at a great level of basketball with a lesser team last season. Who knows. There's so much talent on this team. It's hard to say.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Warriors small line-up (also called nuclear line-up)

7 players:

Barnes
Green
Iggy
Thompson
Curry
Livingston
Barbosa

Cavs have only 4 defenders for 7 Warriors.

These players don't have young legs on defense
Irving
Mo Williams
RJ
JR

Watch first 18 Warriors games of the season, not last 11 games.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Irving was 100 percent? Be honest


Curry was 100 percent? Be honest


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Warriors = Steve Nash Suns offense + Jerry West Lakers defense

West and Nash are both Warriors now.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

XxIrvingxX said:


> How does that make someone a better player? That's like saying the Warriors look bad because they started out the year with a historic undefeated streak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He struggles against teams with lengthy guards. Utah, Milwaukee and the Cavs (though its a combination of Delly sticking to him religiously and the likes of Shumps being able to disrupt him with length). He can be bothered, its just he is playing with four other guys who are so good at putting the ball in the net.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Cleveland still matches up pretty favorably against Golden State. They matched up favorably last season, and for the most part their same advantages will hold true this season assuming everyone's healthy. On top of this, Iggy starting won't work as effectively because Cleveland will have those extra weapons. I think it's closer than you think, but I agree that Golden State would still be the favorites.


I don't think they match up particularly well honestly. They match up okay. Any way you slice the matchups though, Golden State is going to have a clear advantage at just about every position except SF. The center position is the only other position you could argue, but even that is questionable because when Golden State wants, they can just go small and run Cleveland away from that lineup with Mozgov like they did in the finals. Center is a wash at very best.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Curry was 100 percent? Be honest



Yes and Deli will always limit him


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> Yes and Deli will always limit him


The Cavs play Phoenix tonight. Let's see if their streak ends... BTW, i believe the Warriors have crushed the Cavs' spirit and they will lose again tonight...


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Yes and Deli will always limit him


Yes and Warriors will always limit them


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> Yes and Warriors will always limit them


You're from Ohio and you feel this way?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> Yes and Warriors will always limit them


To an extent but not as much as the Cavs can limit them. Cavs had an even worse game by their own standards than the Warriors did.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

Will Omri Casspi end the Warriors winning streak? :laugh: did anyone see that insane shootout between him and Curry? hahaha


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Smath said:


> Will Omri Casspi end the Warriors winning streak? :laugh: did anyone see that insane shootout between him and Curry? hahaha



Casspi was making shots even farther out than Curry. He showed him up. If it weren't for Curry's 3 minute stretch, he would have only had 6 points or so and Kings could have won. Plus Cousins got ejected. He's the best center in the league. Kings were up 3 at halftime.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Casspi was making shots even farther out than Curry. He showed him up. If it weren't for Curry's 3 minute stretch, he would have only had 6 points or so and Kings could have won. Plus Cousins got ejected. He's the best center in the league. Kings were up 3 at halftime.


Cousins is the best C in the league?

He's shooting 42%.........he's good but that's a reach


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> To an extent but not as much as the Cavs can limit them. Cavs had an even worse game by their own standards than the Warriors did.


To an extent but not as much as the Warriors can limit them. Warriors had an even worse game by their own standards than the Cavs did.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> You're from Ohio and you feel this way?


I am from Ohio, which makes me an authority over all things Lebron. ESPN articles can not beat being from Ohio. Vegan Gains can not beat my Ohio inner knowledge as an Ohioan of Ohio.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Can't believe Cavs only beat the Suns by 4 without Bledsoe. It was essentially a loss for the Cavs. Suns may own the Cavs.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Yes and Deli will always limit him


Lol.



Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think they match up particularly well honestly. They match up okay. Any way you slice the matchups though, Golden State is going to have a clear advantage at just about every position except SF. The center position is the only other position you could argue, *but even that is questionable because when Golden State wants, they can just go small and run Cleveland away from that lineup with Mozgov like they did in the finals. *Center is a wash at very best.


Do you honestly think the Warriors would run small ball again if the Cavaliers were healthy? Keep in mind that the Cavs didn't have a lot of floor spacing in the finals, so going small ball worked out perfectly for GS. Have them do it against a stretched out offense filled with terrific shooters and that's another story. Green is a terrific defender, but I don't think the Warriors would want to have him be the paint against a stretched out offense that includes Irving and LeBron, and he wouldn't be able to guard the paint much because Love would be out at the perimeter.



scdn said:


> Can't believe Cavs only beat the Suns by 4 without Bledsoe. It was essentially a loss for the Cavs. Suns may own the Cavs.


I was about to explain what was wrong with this post and then realized what you were doing. Well played sir. Well played...


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

so far, LeBron shoot 28.5% outside the paint and Kobe shoot 30.1% outside the paint.
Bottom 2 in the nba?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> so far, LeBron shoot 28.5% outside the paint and Kobe shoot 30.1% outside the paint.
> Bottom 2 in the nba?


