beating up on inferior competition, don't over react now

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32


All Star
Posts: 3173
» Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:42 pm
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14391 ... rkley-says

"That Bulls team would kill this little team," Barkley said of the Warriors in an interview Thursday with ESPN Radio's Waddle & Silvy show in Chicago. "Come on, man. Who is going to guard Scottie Pippen and Michael Jordan? What about Dennis Rodman?"

The Warriors improved to 25-1 on Wednesday night with a rout of the Suns, led by Klay Thompson's season-best 43 points and Stephen Curry's 25. Golden State was coming off its first loss, to Milwaukee on Saturday night, after an NBA-record 24-0 start.

"I still like the Spurs to win the championship this year," said Barkley, a Naismith Hall of Famer and Turner Sports analyst. "Just because these guys are beating up on inferior competition, don't overreact now."

With Jordan returning for his first full season since retiring in 1993, the Bulls of 1995-96 went 72-10 and won the fourth of Jordan's six NBA titles.

"Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman -- let me just start with those three," Barkley said. "First of all they would love playing the way the Warriors play. It's a much easier game now. Could you imagine how many points Michael would average if you couldn't touch him? Dennis would get so many rebounds against that team. They are a very small team."

Barkley has previously said Curry and the Warriors were "carrying the NBA" during an otherwise down season for the league.

"Thank God for the Golden State Warriors," Barkley said earlier this month on "The Rich Eisen Show." "They're keeping everybody involved. But it hasn't been great basketball."

According to the ESPN Basketball Power Index, the Warriors now have a 60.9 percent chance of winning 70 games, a 47.2 percent chance of winning 71 and a 33.3 percent chance of winning 72. They also have a 20.8 percent chance of winning 73 games and an 11.5 percent chance of winning 74.

"I know we live in the moment," Barkley said. "These guys haven't won the championship yet."
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 22133
» Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:23 am
As many in the past have said, comparisons across eras is difficult, and with the rules being a bit different, you can't really compare, properly at least.

I do think Chicago would find it hard to defend the Warriors and vice versa, though the Warriors are more versatile. Rodman couldn't defend guards, Draymond can. Ron Harper had become an outside shooter and very good defender, Barnes is like that but more versatile. Bogut is an even better passer than Longley, who was quite good himself. Pippen was great but Klay now is also and he is able to score a bunch quicker than Pippen could because of his amazing outside shot, both could defend each other as well. Jordan is the GOAT but Curry is the Greatest Shooter of All-Time. Curry looks effortless with how he scores and though Jordan can score taking it to the basket better, Curry's outside shot means he can score his bunches almost as good as Jordan. Our bench is better and more efficient.

It is a great comparison and this Warriors team is legit all-time so far.
User avatar

Site Admin
Posts: 3975
» Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:38 pm
Chuck is just an idiotic troll that has always hated the Dubs. Notice how he's toned down his hate on TNT because they would all call him out on his hate, but he starts spewing spiteful ignorance the second he's in a setting in which he knows he won't be challenged. Not only is he showing his bias, but he's also demonstrating that he's too big of a coward to stand by his opinion.
"That Bulls team would kill this little team," Barkley said of the Warriors in an interview Thursday with ESPN Radio's Waddle & Silvy show in Chicago. "Come on, man. Who is going to guard Scottie Pippen and Michael Jordan?
Who cares? Who guards Klay? We know Jordan is on Curry, and those two could very well cancel each other out for the most part with the edge going to Jordan for being a superior defender, but our offensive supporting cast is better.
What about Dennis Rodman?
What about Draymond Green? Iggy? The 5 with Bogut/Ezeli would be the biggest advantage – quick and without google! Name the 96 Bull’s starting center! You can’t (unless you’re 32) – we have two centers better than their one – who guards them?

"Just because these guys are beating up on inferior competition, don't overreact now."
He’s right; we are beating “inferior competition.” You know why? Because the rest of the league IS inferior! We made them that way by sheer contrast.

"Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman -- let me just start with those three," Barkley said. "First of all they would love playing the way the Warriors play. It's a much easier game now. Could you imagine how many points Michael would average if you couldn't touch him? Dennis would get so many rebounds against that team.
LOL!!! Same goes for Bogut, Ezeli, Draymond, Iggy, etc. In prison rules (aka 90's basketball), I'll take the giant Aussie that wants to fight everyone, the big, freakishly athletic and strong Ezeli, and Draymond "The king of the junkyard dogs" Green. When our team D is clicking (which it's yet to do for a full game thus far) they're one of the best ever, could you imagine how much better it'd be if we could be more physical?

