Kind of what I was hoping this would get at. The 3 point shot and not allowing any hand checking on the outside. Then it is just a matter of who is hot or cold. That is why you will see a bad team beat a good team by 20 points. In the old days, if a good team was having a bad shooting night, they would simply play lock down defense and win by 5 point instead of 25 points.
The Warriors have lost to a couple of bad teams this year, but it's not like they are regularly being blown out by 20 points to bad teams.
Feels like all these numbers you are using are being pulled out of thin air. I am doubtful that the actual numbers support your theory, but I am happy to be proven wrong if anyone presents some real data on this.
I think that the three point shot is the main change.
Its value (3 points not two) and the extent to which more players specialize in it (and coaching has begun to emphasize it compared to decades past) combine as factors which make game outcomes less certain than ever. An eleven point lead can be subsumed by a the trailing team with a guy who gets hot from downtown in 90 seconds, four possessions.
I think that the three point shot is the main change.
Its value (3 points not two) and the extent to which more players specialize in it (and coaching has begun to emphasize it compared to decades past) combine as factors which make game outcomes less certain than ever. An eleven point lead can be subsumed by a the trailing team with a guy who gets hot from downtown in 90 seconds, four possessions.
Are game outcomes really less certain? People in this thread keep making assumptions like this, but I have no idea if they're true. I am skeptical that upsets are happening at a significantly higher rate now than in the past.
You'd really need to do an analysis where you compared if favored teams in the 3-point era had a different winning percentage than favored teams in other eras.
Durant joining Golden State was something way outside of the norm because his free agency coincided with a huge jump in the salary cap. Even with that advantage/edge, they don't have the same dominance that they did in the past because they are either drafting late or lacked a first round pick.
Durant joined the Warriors two years ago, and they've won two rings and 75% of their games. And of course they've won 3 of the last 4 (and the one they didn't win they set the record for most wins.) That sure seems like dominance to me.
I am puzzled why you seem to think the Laker three-peat team was more dominant than the Warriors have been.
I didn't pull the numbers for the Lakers of the past, but the Warriors have started to slip some defensively the past few seasons. There aren't enough games left in this season to move their numbers up or down by much for 2018-19.
I didn't pull the numbers for the Lakers of the past, but the Warriors have started to slip some defensively the past few seasons. There aren't enough games left in this season to move their numbers up or down by much for 2018-19.
Easy enough to look at the Lakers defensive rating starting in the first year of their threepeat ...
1 ... 21 ... 7 ... 19 ... 8 ...
Offensively we went:
5 ... 2 ... 2 ... 4 ...6
So we remained strong offensively, and were up and down defensively.
When I compare the threepeat Lakers vs. the current Warriors on this superficial level, nothing significant jumps out at me.
If anything, based on the simple ranking of their offense and defense during the regular season, the Warriors look slightly stronger than the Lakers to me.
Also, I don't quite get the point about their not having any upside. If you're comparing them to the Lakers, they've already equaled us in rings, so even if they flop from this point forward we're equal. if they win another ring, they've surpassed us.
Based on all this, I don't see a case for us being more dominant than the Warriors.
Oh, please. You think people weren't griping about inconsistent officiating 20 years ago?
During the threepeat, there was endless talk about how the refs couldn't decide if Shaq was committing offensive fouls or being hacked. And to be fair to the refs, I couldn't decide either.
Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 9674 Location: San Diego
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:14 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Wino wrote:
Kind of what I was hoping this would get at. The 3 point shot and not allowing any hand checking on the outside. Then it is just a matter of who is hot or cold. That is why you will see a bad team beat a good team by 20 points. In the old days, if a good team was having a bad shooting night, they would simply play lock down defense and win by 5 point instead of 25 points.
The Warriors have lost to a couple of bad teams this year, but it's not like they are regularly being blown out by 20 points to bad teams.
Feels like all these numbers you are using are being pulled out of thin air. I am doubtful that the actual numbers support your theory, but I am happy to be proven wrong if anyone presents some real data on this.