I had to make this bigger for emphasis


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

link and quote to prove 28.5%



> John Schuhmann: League’s worst shooter from outside the paint this season. Follow-up: w/ 2-for-8 tonight, LeBron has shot 28.5% from outside the paint this season. As a rookie, he shot 32.0% from outside the paint. (…) Which, you know, means worse than Kobe (30.1%).


7 hours ago – via Twitter johnschuhmann 

http://hoopshype.com/player/lebron-james/


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Do you honestly think the Warriors would run small ball again if the Cavaliers were healthy? Keep in mind that the Cavs didn't have a lot of floor spacing in the finals, so going small ball worked out perfectly for GS. Have them do it against a stretched out offense filled with terrific shooters and that's another story. Green is a terrific defender, but I don't think the Warriors would want to have him be the paint against a stretched out offense that includes Irving and LeBron, and he wouldn't be able to guard the paint much because Love would be out at the perimeter.


Who is posting up in this scenario...Mozgov? Are you telling me that the Warriors are going to abandon small ball because Mozgov is abusing them in the post?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> To an extent but not as much as the Warriors can limit them. Warriors had an even worse game by their own standards than the Cavs did.



what are you talking about? Cavs shot 31 percent.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Who is posting up in this scenario...Mozgov? Are you telling me that the Warriors are going to abandon small ball because Mozgov is abusing them in the post?


???

Where did I say anything about offense in the post?



Vegan Gains said:


> what are you talking about? Cavs shot 31 percent.


Please. STOP.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> ???
> 
> Where did I say anything about offense in the post?


I guess you didn't, but I'm not sure why you think a spread out offense is going to prevent the Warriors from playing small ball. You force a team out of playing small by killing them inside with bigs, not with drive and kick three point shooting offense.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Congrats @XxIrvingxX, you've managed to make the stupidest post in a thread started by @Vegan Gains. Well done.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> what are you talking about? Cavs shot 31 percent.


what are you talking about? Warriors shot 41 percent.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

ChrisWoj said:


> what are you talking about? Warriors shot 41 percent.



Right. The Cavs shot even worse by 10 percent.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Right. The Cavs shot even worse by 10 percent.


Right. The Warriors shot even worse by 8%. Warriors defense is 2.3% better than Cavs on opponent FG% (1 percentage point, 2.3 percent better). Normalize for defense - Golden State held Cavs just as low as Cavs held Golden State, since Golden State plays better defense night in night out. So both teams held each other down same amount. Golden State won by 6.

So to an extent but not as much as the Warriors can limit them.

Right. So Warriors shot just as bad by 8 percent.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I guess you didn't, but I'm not sure why you think a spread out offense is going to prevent the Warriors from playing small ball. You force a team out of playing small by killing them inside with bigs, not with drive and kick three point shooting offense.


It isn't just the three point shooters. Irving and LeBron will just have so much space to work with while not having to deal with an Andrew Bogut inside. The Warriors will need that rim protection. I'm not saying the Cavs would keep their typical starting five either. They have the roster and bodies to respond to the Warriors small ball line up with one of their own. 

At the same time though, we still don't know how good this kind of response would do against the Warriors small ball. We saw a little of it in the finals and it actually worked out pretty well, so we'll see.



hobojoe said:


> Congrats @XxIrvingxX, you've managed to make the stupidest post in a thread started by @Vegan Gains. Well done.


Actually no I haven't. But thanks for showing you're still doing what you do best: Show up and take a pointless shot at me while not contributing in any logical or decent way. In other words, being useless.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

Man, if the Cavs losing to the Warriors is proof that they're the better team, then the Bucks must be the greatest team of all time since they actually managed to beat them!


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

just think how good the 76ers must be


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> It isn't just the three point shooters. Irving and LeBron will just have so much space to work with while not having to deal with an Andrew Bogut inside. The Warriors will need that rim protection. I'm not saying the Cavs would keep their typical starting five either. They have the roster and bodies to respond to the Warriors small ball line up with one of their own.
> 
> At the same time though, we still don't know how good this kind of response would do against the Warriors small ball. We saw a little of it in the finals and it actually worked out pretty well, so we'll see.


Rim protection is not really needed when you have several elite perimeter defenders who don't get beat off the dribble, like the Warriors do. Even when they do get beat, Draymond Green protects the rim as well as anyone. Maybe he isn't playing above the rim, but his hands and positioning more than make up for that. I'll take the Warriors first shot defense with Draymond at center over Bogut any day. The real liability is the offensive rebounding, especially if Tristan Thompson is in the game, but I think they can gang rebound their way out of that issue.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Curry is out. This is only gonna show how bad the Warriors are when they aren't at full strength.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Curry is out. This is only gonna show how bad the Warriors are when they aren't at full strength.