Offensively, could you imagine how many points Steph would average if he got the same calls as Harden? Curry is already used to playing that style of ball since the refs allow him to get molested every other night, like they are a bunch of battered, weak, apathetic, drug-addled moms letting their new “boyfriend” check in on the kids… ok… that went too far, sorry guys. lol. My point being, Curry takes far more abuse than any other star player (hell, any player) without any whistles - and he's still the best. Klay also takes his share of off-ball abuse, evident by how his jersey stretches a size or two with all the holding.

On the inverse of us playing then (them playing now), which is what chuck was talking about... Dude, we're the best team in the league; we're fundamentally evolving the game as others are trying to either replicate our recipe or building specifically to stop it. We are defining how the NBA is played, right now. US, not the Spurs, and not the LeBrons, but the Golden State Warriors are demonstrating how the game should, and will be played for years to come. More so, we’re doing it as a team – the Bulls NEVER did that. Sure, MJ clones sprouted up all over, and a few young coaches tried what Phil was doing offensively, but our concept is from the top of the organization down to the hardwood.

Both scenarios share the fact that the Bulls wouldn't know what hit them when we get hot for 5 minutes, lock down the paint, get out running, start dropping treys, let them dig their own grave by challenging us in a shootout, and then they realize they’re down by 20 in the blink of an eye. I’m not saying we would win, let alone win easily, but it’s impossible to call it either way with the arrogance Chuck is.

They are a very small team.
Can someone for once please call bullshit on this? Here are some actual facts:
  • The Warriors as a team are in the top 10 in height.
  • Our roster, rotation, and starters are all bigger than his beloved Spurs.
  • We perfected the small-ball modal that you see every other team trying to emulate now (including SA).
  • The only things the Spurs lead us in (measurable-wise) are that they're older, shorter, and fatter. We're one of the youngest teams still, with our core entering their primes, and most of their core is entering retirement.
Source: http://en.hispanosnba.com/teams/comparison

"But it hasn't been great basketball."
According to you. Chuck is the basketball equivalent of a music defener. The warriors have long been the "fun" team to watch, we just happen to be winning now too, and he’s salty because it’s not his style of basketball. Last I checked, the NBA wasn't in the Charles Barkley's definition of "good basketball" business - it's in the entertainment business, and the Dubs are the best thing to happen to the NBA since LeBron being drafted. Good basketball is winning, no matter how ugly it is, and I'm sure that hypocrite would be the first to say that given a different context.

"These guys haven't won the championship yet."
um... yes. Yes, they have won a championship. That's 1 more than Chuck ever did by my count.

All Star
Posts: 3173
» Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:21 pm
JREED wrote:Chuck is just an idiotic troll that has always hated the Dubs. Notice how he's toned down his hate on TNT because they would all call him out on his hate, but he starts spewing spiteful ignorance the second he's in a setting in which he knows he won't be challenged. Not only is he showing his bias, but he's also demonstrating that he's too big of a coward to stand by his opinion.
"That Bulls team would kill this little team," Barkley said of the Warriors in an interview Thursday with ESPN Radio's Waddle & Silvy show in Chicago. "Come on, man. Who is going to guard Scottie Pippen and Michael Jordan?
Who cares? Who guards Klay? We know Jordan is on Curry, and those two could very well cancel each other out for the most part with the edge going to Jordan for being a superior defender, but our offensive supporting cast is better.
What about Dennis Rodman?
What about Draymond Green? Iggy? The 5 with Bogut/Ezeli would be the biggest advantage – quick and without google! Name the 96 Bull’s starting center! You can’t (unless you’re 32) – we have two centers better than their one – who guards them?

"Just because these guys are beating up on inferior competition, don't overreact now."
He’s right; we are beating “inferior competition.” You know why? Because the rest of the league IS inferior! We made them that way by sheer contrast.

"Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman -- let me just start with those three," Barkley said. "First of all they would love playing the way the Warriors play. It's a much easier game now. Could you imagine how many points Michael would average if you couldn't touch him? Dennis would get so many rebounds against that team.
LOL!!! Same goes for Bogut, Ezeli, Draymond, Iggy, etc. In prison rules (aka 90's basketball), I'll take the giant Aussie that wants to fight everyone, the big, freakishly athletic and strong Ezeli, and Draymond "The king of the junkyard dogs" Green. When our team D is clicking (which it's yet to do for a full game thus far) they're one of the best ever, could you imagine how much better it'd be if we could be more physical?

Offensively, could you imagine how many points Steph would average if he got the same calls as Harden? Curry is already used to playing that style of ball since the refs allow him to get molested every other night, like they are a bunch of battered, weak, apathetic, drug-addled moms letting their new “boyfriend” check in on the kids… ok… that went too far, sorry guys. lol. My point being, Curry takes far more abuse than any other star player (hell, any player) without any whistles - and he's still the best. Klay also takes his share of off-ball abuse, evident by how his jersey stretches a size or two with all the holding.

On the inverse of us playing then (them playing now), which is what chuck was talking about... Dude, we're the best team in the league; we're fundamentally evolving the game as others are trying to either replicate our recipe or building specifically to stop it. We are defining how the NBA is played, right now. US, not the Spurs, and not the LeBrons, but the Golden State Warriors are demonstrating how the game should, and will be played for years to come. More so, we’re doing it as a team – the Bulls NEVER did that. Sure, MJ clones sprouted up all over, and a few young coaches tried what Phil was doing offensively, but our concept is from the top of the organization down to the hardwood.

Both scenarios share the fact that the Bulls wouldn't know what hit them when we get hot for 5 minutes, lock down the paint, get out running, start dropping treys, let them dig their own grave by challenging us in a shootout, and then they realize they’re down by 20 in the blink of an eye. I’m not saying we would win, let alone win easily, but it’s impossible to call it either way with the arrogance Chuck is.

They are a very small team.
Can someone for once please call bullshit on this? Here are some actual facts:
  • The Warriors as a team are in the top 10 in height.
  • Our roster, rotation, and starters are all bigger than his beloved Spurs.
  • We perfected the small-ball modal that you see every other team trying to emulate now (including SA).
  • The only things the Spurs lead us in (measurable-wise) are that they're older, shorter, and fatter. We're one of the youngest teams still, with our core entering their primes, and most of their core is entering retirement.
Source: http://en.hispanosnba.com/teams/comparison

"But it hasn't been great basketball."
According to you. Chuck is the basketball equivalent of a music defener. The warriors have long been the "fun" team to watch, we just happen to be winning now too, and he’s salty because it’s not his style of basketball. Last I checked, the NBA wasn't in the Charles Barkley's definition of "good basketball" business - it's in the entertainment business, and the Dubs are the best thing to happen to the NBA since LeBron being drafted. Good basketball is winning, no matter how ugly it is, and I'm sure that hypocrite would be the first to say that given a different context.

"These guys haven't won the championship yet."
um... yes. Yes, they have won a championship. That's 1 more than Chuck ever did by my count.


Great break down. :D

Charles Barkley's hypothetical comparison to Jordan's Bulls is a reflection of him not wanting to let go of his traditional views on basketball. He leans more towards a game with conventional line-ups, a game in which there were plenty of dominant big men, that's not the case now, the game has changed.

Barkley spews nothing but hate for the warriors. To fit his mold for of the past he has the Spurs winning the title.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:17 pm
The thing about Jordan's Bulls is that they played in a different era. In terms of individual players and 90's play, they are superior. But they don't have as many players that could spread the floor, like the Warriors, and if the teams played a pickup, fast break style of play - which Chicago enjoyed playing, as Charles pointed out - the Warriors would simply get more points per shots. It's a matter of one team having an unguardle GOAT, able to hit an unblockable fadeaway and get to the line, versus a team hitting an ungodly amount of 3-pointers and beating up on anybody daring to double.