I looked up the Warriors and they have NOT been beaten by much against inferior teams. They lost a few games that were surprising, but I admit not by more than a few points. There have been a handful of other games involving other good teams where they have been soundly beaten by vastly inferior teams. I mentioned them earlier. I think those kinds of losses did not happen so much in previous eras. _________________ Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:35 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Bard207 wrote:
Durant joining Golden State was something way outside of the norm because his free agency coincided with a huge jump in the salary cap. Even with that advantage/edge, they don't have the same dominance that they did in the past because they are either drafting late or lacked a first round pick.
Durant joined the Warriors two years ago, and they've won two rings and 75% of their games. And of course they've won 3 of the last 4 (and the one they didn't win they set the record for most wins.) That sure seems like dominance to me.
I am puzzled why you seem to think the Laker three-peat team was more dominant than the Warriors have been.
What’s strange to me is that the Warriors were more dominant *before* Durant joined. That 73-9 team was historically dominant until Curry got injured. You would think replacing Harrison Barnes with Durant would have elevated them even further. I think a large part of it is that that season was an outlier for Curry and he has just never been as good since then. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Durant joining Golden State was something way outside of the norm because his free agency coincided with a huge jump in the salary cap. Even with that advantage/edge, they don't have the same dominance that they did in the past because they are either drafting late or lacked a first round pick.
Durant joined the Warriors two years ago, and they've won two rings and 75% of their games. And of course they've won 3 of the last 4 (and the one they didn't win they set the record for most wins.) That sure seems like dominance to me.
I am puzzled why you seem to think the Laker three-peat team was more dominant than the Warriors have been.
What’s strange to me is that the Warriors were more dominant *before* Durant joined. That 73-9 team was historically dominant until Curry got injured. You would think replacing Harrison Barnes with Durant would have elevated them even further. I think a large part of it is that that season was an outlier for Curry and he has just never been as good since then.
I think they definitely became more dominant with Durant.
The 73-win team was #1 in offense and #5 in defense. They went 15-9 in the playoffs.
Durant came and they were a 67-win team that was #1 in offense and #2 in defense. They went 16-1 playoffs.
Since then, they've slacked off a little in the regular season, but that's to be expected.
I think that the three point shot is the main change.
Its value (3 points not two) and the extent to which more players specialize in it (and coaching has begun to emphasize it compared to decades past) combine as factors which make game outcomes less certain than ever. An eleven point lead can be subsumed by a the trailing team with a guy who gets hot from downtown in 90 seconds, four possessions.
Are game outcomes really less certain? People in this thread keep making assumptions like this, but I have no idea if they're true. I am skeptical that upsets are happening at a significantly higher rate now than in the past.
You'd really need to do an analysis where you compared if favored teams in the 3-point era had a different winning percentage than favored teams in other eras.
I believe it's obvious to the eye, but not necessarily equally intuitive. Teams get hotter and opponents colder faster by making threes when their opponents are missing threes in back-to-back sequences, now commonplace. This is making real the fast comebacks from large deficits than were possible before the three point shot became a significant part of the coaching repertoire. Even as late as 2003, the rate of three point shot attempts and makes is steadily growing, amplifying the effect's potential.
any team can win any time, especially during the regular season. why? because no teams are dominant? lol no. warriors are definitely dominant lol.
so why? refs. oh what a surprise, the game is close in the last 5 minutes. what an amazing year harden is having (let's ignore that he travels and baits for fouls every.single.posession). so many points!
regular season means almost nothing anymore. nothing as in just because a team beats another means nothing. each team goes through the season with different goals...warriors are going to coast and only try hard if the playoff seedings that they want are in question, or if the media criticizes too much. otherwise they are basically playing 50%, resting everyone, etc.
then you have like our team. we are not good. but we beat the warriors! oh we're so bad we're not making the playoffs....all of a sudden the round robin of injuries, lebron is "forced" against his will to not play lol. We would OF done well if not for injuries, right?
was it any different before? depends on what you mean. basketball is a sport that is naturally going to lead to dynasties. one great talent (kobe, mj, bird, NOT lebron) can just beat a whole team. that's a natural thing when there is a special talent like that. right now, there is no special talent like that because the warriors have collected too many of the best players. which means, they are all good, but nobody can be special because they dont have to. they just have to be 50% good, they have so much extra talent. the other teams just dont have special talent, not enough. lillard is special, too short. giannis is special-ish, not there yet. pg is special, but cant beat the warriors (well see actually, i am curious about that series).
from the 80s to 2010, the lakers were dominant, like crazy. 15 finals in 30 years, every other year. that means NONE of the other West teams were sniffing a ring or had a chance. for 3 decades. MJ took 6 of those years also, which leaves about 11 chances in 30 years for other Western teams, lol.
and the only reason that 30-years streak ended? veto. yup, that's what it takes to bring down a 3-decade dynasty.
the difference is the way the warriors are dominant. the past dominant teams didn't play 50% or rest players so much. there is no grit or fight to the warriors. they are just way more talented scoring wise than everyone else. they just have to coast and hit their shots. other teams (like us) are exerting so much energy to get our points because they dont come easy for us. all these teams are running around scheming like crazy to try to stop the warriors, while the warriors just kind of stroll to the victory. oh, lets try to get klay going today. this time, let's say curry is injured, and get 40 points for kd. this time, let's not even try for a while, and then when curry comes back we'll say curry is so important, thats why we were playing bad before when he was out (when really, we were just resting).
I think that the three point shot is the main change.
Its value (3 points not two) and the extent to which more players specialize in it (and coaching has begun to emphasize it compared to decades past) combine as factors which make game outcomes less certain than ever. An eleven point lead can be subsumed by a the trailing team with a guy who gets hot from downtown in 90 seconds, four possessions.
Are game outcomes really less certain? People in this thread keep making assumptions like this, but I have no idea if they're true. I am skeptical that upsets are happening at a significantly higher rate now than in the past.
You'd really need to do an analysis where you compared if favored teams in the 3-point era had a different winning percentage than favored teams in other eras.
I believe it's obvious to the eye, but not necessarily equally intuitive. Teams get hotter and opponents colder faster by making threes when their opponents are missing threes in back-to-back sequences, now commonplace. This is making real the fast comebacks from large deficits than were possible before the three point shot became a significant part of the coaching repertoire. Even as late as 2003, the rate of three point shot attempts and makes is steadily growing, amplifying the effect's potential.
I understand perfectly. You are so confident in your theory that you choose to believe it's true even without having the data to be able to test it.
My view is different. What you're talking about is really just a mathematics question. So I don't know how you think you can know the answer without doing the mathematics
Last edited by activeverb on Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
I'd say we had three different great teams within a 30-year-period rather than a 30-year streak.
We had 12 years of Showtime.
Then a 9 year break.
Then came 5 years of Shaq-Kobe.
Then a 3-year break until Kobe-Gasol, which lasted for 3 years.
We have indeed been successful overall during the past few decades, but there have been lots of ups and downs between the successes.
The team with true consistent dominance over an extended period (other than the early Celtics) was the Spurs during the first 20 years of Popps/Duncan era.
The Spurs won at least 65% of their games for 20 years in a row, and they won rings 12 years apart with several of the same key players. I'm doubtful we will ever see a 20-year period of uninterrupted success like that again.
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8327 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:55 pm Post subject:
I think another reason why we're seeing seemingly more upsets is that pace is so much faster than it used to be. When there's more possessions and more fast breaks and early offense, a 10 point lead is not as secure as it was even 5 years ago. If the team that's leading gets complacent, a less talented team can and will come back and beat them. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
I think another reason why we're seeing seemingly more upsets is that pace is so much faster than it used to be. When there's more possessions and more fast breaks and early offense, a 10 point lead is not as secure as it was even 5 years ago. If the team that's leading gets complacent, a less talented team can and will come back and beat them.
I've seen it theorized both ways -- that speeding up the pace and slowing down the pace is more likely to lead to an upset.
Dean Oliver is the main advocate for a slower pace leading to upsets. The logic goes that the favorite would have fewer chances to press their advantage on a per possession basis, increasing the variance of the score from the natural score, which would give the underdog an advantage. I see the logic there.
There was a small study, related to March Madness, done about a decade ago that supported the other point of view. It suggested that a faster pace did indeed lead to slightly more upsets. The data has some flaws, so it remains an open question if there is any correlation between pace and upsets.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
