Style of play in NBA Finals

[Newhouser]

Watching the first two games, I am at a loss to see how anyone would rather watch a college game. Watching elite athletes, space the floor and use their skills. The sport is beautiful. I don't get bogged down in the scores and blow outs, just in a pure basketball sense, the game is being played at an awesome level in the NBA.

 

[OrangeDW]

When defenders can't maul ball handlers 30 feet from the basket, and when defenders can't slide in and undercut players that are going to the basket, basketball is a beautiful game to watch.

 

[GooseMutt]

Watching the first two games, I am at a loss to see how anyone would rather watch a college game. Watching elite athletes, space the floor and use their skills. The sport is beautiful. I don't get bogged down in the scores and blow outs, just in a pure basketball sense, the game is being played at an awesome level in the NBA.

I find the passing to be incredible and the ball movement so quick and efficient

 

[cto]

I was thinking the same thing last night. Just the speed of the game is awesome. During regular season, I essentially watch only college ball. Watching these NBA championship games is viewing basketball at a totally difference level.

 

[Eric15]

To my friends (and there are many of them) who think Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics or Jordan's Bulls are better than this Warrior group: I respect your opinion, but you're being unreasonable.

 

[Knicks411]

To my friends (and there are many of them) who think Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics or Jordan's Bulls are better than this Warrior group: I respect your opinion, but you're being unreasonable.

I wouldn't go that far. I think this Warriors team is probably the best of all time (if for no other reason than I think quality of play has increased as time has gone along), but it's only probably.

 

[RF2044]

Watching the first two games, I am at a loss to see how anyone would rather watch a college game. Watching elite athletes, space the floor and use their skills. The sport is beautiful. I don't get bogged down in the scores and blow outs, just in a pure basketball sense, the game is being played at an awesome level in the NBA.

I never understand posts expressing this sentiment. People might want to watch college games because they love a college team, as a mutually exclusive condition to the quality of play being better in the NBA.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I wouldn't go that far. I think this Warriors team is probably the best of all time (if for no other reason than I think quality of play has increased as time has gone along), but it's only probably.

Idk. Did those teams ever outscore their opponents by 17 points as they went through the playoffs? I think the early oughts Lakers had a run similar to this, but they didn't take the regular season seriously.

 

[Eric15]

I wouldn't go that far. I think this Warriors team is probably the best of all time (if for no other reason than I think quality of play has increased as time has gone along), but it's only probably.

What I think makes the Warriors so great is that if you plucked Curry and Durant off this Warrior team, I think they would still make the playoffs as a mid-range seed in the West. They would still have two Top 20 players in Klay and Draymond, and an abundance of supporting talent. Can you say that about any other team in the history of the league?

 

[RF2044]

Idk. Did those teams ever outscore their opponents by 17 points as they went through the playoffs? I think the early oughts Lakers had a run similar to this, but they didn't take the regular season seriously.

Those teams faced a lot more parity. Unrestricted free agency wasn't a thing until later in Bird's / Magic's careers, there were fewer teams, and the league had fewer players. Those teams were also pretty evenly matched, so no -- they didn't outscore teams by 17 points.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Those teams faced a lot more parity. Unrestricted free agency wasn't a thing until later in Bird's / Magic's careers, there were fewer teams, and the league had fewer players. Those teams were also pretty evenly matched, so no -- they didn't outscore teams by 17 points.

I guess that's fair. I'm thinking about the Bulls and how the Ewing Knicks took them to 6 and 7 a few times yet had very little firepower compared to this Cav's team or even the current Spurs teams. When the Lakers went 15-1 in the early Oughts they at least swept a Spurs team lead by Duncan/Robinson.

 

[MSOrange]

Watching the first two games, I am at a loss to see how anyone would rather watch a college game. Watching elite athletes, space the floor and use their skills. The sport is beautiful. I don't get bogged down in the scores and blow outs, just in a pure basketball sense, the game is being played at an awesome level in the NBA.

I can't argue the level of play is better in the NBA. But I have more of an emotional attachment to the college game and schools. I love watching Syracuse, my alma mater and my parents 2 alma maters and a variety of different conferences. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[dasher]

To my friends (and there are many of them) who think Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics or Jordan's Bulls are better than this Warrior group: I respect your opinion, but you're being unreasonable.

No. They aren't. The Celtic team in I think '86 lost one game all year at home. They had a front court of Robert Parrish, Larry Bird , Kevin McHale and a healthy Bill Walton. Denis Johnson and Danny Ainge in the back court for defense. i love the warriors and they might have won a series. But to think the Celtics weren't in the same league is silly.

 

[dasher]

I would rather watch Siena play Fairfield than watch a NBA game. I love the college game.

 

[RF2044]

I guess that's fair. I'm thinking about the Bulls and how the Ewing Knicks took them to 6 and 7 a few times yet had very little firepower compared to this Cav's team or even the current Spurs teams. When the Lakers went 15-1 in the early Oughts they at least swept a Spurs team lead by Duncan/Robinson.

I get where you're coming from--interesting discussion, even though I'm not completely on the same page. The Bulls never had a rival, not a true one. They played Utah two years in a row, but otherwise faced a bunch of different teams who couldn't sustain excellence [Portland, Seattle, an aging and depleted Lakers squad at the tail end of the Magic era, etc.].

The Lakers squad was very good -- they had two of the top 3-4 players in the league. But they also got lucky playing a generally pretty lousy Sixers squad, etc. Spurs were good, however. It is pretty freaking amazing when you think of how good that team has been for a very, very, very long time. You almost take them for granted at this point. They lose a guy like David Robinson and don't seem to miss a beat. Ditto Duncan. Incredible.

 

[Eric15]

No. They aren't. The Celtic team in I think '86 lost one game all year at home. They had a front court of Robert Parrish, Larry Bird , Kevin McHale and a healthy Bill Walton. Denis Johnson and Danny Ainge in the back court for defense. i love the warriors and they might have won a series. But to think the Celtics weren't in the same league is silly.

But we aren't comparing the 1986 Celtics to other teams in 1986, we are comparing them to the 2017 Warriors.

How would the mid-80s possibly have enough athleticism and offensive firepower to run with Golden State? Boston attempted 393 threes in 1986. The Warriors made 982 threes this year. Boston would be completely overwhelmed.

Walton isn't really relevant here -- he averaged 8 points per game that year.

 

[dasher]

But we aren't comparing the 1986 Celtics to other teams in 1986, we are comparing them to the 2017 Warriors.

How would the mid-80s possibly have enough athleticism and offensive firepower to run with Golden State? Boston attempted 393 threes in 1986. The Warriors made 982 threes this year. Boston would be completely overwhelmed.

How much did you see of the '86 Celts? I bet not much. The Celtics would have owned the boards. Danny Ainge and Denis Johnson would have done okay against the Warriors guards. Not stopped them. No one can. But the Celtics would not have been overwhelmed.

 

[Knicks411]

But we aren't comparing the 1986 Celtics to other teams in 1986, we are comparing them to the 2017 Warriors.

How would the mid-80s possibly have enough athleticism and offensive firepower to run with Golden State? Boston attempted 393 threes in 1986. The Warriors made 982 threes this year. Boston would be completely overwhelmed.

Walton isn't really relevant here -- he averaged 8 points per game that year.

It's hard to compare, just a totally different game in so many ways. If you stick GS into the mid 80's and have them play the way most people did, that's one thing. But if you put them as they are now, like tyou said, the 3 pointers alone might be too much to overcome.

 

[Cusefan0307]

How much did you see of the '86 Celts? I bet not much. The Celtics would have owned the boards. Danny Ainge and Denis Johnson would have done okay against the Warriors guards. Not stopped them. No one can. But the Celtics would not have been overwhelmed.

I've seen enough NBA Classic games on NBA TV to know that the style of defense Boston played in he 80's would not work today. Curry and Durant would both score 50 points.

 

[Knicks411]

How much did you see of the '86 Celts? I bet not much. The Celtics would have owned the boards. Danny Ainge and Denis Johnson would have done okay against the Warriors guards. Not stopped them. No one can. But the Celtics would not have been overwhelmed.

Overwhelmed is probably too much. But I don't know who is staying with Steph or KD. Is Bird really going to chase Durant around the perimeter for 40 minutes?

 

[dasher]

I've seen enough NBA Classic games on NBA TV to know that the style of defense Boston played in he 80's would not work today. Curry and Durant would both score 50 points.

Yeah, you are right. Those players couldn't make any adjustments. A better question would be, what rules would they be playing under? Because the Celtics in todays rules would also have looked different if they weren't being held and pushed around. who on the warriors was going to guard Bird and McHale? let alone Walton and Parrish at center?

 

[Eric15]

A better question would be, what rules would they be playing under?

Today's rules. Where it's world-class athletes out in open space being athletic (the way basketball was intended).

 

[dasher]

Overwhelmed is probably too much. But I don't know who is staying with Steph or KD. Is Bird really going to chase Durant around the perimeter for 40 minutes?

No. He couldn't. But that door swings both ways. Who on the warriors is going to guard McHale down low. And no warrior could have guarded Bird.

 

[jordoo]

Yeah, you are right. Those players couldn't make any adjustments. A better question would be, what rules would they be playing under? Because the Celtics in todays rules would also have looked different if they weren't being held and pushed around. who on the warriors was going to guard Bird and McHale? let alone Walton and Parrish at center?

That's it right there. Its tough to do a good job comparing teams that not only played under different rules but were also constructed for different rules.

 

[OrangeDW]

To my friends (and there are many of them) who think Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics or Jordan's Bulls are better than this Warrior group: I respect your opinion, but you're being unreasonable.

Early 80s Lakers had a still prime Kareem, prime Magic, Wilkes, Nixon, a hall of famer like McAdoo as a role player off the bench. Plus guys like Cooper. 86 Celtics when you add a rejuvinated Bill Walton off the bench to the Bird, McHale, Parish, Johnson core. Those teams stack up to anyone. Though with less teams in the 80s, a stacked roster like that was seemingly more likely.