If they lose, it's going to show how bad they are. 
If they win, it's going to show how bad they _really_ are.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Curry is out. This is only gonna show how bad the Warriors are when they aren't at full strength.


Barea is in. This is not going to show anything about how good Warriors are because J.J. Barea is leagues best active shooter right now. J.J. Barea will make America great again.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

hahahahahahahaha Warriors exposed!!!!! This is how they truly are without Curry!!!

Can you say OVERRATED?!!!!

They got it HANDED to them ha ha ha


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:|


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Vegan Gains said:


> hahahahahahahaha Warriors exposed!!!!! This is how they truly are without Curry!!!
> 
> Can you say OVERRATED?!!!!
> 
> They got it HANDED to them ha ha ha


Cavs just recently got it handed to them by the 12-20 Blazers WITH Lebron. Did that make them look worse in a way or better in a way? So confusing.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Is my math off or did the Mavericks play 13 players based on the yahoo sports app box score?


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

scdn said:


> Is my math off or did the Mavericks play 13 players based on the yahoo sports app box score?


Active rosters were increased to thirteen players a few years ago.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

scdn said:


> Is my math off or did the Mavericks play 13 players based on the yahoo sports app box score?


that would be cheating, you're only supposed to put 5 guys on the floor - no wonder the Mavs won


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Sometimes I wish this forum had more active users, but then I realize that more users means a higher rate of users like Vegan Gains. No thanks.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Rim protection is not really needed when you have several elite perimeter defenders who don't get beat off the dribble, like the Warriors do. Even when they do get beat, Draymond Green protects the rim as well as anyone. Maybe he isn't playing above the rim, but his hands and positioning more than make up for that. I'll take the Warriors first shot defense with Draymond at center over Bogut any day. The real liability is the offensive rebounding, especially if Tristan Thompson is in the game, but I think they can gang rebound their way out of that issue.


Okay so then who's guarding Love in this situation? Barnes? Keep in mind Love's going to be at the perimeter, do you keep Green on him or keep him in the paint? I just can't see this working out as well defensively for the Warriors as you think. 

But, then again, you've got great knowledge on the matter so I'll take your word for it.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

JNice said:


> Cavs just recently got it handed to them by the 12-20 Blazers WITH Lebron. Did that make them look worse in a way or better in a way? So confusing.


You forgot to mention the part where Lillard wasn't even playing for the Trail Blazers. That makes this a lot worse on the Cavs part.



Vegan Gains said:


> hahahahahahahaha Warriors exposed!!!!! This is how they truly are without Curry!!!
> 
> Can you say OVERRATED?!!!!
> 
> They got it HANDED to them ha ha ha


I hope you realize that you're contradicting your entire argument.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The warriors are 29-2. They've beaten the cavs 4 times in a row. The Warriors are better than the Cavs. Deal with it.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the Warriors without two starters (one of whom is an MVP candidate) and a key reserve are a joke


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> the Warriors without two starters (one of whom is an MVP candidate) and a key reserve are a joke


Makes one respect what Bron did last year even more no? That guy is a super human.

This thread is hilarious though


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> hahahahahahahaha Warriors exposed!!!!! This is how they truly are without Curry!!!
> 
> Can you say OVERRATED?!!!!
> 
> They got it HANDED to them ha ha ha


I predicted it. I said JJ Barea would win this game. All saw it coming, it proves nothing. JJ Barea is basketball Jesus.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> The warriors are 29-2. They've beaten the cavs 4 times in a row. The Warriors are better than the Cavs. Deal with it.


You again?










Aren't you supposed to be blowing R-Star in another thread or something?


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

ChrisWoj said:


> I predicted it. I said JJ Barea would win this game. All saw it coming, it proves nothing. JJ Barea is basketball Jesus.


by Jesus I assume you mean Hay-Sus


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

JT said:


> by Jesus I assume you mean Hay-Sus


Could it possibly in any world be meant any other way? Mavericks see Steph Curry success! Mavs realize Mavs have JJ Barea! Mavs unleash Barea, show Steph Curry is nothing special people just aren't using JJ Barea right! JJ Barea is Basketball Jesus!


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

So the Warriors beat the Rockets. Thoughts on this Vegan?


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

I'm genuinely curious to see how @Vegan Gains spins this one


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

It doesn't count guys. The Cavs are shooting worse than their season percentages. Imagine how close the game would be if they were.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Embarrassing. And at home. Shameful. F!


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I think the degree to which the Warriors just destroyed the Cavs only goes to show how much better the Cavs are than the Warriors -nothing could be clearer...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Kreutz35 said:


> I'm genuinely curious to see how @Vegan Gains spins this one


It's pretty sad that this is what I was thinking about as I saw the box score.

I will admit however that I've basically lost any confidence in this team winning the title this year, or any upcoming year for that matter. It's a lost cause.

But, then again, I thought the same thing about the Celtics in 2010 when we roflstomped them by 29 points in game 3 of the playoffs. And then of course they turned it around and two games later they gave the Cavs an even better ass kicking by 32. I just don't fucking know anymore.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

Cleveland's best chance to win the title is to face the Spurs in the Finals. They match up better against San Antonio. 



I'd still pick the Spurs in that series though.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

A complete shocker considering they shot their worst percentage and almost won on Christmas. But Golden State lost to Denver and got kicked by Detroit at full strength. If you're gonna talk about how they beat Cavs, you also have to look at how Detroit roasted them. Also, if the Warriors can play like this, why couldn't they destroy a hobbled Cavs team in the finals? Maybe this is just one fluke game.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:|


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> A complete shocker considering they shot their worst percentage and almost won on Christmas. But Golden State lost to Denver and got kicked by Detroit at full strength. If you're gonna talk about how they beat Cavs, you also have to look at how Detroit roasted them. Also, if the Warriors can play like this, why couldn't they destroy a hobbled Cavs team in the finals? Maybe this is just one fluke game.


you can't be this dumb....


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> A complete shocker considering they shot their worst percentage and almost won on Christmas. But Golden State lost to Denver and got kicked by Detroit at full strength. If you're gonna talk about how they beat Cavs, you also have to look at how Detroit roasted them. Also, if the Warriors can play like this, why couldn't they destroy a hobbled Cavs team in the finals? *Maybe this is just one fluke game.*


It WAS a fluke game.
Usually the Cavs manage to not be beat by the Warriors by more than 12 points.
The Warriors tried to make it easy on the Cavs, by resting the starters for the fourth quarter, but the Cavs just couldn't get it under 30... Mo Williams being injured made all the difference... Despite beating them in the last 5 games, the Warriors STILL haven't beat a fully healthy Cavs team!!!


----------



## maisenza13 (Jan 4, 2016)

I'm Cavs fan..Fluke or not fluke..there were more tha 30 points this night..
I think that anybody who played at any level likes to be humiliated specially in a match against champions.

Thereby i won't say Cleveland play with all they had but sure they met the best team in the league in a their time of trouble and that was the result but the season is still very long..


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

Maybe it could just be that the Warriors were more ready. David Blatt said his team had a breakdown and it's on him to get them mentally ready. Warriors just wanted to prove that they aren't a fluke last year and marked this game in their calendar. I'm not making excuses, but last year in the Finals, Warriors weren't playing like this against a Cleveland squad missing 2 of their best players. So you cannot just go by this game. Last game on Christmas was a more accurate indicator as far as where the two teams are at and even though Cavs didn't shoot well, they almost won that game. Even Blatt said so.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> Maybe it could just be that the Warriors were more ready. David Blatt said his team had a breakdown and it's on him to get them mentally ready. Warriors just wanted to prove that they aren't a fluke last year and marked this game in their calendar. I'm not making excuses, but last year in the Finals, Warriors weren't playing like this against a Cleveland squad missing 2 of their best players. So you cannot just go by this game. Last game on Christmas was a more accurate indicator as far as where the two teams are at and even though Cavs didn't shoot well, they almost won that game. Even Blatt said so.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Vegan Gains does not disappoint.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vegan Gains said:


> A complete shocker considering they shot their worst percentage and almost won on Christmas. But Golden State lost to Denver and got kicked by Detroit at full strength. If you're gonna talk about how they beat Cavs, you also have to look at how Detroit roasted them. Also, if the Warriors can play like this, why couldn't they destroy a hobbled Cavs team in the finals? Maybe this is just one fluke game.


The Cavs have lost 5 GAMES IN A ROW TO THE WARRIORS.
The Cavs WERE DOWN BY 43.

Mic, dropped.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ChrisWoj said:


> The Cavs have lost 5 GAMES IN A ROW TO THE WARRIORS.
> The Cavs WERE DOWN BY 43.
> 
> Mic, dropped.


But Golden State lost to Denver, and Cleveland beat Denver, so what does that tell you smart guy?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

I wonder how the Cavs will respond to this. I don't think this is their most embarrassing loss of the season (that would have to go to the ass kicking they got from the Trail Blazers who were missing Lillard the night after Christmas), but being beat this badly on their home turf by the team that beat them in the finals last season had to have pissed them off pretty badly, especially LeBron. 

I think how they respond to this will tell us if the Cavs are capable of even standing a chance against the Spurs or Warriors.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I will admit however that I've basically lost any confidence in this team winning the title this year, or any upcoming year for that matter. It's a lost cause.


This reaction may be a tad dramatic.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hobojoe said:


> This reaction may be a tad dramatic.


You're probably right, but right now I just can't see the Cavs winning like this. But who knows, like I said before the Cavs are still a working progress.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You're probably right, but right now I just can't see the Cavs winning like this. But who knows, like I said before the Cavs are still a working progress.


And a much better _work in progress_ than they were going into this point last season. On this date a year ago they moved to 2 games above .500 and were less than a week removed from 19-20.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Cavs depth chart:

If Cavs go small, Spurs will defeat the Cavs.

If Cavs go big, Warriors will defeat the Cavs.

How about Love for Melo straight up? Knicks will take the trade.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Ballscientist said:


> How about Love for Melo straight up? Knicks will take the trade.


That would literally just make the problems the Cavs already have much worse. 

Like, legitimately, the problems they have on offense would get worse. The problems they have on defense would get worse. Cavs wouldn't benefit at all from this trade.

Trading Love isn't going to solve the Cavaliers problem. Love isn't their main issue.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

ChrisWoj said:


> And a much better _work in progress_ than they were going into this point last season. On this date a year ago they moved to 2 games above .500 and were less than a week removed from 19-20.


True. But when you watch them play you just feel like they've taken a step backwards. There's not a lot of ball movement (and when you have Irving and Smith in the same starting line up, this tends to happen), and Blatt still doesn't seem to know what he wants to do with some of his players. Varejao is barely playing and I have no clue why. He does so many things well for Cleveland and they're barely using him. They're a work in progress at this point because they keep sticking with the same routine even though there's a route they could be going right now that would make them much better. Playing Varejao more and starting Shumpert would do wonders for the Cavaliers. It might hurt their offense a little but it'll drastically improve their defense.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If you believed before the game that Cleveland had a good chance to beat Golden State, then I don't see why 1 game should change your mind. I just wonder how you thought that before the game. Cleveland matches up terribly. Basketball isn't as simple as "Cleveland won 2 in the finals without Irving and Love, therefore with them they'd win at least 3 or more". In the finals, they muddied it up and won a couple of ugly games. Cleveland with Irving and Love aren't a muddy it up team anymore. I'm not saying they're better without them, but Golden State eventually figured out the "muddy it up" strategy and beat Cleveland 3 straight in the finals. I said a couple of weeks ago that in a Golden State-Cleveland series, GS would probably be favored in 6 games, leaning closer to 5 than 7. I'll stick with that, although it teeters closer and closer to 5.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just wonder how you thought that before the game. Cleveland matches up terribly.


Well one of the reasons why is because I was fortunate enough to see what a healthy Cavaliers team was capable of doing to the Warriors last season. It was the one time they played at full health and Cleveland won. They looked like they were clearly the better team. I know Golden State is a different team this year but so are the Cavaliers. And seeing Cleveland play as well as they did on Christmas against the Warriors made me feel even more confident, since at that point it was just the Cavs third game with Irving back.

Now? Idk. I'm probably overreacting but honestly how is someone supposed to react to something like this?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Irving and Love are a combined 13-of-47 from the field against the Warriors, including 2-of-17 from 3-point range. Love is 2-of-12 when guarded by Draymond Green.


http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/p...aliers-a-statement-game-in-more-ways-than-one


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

The only player Igoudala can defeat is LeBron James.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> This reaction may be a tad dramatic.


Not really, no.
Like i've said numerous times, if Stephen Curry's shot is falling, there's nothing you can do and the Warriors will win the ball game.
XxIrvingxX is just aknowledging (sp?) it. 
Let's get real: Curry and the Warriors have just shit on the "best basketball player in the world" and his team. 
The Warriors have the solution for Lebron.
The Cavs have no solution to Stephen Curry.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

If Cavs play fast pace (increase from 95 to 125 possessions), they may be able to score 140?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not really, no.
> Like i've said numerous times, if Stephen Curry's shot is falling, there's nothing you can do and the Warriors will win the ball game.
> XxIrvingxX is just aknowledging (sp?) it.
> Let's get real: Curry and the Warriors have just shit on the "best basketball player in the world" and his team.
> ...


I do think the Warriors are better than the Cavs and I do think the Warriors match up extremely well with the Cavs. If they meet in the Finals again, I will almost certainly pick the Warriors to win. 

None of that changes the fact that declaring Cleveland's chances of winning a title this year or any upcoming year a "lost cause" based on one regular season is dramatic and a gross overreaction.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not really, no.
> Like i've said numerous times, if Stephen Curry's shot is falling, there's nothing you can do and the Warriors will win the ball game.
> XxIrvingxX is just aknowledging (sp?) it.
> Let's get real: Curry and the Warriors have just shit on the "best basketball player in the world" and his team.
> ...


It'll be interesting to see when Kawhi Leonard and the Spurs face Stephen Curry and the Warriors.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not really, no.
> Like i've said numerous times, if Stephen Curry's shot is falling, there's nothing you can do and the Warriors will win the ball game.


You could try shutting down the rest of his team like the Pistons did. In all honesty I don't know why the Cavs aren't doing this. I honestly think that would do them more good then having Love help out on screens and give Green an easy opportunity to score or find an open guy.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

hobojoe said:


> I do think the Warriors are better than the Cavs and I do think the Warriors match up extremely well with the Cavs. If they meet in the Finals again, I will almost certainly pick the Warriors to win.
> 
> None of that changes the fact that declaring Cleveland's chances of winning a title this year or any upcoming year a "lost cause" based on one regular season is dramatic and a gross overreaction.




Are you saying that Cleveland played their best game? We all know that the team that showed up last night was not the real Cavaliers, that's not how they normally play. We already have evidence that even with only 7 healthy guys playing with Lebron, they were able to scare them. Now it's just a matter of figuring out how to get Kevin Love involved more. He was literally doing nothing on defense yesterday. 

The Warriors may have beaten a pretty healthy Cleveland team, but they are more experienced together and they haven't beaten Cleveland yet when Cavs are at their best. I'd say right now it's more mental than anything.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Are you saying that Cleveland played their best game? We all know that the team that showed up last night was not the real Cavaliers, that's not how they normally play. We already have evidence that even with only 7 healthy guys playing with Lebron, they were able to scare them. Now it's just a matter of figuring out how to get Kevin Love involved more. He was literally doing nothing on defense yesterday.


Who is "them"? Are you referring to last season's team? Stop referring to that team. They are a different team. What happened season is irrelevant in regards to this year.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> Are you saying that Cleveland played their best game? We all know that the team that showed up last night was not the real Cavaliers, that's not how they normally play. We already have evidence that even with only 7 healthy guys playing with Lebron, they were able to scare them. Now it's just a matter of figuring out how to get Kevin Love involved more. He was literally doing nothing on defense yesterday.
> 
> The Warriors may have beaten a pretty healthy Cleveland team, but they are more experienced together and they haven't beaten Cleveland yet when Cavs are at their best. I'd say right now it's more mental than anything.


Warriors won by 34 with Curry scoring 35 points, without Curry Cleveland would've won by 1 (simple math).

Cleveland won two games in the Finals despite missing two of their three best players, with Love and Irving they would've swept Golden State.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

I'm legitimately shocked that no one pointed out what Kevin Love said after the Cavs lost last night.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

hobojoe said:


> Warriors won by 34 with Curry scoring 35 points, without Curry Cleveland would've won by 1 (simple math).
> 
> Cleveland won two games in the Finals despite missing two of their three best players, with Love and Irving they would've swept Golden State.




Irving isn't even 100 percent right now. You don't just come back from serious injuries right away. Plus Kevin Love has a lot of problems right now. He may have even made the Cavs worst. But we know that once they figure that shit out, that won't be the case. Like Lebron said, you can't put too much into one game. Golden State is typically not going to win by 30 points.


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Who is "them"? Are you referring to last season's team? Stop referring to that team. They are a different team. What happened season is irrelevant in regards to this year.



No doubt, the Warriors are the better coached and more refined team right now. But that still doesn't change facts. And me and you both believe that if Cleveland had Irving and Love last year they would have won. The Warriors didn't have the experience to last against us at full strength. As far as this year it's a work in progress with Love. But there's nothing wrong with me saying that last year Golden State still got quite lucky. This year there are more hurdles to overcome with Cleveland because of the injuries from last year. Irving is still adjusting. Listen to Lebron's interview, he says we have a lot of inexperienced players and new faces. Things take time.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Maybe it could just be that the Warriors were more ready. David Blatt said his team had a breakdown and it's on him to get them mentally ready. Warriors just wanted to prove that they aren't a fluke last year and marked this game in their calendar. I'm not making excuses, but last year in the Finals, Warriors weren't playing like this against a Cleveland squad missing 2 of their best players. So you cannot just go by this game. Last game on Christmas was a more accurate indicator as far as where the two teams are at and even though Cavs didn't shoot well*, they almost won that game.* Even Blatt said so.


So that makes them better? Because they almost won a game, then get blown out the next time they play.........

Man, what logic are you using


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> I do think the Warriors are better than the Cavs and I do think the Warriors match up extremely well with the Cavs. If they meet in the Finals again, I will almost certainly pick the Warriors to win.
> 
> None of that changes the fact that declaring Cleveland's chances of winning a title this year or any upcoming year a "lost cause" based on one regular season is dramatic and a gross overreaction.


Well, obviously the Cavs have the time to figure it out against the Warriors (if and when they face the Warriors in the Finals). I just have a hard time imagining they can up their defensive effort enough, for the Cavs just don't seem to have the personel for it.

Sure, offensive-wise the Cavs ar loaded. Lebron, Irving and Love with a good supporting cast assure the necesary firepower. But defensively? I just don't know. The Warriors can send Thompson, Green, Iggy and Bogut at the other team. The Spurs have Leonard and Duncan. Who do the Cavs have?

At the end of the day, a Curry 3 will always be worth more than a Lebron 2.

But hey, i can't write off the Cavs at this moment, off course. I can't foresee the future.
But AS OF RIGHT NOW the Cavs should be considered huge underdogs on a Finals series against the Warriors...


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Vegan Gains said:


> No doubt, the Warriors are the better coached and more refined team right now. But that still doesn't change facts. And me and you both believe that if Cleveland had Irving and Love last year they would have won. The Warriors didn't have the experience to last against us at full strength. As far as this year it's a work in progress with Love. But there's nothing wrong with me saying that last year Golden State still got quite lucky. This year there are more hurdles to overcome with Cleveland because of the injuries from last year. Irving is still adjusting. Listen to Lebron's interview, he says we have a lot of inexperienced players and new faces. Things take time.


If the Warriors win the 2016 Championship are they supposed to be sad that they didnt win the "vegan gains hypothetical championship" of 2016?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I'm legitimately shocked that no one pointed out what Kevin Love said after the Cavs lost last night.


*Kevin Love called out LeBron?* LeBron need to look in the mirror to see he looks like Jessica Alba or Jack Nicholson. 

Love DefRtg 100.4/ Irving 102.9 ( allows 24.3 points in the paint almost as much as Love who PLAYS in the paint at 26). Both of them are bottom 10 defenders in the history?

Against Warriors:

Irving + Love = tiny offense + zero defense (negative 40 points?)

Delly + TT >> Irving + Love

Warriors could have swept Cavs if Love and Irving were healthy last year.
Some experts think Love makes Cavs worse.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> If the Warriors win the 2016 Championship are they supposed to be sad that they didnt win the "vegan gains hypothetical championship" of 2016?


It depends. Did the team they beat shoot below their usual percentages?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> Irving isn't even 100 percent right now. You don't just come back from serious injuries right away. Plus Kevin Love has a lot of problems right now. He may have even made the Cavs worst. But we know that once they figure that shit out, that won't be the case. Like Lebron said, you can't put too much into one game. Golden State is typically not going to win by 30 points.


It wasn't just Kevin Love. Love could have played great defense the entire game and the Cavs were still going to get blown out. 

The entire team as a whole played terribly. There is no single player you can rule out in regards to why the Cavs lost. You can say one player had the biggest negative impact, but in the end not one single player on the Cavaliers played great that night apart from MAYBE LeBron. I would have to see a pretty well built together argument if I want to agree with it. 



Vegan Gains said:


> No doubt, the Warriors are the better coached and more refined team right now. But that still doesn't change facts. And me and you both believe that if Cleveland had Irving and Love last year they would have won.


Yes, but for completely different reasons. You think that because the Cavs won two games without either of them. The reason I believe it is because the Cavs were playing at an elite level and it was hard for me to imagine any team beating them in a seven game series. Green wasn't the player he is now and was almost a non factor in the playoffs when it came to shooting, so I wasn't to worried about Love guarding him.



Vegan Gains said:


> As far as this year it's a work in progress with Love.


No, it's not just Kevin Love. How he's playing is not the issue. How they are using him is the issue. It was a combination of him not adjusting well and not being used properly last season, but this year we've seen a much better version of Love that still isn't being used properly. I'm not going to make any excuses in regards to the defense he played the other night, but that hasn't been a common occurrence through out the season. And I hope that it's not a common occurrence when he's in the finals. 



Vegan Gains said:


> But there's nothing wrong with me saying that last year Golden State still got quite lucky.


There is a lot wrong with it because that doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant to what's going on now. You keep acting like these are the two same teams and they're not. If you aren't, then you have no logical reason to still be bringing it up.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It depends. Did the team they beat shoot below their usual percentages?


If the other teams back up PF who never played the entire season is injured it's automatically a tainted win.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Vegan Gains said:


> No doubt, the Warriors are the better coached and more refined team right now. But that still doesn't change facts. And me and you both believe that if Cleveland had Irving and Love last year they would have won. The Warriors didn't have the experience to last against us at full strength. As far as this year it's a work in progress with Love. But there's nothing wrong with me saying that last year Golden State still got quite lucky. This year there are more hurdles to overcome with Cleveland because of the injuries from last year. Irving is still adjusting. Listen to Lebron's interview, he says we have a lot of inexperienced players and new faces. Things take time.



*1+1 = ?
1+1= 666*


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Ballscientist said:


> *1+1 = ?
> 1+1= 666*


This in a strange way sums up Vegan Gains logic.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

it's science, dude


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

The Warriors are not better than The Cavs at full strength. At this point in the season they are playing better right now and have better teamwork. My position still stands, that the Cavaliers have more potential. Lebron is a top 10 player of all time. Kevin Love has been a 25-15 type player, just insurmountable numbers. And Kyrie when healthy is a top point guard in the league, maybe even better than Curry and is younger, has done more at his age than Curry did. 

But if one guy can almost beat them when missing 2 of the top players, you know that all 3 when playing together would win. Love only had 3 points against the Warriors and wasn't playing defense. We know that that won't happen 99 percent of the time. Last game was Lebron's worst loss at home of his career. It's not a typical game. Like I said on Christmas the Cavaliers shot worst than they have all year and still were only a couple baskets away from stealing it.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> The Warriors are not better than The Cavs at full strength. At this point in the season they are playing better right now and have better teamwork. My position still stands, that the Cavaliers have more potential. Lebron is a top 10 player of all time. Kevin Love has been a 25-15 type player, just insurmountable numbers. And Kyrie when healthy is a top point guard in the league, maybe even better than Curry and is younger, has done more at his age than Curry did.
> 
> But if one guy can almost beat them when missing 2 of the top players, you know that all 3 when playing together would win. Love only had 3 points against the Warriors and wasn't playing defense. We know that that won't happen 99 percent of the time. Last game was Lebron's worst loss at home of his career. It's not a typical game. Like I said on Christmas the Cavaliers shot worst than they have all year and still were only a couple baskets away from stealing it.


Please shut up already.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:|


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Please shut up already.



You're just mad over one game. Cavs are 29-11 and have had many players hurt all year. You said yourself that you think Lebron, Love and Irving can beat Golden State. Do not let the general public sway you over to the dark side. It's not true. There is still hope. You have to realize that the Warriors are trying really hard to impress the league because the Spurs have been doing very well. Plus they wanted to show that they can beat the Cavs big 3. But Irving still isn't 100 percent and we're still adjusting him into the lineup. You saw how amazing the Cavs were against a fully healthy team last year. Do not let one game sway you. Cavaliers can win the Championship. They were even up by 15 in San Antonio.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> The Warriors are not better than The Cavs at full strength. At this point in the season they are playing better right now and have better teamwork. My position still stands, that the Cavaliers have more potential. Lebron is a top 10 player of all time. Kevin Love has been a 25-15 type player, just insurmountable numbers. And Kyrie when healthy is a top point guard in the league, maybe even better than Curry and is younger, has done more at his age than Curry did.
> 
> But if one guy can almost beat them when missing 2 of the top players, you know that all 3 when playing together would win. Love only had 3 points against the Warriors and wasn't playing defense. We know that that won't happen 99 percent of the time. Last game was Lebron's worst loss at home of his career. It's not a typical game. Like I said on Christmas the Cavaliers shot worst than they have all year and still were only a couple baskets away from stealing it.


Can you explain "insurmountable numbers", please?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Vegan Gains said:


> You're just mad over one game. Cavs are 29-11 and have had many players hurt all year. You said yourself that you think Lebron, Love and Irving can beat Golden State. Do not let the general public sway you over to the dark side. It's not true. There is still hope. You have to realize that the Warriors are trying really hard to impress the league because the Spurs have been doing very well. Plus they wanted to show that they can beat the Cavs big 3. But Irving still isn't 100 percent and we're still adjusting him into the lineup. You saw how amazing the Cavs were against a fully healthy team last year. Do not let one game sway you. Cavaliers can win the Championship. They were even up by 15 in San Antonio.


I'm not mad about one game. I'm annoyed by how stupid your posts are. You're repeating your own arguments despite how horribly wrong they are, and you're continuing to fill your posts up with irrelevant info. Stop posting. Please.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and that's coming from him


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

hobojoe said:


> Can you explain "insurmountable numbers", please?



too great to overcome. His numbers were some of the best anyone has ever seen. Love has had 30 point 30 rebound games. At one time he was getting 20 rebounds every other game. He's simply the best power forward in the game. Just got to get him used to Irving.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Vegan Gains said:


> too great to overcome. His numbers were some of the best anyone has ever seen. Love has had 30 point 30 rebound games. At one time he was getting 20 rebounds every other game. He's simply the best power forward in the game. Just got to get him used to Irving.


So his numbers in Minnesota were "too great to overcome" despite opponents overcoming them roughly 60% of the time?


----------



## Vegan Gains (Nov 9, 2015)

hobojoe said:


> So his numbers in Minnesota were "too great to overcome" despite opponents overcoming them roughly 60% of the time?




Huh? Who puts up 30 points and 20 rebounds? Love had a lot of rebounds tonight against LAC. He's getting back to his Minnesota days.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Vegan Gains said:


> too great to overcome. His numbers were some of the best anyone has ever seen. Love has had 30 point 30 rebound games. At one time he was getting 20 rebounds every other game. *He's simply the best power forward in the game*. Just got to get him used to Irving.


I like this guy, he's funny


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

I agree that Love teaches Clippers how to play basketball.


----------