Jordan's Bulls would win in a one-on-one tourney, a 2-on-2 tourney, a 3-on-3 tourney, and a game officiated by 90's standards... but if you put them on the floor today, you'd have Iguodala shadowing Jordan (like he did with LeBron, not STOPPING him, but certainly making him work), you'd have Draymond Green on Scottie Pippen (who was easily flustered, as proven by Dennis Rodman, Karl Malone, and several others throughout the years), and Bogut practically daring Longley or Wellington to beat them down low (you know for a fact that he'd be doubling and shadowing every play, with no regard for those scrubs' offensive games). On the other end, yeah, Jordan would probably molest Curry without being called for anything, and Pippen would no doubt put the clamps on Thompson... but that's the difference between Jordan's Bulls and the Curry Warriors. With Chicago, if you stop Jordan and Pippen, the game is over. If you stop the Splash Brothers... the game is far from done. Shooters slump and the Warriors have grown accustomed to playing through the cold spells of the Splash Bros. Iggy would take on more responsibility, Barnes would take more shots, Green would try to take advantage of his mismatch, Bogut can turn it on when he needs to... there's simply too many weapons.

I'm not gonna say the Warriors could take Chicago; they won 72 for a reason and until they are topped, NOBODY should believe anything besides the fact that they would murder any and all challengers... but I'm just saying... they're discussing this matchup for a reason. The Warriors may very well have been the kryptonite to a Jordan Chicago team in the 90's, with their slew of shooters, defenders, and multiskilled players.
User avatar

Site Admin
Posts: 3975
» Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:16 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:Great break down. :D

Charles Barkley's hypothetical comparison to Jordan's Bulls is a reflection of him not wanting to let go of his traditional views on basketball. He leans more towards a game with conventional line-ups, a game in which there were plenty of dominant big men, that's not the case now, the game has changed.

Barkley spews nothing but hate for the warriors. To fit his mold for of the past he has the Spurs winning the title.

Exactly. He refuses to understand that this isn't "bad basketball" but it's the fact that the game has changed. I love how he holds up the Spurs as the shining example because they're the only team that even remotely fits that era's play and has any success doing so. Also they just seemingly play that way because it's more about controlling the tempo and half-court sets, but where would they be if they didn't write the book on seeking contact for whistles? That's not 90's basketball. I don't see him clamoring over the Bucks, Celtics, or Grizzlies (anymore), despite the fact that they likely fit that mold better.

@32, I also fell into the trap of trying to figure out who would win, but the point here really is that Chuck is a dumbass. The game is too different to compare at this point, though I do think the Warriors have an edge in either era simply out of depth - it's not a big 3 with us, it's the entire team. Of course that could be moot because they didn't go nearly as deep in big/playoffs games back in the day - so who's to tell if the Dubs would be worn out because the starters couldn't keep it up, or if they'd kill the Bulls because they'd fresher and our bench is just so much deeper.

I definitely agree with you that until the Bulls are dethroned, they should be considered the best, if only because it's the only logical and objective way to settle the dispute. If the Dubs go on to win 73 then they are it, but I'd hate to see the disaster of a debate that'd ensue if they only tied... :banghead:

All Star
Posts: 1273
» Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:50 pm
Definitely Barkley is always biased against the warriors but seems like they are playing alot of crappy teams to start out.
User avatar

Site Admin
Posts: 3975
» Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:37 pm
Well, according to ESPN's Relative Percent Index*, while we've had one of the weaker strength of schedules, we've obviously been taking care of business with a league high .598 RPI. The Spurs (.560), Cavs .(547), OKC (.537) , and Bulls (.535) round out the top five. For further comparison, the laughingstock of the league in the '6ers are sitting with a .402.

You can only play the games on the schedule - which became every Warriors' defender's montra since the Finals - and it's cliche, but it's true. This isn't College Football where a team has to run through the gauntlet of the PAC 12, and give up a playoff spot because a GIG 10 or SEC team stacked their schedule with cream puffs and a handful of games to earn them a trip.

Let's also not undersell how well some of these cellar-dwellar and mediocre teams have stepped up against up against us - the Bucks twice, the Nets, Jazz, Nuggets, etc. have all treated our games like their Finals; BECAUSE IT IS! It'd would mean so much for a young team's confidence to have end one of our streaks or even push the mighty Warriors to the end. Good for them though, because if we continue to regain our health, and keep what bit we have it, they'll definitely earn their place in history - as one of the few teams to beat us in our historic season.

*Relative Percent Index: The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage, 50% opponents' average winning percentage, and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 22133
» Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:28 am
Well the team has played Memphis and Clippers twice, as well as most of the top East teams as well so they have played among the best teams, just not Spurs and OKC. People can say what they want but that's what's happened. You can say Spurs and OKC haven't played the Warriors yet and so they haven't met the best yet.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests