NBA 2021-22---- NBA LEGEND Bill Russell 1934-2022 RIP

[bosk1]

My serious take:  Granted, I have only seen a few quarters of this series, mainly from the last 2 games.  BUT if it took until the final second of game 7 to barely close out a team playing as poorly as Miami, I don't see any way the Celtics take 4 from the Warriors.  I just don't.

Just a few quarters and that is your conclusion?
They had a brutal first half in G6 and still almost won. They led wire to wire in G7 on the road. In fact they won three games in Miami.
They've gone through Brooklyn, Milwaukee, and Miami. Pretty sure the Warriors had an easier path.

That's my conclusion based on what I saw.  Yeah, they had a brutal first half in G6 and still almost won.  And that's consistent with what I've seen so far--they have brutal stretches, pretty frequent, pretty long ones--against a team that is depleted by injury and looks pretty awful.  To put it another way, from what I have seen--and, again, I have seen relatively little, so this may not be consistent with how they played outside of that--they have had unforced brutal stretches.  That would concern me if I were a fan.  And, yeah, they led wire to wire in G7.  But still barely won against a team that was not playing well.  See above.

And I don't know that the Warriors had an "easier" path.  The Warriors played some tough teams.  As did the Celtics.  I can't really compare, and don't want to.  It is what it is.  I just return to what I've said:  from what I saw of the Celtics, which granted wasn't much, they were not playing good basketball.

[TAC]

The Celtics certainly nearly gagged that series away that's for sure. But the game is a game of runs, and there were definitely stretches in that series where they looked awful.

The Celtics have to prove that they're on the level of the Warriors. They have a ways to go with that, learning to take control of these games and putting these games away. But they led on average by 10 points the entire G7. I think the Heat got to 4 at one point earlier in the game and the Celtics pulled away.

[TAC]

I'll say this though. The Warriors scare me more than any of the teams the Celts have played so far. Curry is lethal.

[King Postwhore]

It's weird.  I'm feeling good about this series.  The teams that give us trouble are tough nosed teams like the Bucks and the Heat.  We've faired well against them.  That being said, I expect 7 games.

[TAC]

Yeah, like I said, if these were 7 regular season games, I think the Celts could easily take 4 of them. But The Finals is a whole 'nother animal.

[Azyiu]

I don't know who will win, but I fully expect Draymond Green to do something stupid, get thrown out; and possibly cost the Warriors one game.   

[lonestar]

I'll say this though. The Warriors scare me more than any of the teams the Celts have played so far. Curry is lethal.

Yeah, if he's on, you're fucked. Period.

[LithoJazzoSphere]

They've gone through Brooklyn, Milwaukee, and Miami. Pretty sure the Warriors had an easier path.

That's a tricky question.  Nets were missing Simmons, Harris, and Aldridge.  Not sure if Blake was healthy, he didn't look it in the limited minutes he played compared to a year ago.  Bucks were missing Middleton.  Heat had Lowry and Herro out several games.  Butler and Lowry looked hobbled in some of the games.  Given how close all of those were (remember that even in the Nets sweep all four games were close, only a 4.5 point margin of victory on average), it's conceivable that Boston could have lost all three of those series if their opponents were healthy. 

For the Warriors, Nuggets were missing Murray and Porter.  That's the biggest "what if", completely loaded you could see them taking the title.  Grizzlies were missing Morant for a few of them, but they lost one where they had him (even with Draymond only playing half the game) and barely won the other they did have Ja going supernova.  The blowout was without him, it's kind of a Ewing theory effect, and they are defensively stronger without him as a target.  Mavericks were missing Hardaway.  Overall those weren't tight series though. 

Full strength Warriors are pretty scary, so many weapons and options, but you just don't know what you're going to get from them on any given night. 

[King Postwhore]

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

[bosk1]

And the Warriors' injuries.  But it's hard to compare and say which team had an "easier" path due to injuries, and it's kinda pointless anyway.  First off, you play the team that is in front of you.  If they are depleted, they are depleted.  That doesn't give either team a pass.  You play the game and the winning team moves on.  But second and more importantly, you never know how a game or series is going to be impacted by an injury.  It's easy to say that the healthier team always has the advantage.  But in reality, they don't always win. 

[lonestar]

Lots of variables for sure...I will say though, if Boston doesn't take one in SF, it'll be a really hard battle.

[TAC]

The Celts definitely have to take one, because there's no way they're going to win 4 out of the next 5. The good news is that the Celtics have a good history of playing well out there.

[T-ski]

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

I feel if Robert Williams played more in the Bucks series the Bucks had a better chance to win. Sometimes an injury is a positive.

[LithoJazzoSphere]

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

It sure does.  Though they're arguably less significant than their opponents'.  But the whole thing is why it's kind of crazy how some people try and put an asterisk on various titles, when if you go through the whole playoff history each year, you could pretty much invalidate every single title ever won because of some injury that shifted a series, not always in the finals itself, but everything is interconnected. 

[King Postwhore]

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

I feel if Robert Williams played more in the Bucks series the Bucks had a better chance to win. Sometimes an injury is a positive.

I disagree. Him in the paint is a deterant except for Yannis. 

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

It sure does.  Though they're arguably less significant than their opponents'.  But the whole thing is why it's kind of crazy how some people try and put an asterisk on various titles, when if you go through the whole playoff history each year, you could pretty much invalidate every single title ever won because of some injury that shifted a series, not always in the finals itself, but everything is interconnected. 

I tell you Jimmy Butler had to be injured but the man is a beast. So tough mentally and physically.   

[KevShmev]

The funny part is thinking about those doofuses Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving.  Irving forced his way out of Boston, and Durant left Golden St. reportedly because Green hurt his feelings.

And here we are now with their two former teams in the finals, a month after those doofuses got swept in the 1st round.

Well done, sports gods.  Well done. 

Aside from the fact that I just want the Warriors to win as a fan, I really want them to be able to say they won one without Durant after he left.

I think this one will mean a lot more in the grand scheme than the one without Durant in 2015 since I have seen a lot of people attach the "yeah but..." to that championship because the Cavs were missing Love and Irving.   This Warriors team beating this Celtics team will do wonders for both the Warriors dynasty and Steph Curry's legacy. 

And I think we all know that when discussing legacy and whatnot, all championships are not created equal, otherwise Bill Russell would be called the GOAT all the time instead of MJ.

[TAC]

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

I feel if Robert Williams played more in the Bucks series the Bucks had a better chance to win. Sometimes an injury is a positive.

WUT??

The guy was a 2nd Team All Defensive player. If Robert Williams was healthy, the series would've been over in 5, maybe 6.

[LithoJazzoSphere]

And I think we all know that when discussing legacy and whatnot, all championships are not created equal, otherwise Bill Russell would be called the GOAT all the time instead of MJ.

Yeah, this is the other side of it, giving context to all of them.  In that sense I tend to have Hakeem higher than most, his '94 title is possibly the most impressive playoff run ever. 

[T-ski]

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

I feel if Robert Williams played more in the Bucks series the Bucks had a better chance to win. Sometimes an injury is a positive.

WUT??

The guy was a 2nd Team All Defensive player. If Robert Williams was healthy, the series would've been over in 5, maybe 6.

Williams being out unlocked the Celtics small lineup which the Bucks couldn’t match up with.

[TAC]

You forgetting the Celtics injuries?  That counts as well.

I feel if Robert Williams played more in the Bucks series the Bucks had a better chance to win. Sometimes an injury is a positive.

WUT??

The guy was a 2nd Team All Defensive player. If Robert Williams was healthy, the series would've been over in 5, maybe 6.

Williams being out unlocked the Celtics small lineup which the Bucks couldn’t match up with.

Aah gotcha!

[King Postwhore]

I really didn't see the difference.  The Bucks were 2 and 2 with him on the floor.  He missed games 4, 5 & 6.

[T-ski]

I really didn't see the difference.  The Bucks were 2 and 2 with him on the floor.  He missed games 4, 5 & 6.

The Bucks were 2-1 with Robert Williams playing, he missed 4,5,6, and 7

The Bucks had their way in game 1 and game 3 (minus the last couple minutes) with Williams playing major minutes. Game 2 was a lights out Boston win. Then the C’s won three of the next four games with Williams on the bench and probably should have won three in a row if it wasn’t for them folding hard in game 5.

[King Postwhore]

He sat game 7.  That's right.  Well, in all honesty he's not moving at 100% with his issues with the knee surgery.  So that might have played into it.  He's been dynamite this year when healthy.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

The funny part is thinking about those doofuses Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving.  Irving forced his way out of Boston, and Durant left Golden St. reportedly because Green hurt his feelings.

And here we are now with their two former teams in the finals, a month after those doofuses got swept in the 1st round.

Well done, sports gods.  Well done. 

Aside from the fact that I just want the Warriors to win as a fan, I really want them to be able to say they won one without Durant after he left.

I think this one will mean a lot more in the grand scheme than the one without Durant in 2015 since I have seen a lot of people attach the "yeah but..." to that championship because the Cavs were missing Love and Irving.   This Warriors team beating this Celtics team will do wonders for both the Warriors dynasty and Steph Curry's legacy. 

And I think we all know that when discussing legacy and whatnot, all championships are not created equal, otherwise Bill Russell would be called the GOAT all the time instead of MJ.

If anything, I think we could see a pretty wild swing where Curry goes from being a bit underrated to being a bit overrated. I've seen a couple of media members preemptively pronounce him as a Mount Rushmore player assuming that Golden State wins the championship. In my opinion, Curry is easily one of the most revolutionary players in history but his overall impact/quality is more in the 10-15 range.

[bosk1]

The funny part is thinking about those doofuses Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving.  Irving forced his way out of Boston, and Durant left Golden St. reportedly because Green hurt his feelings.

And here we are now with their two former teams in the finals, a month after those doofuses got swept in the 1st round.

Well done, sports gods.  Well done. 

Aside from the fact that I just want the Warriors to win as a fan, I really want them to be able to say they won one without Durant after he left.

I think this one will mean a lot more in the grand scheme than the one without Durant in 2015 since I have seen a lot of people attach the "yeah but..." to that championship because the Cavs were missing Love and Irving.   This Warriors team beating this Celtics team will do wonders for both the Warriors dynasty and Steph Curry's legacy. 

And I think we all know that when discussing legacy and whatnot, all championships are not created equal, otherwise Bill Russell would be called the GOAT all the time instead of MJ.

If anything, I think we could see a pretty wild swing where Curry goes from being a bit underrated to being a bit overrated. I've seen a couple of media members preemptively pronounce him as a Mount Rushmore player assuming that Golden State wins the championship. In my opinion, Curry is easily one of the most revolutionary players in history but his overall impact/quality is more in the 10-15 range.

I can't believe I am saying this out loud, but:  I think Steven A. has it about right when it comes to his take on Curry.  He is THE most gifted shooter of all time.  But he is not a "Mt. Rushmore" player, even if he surpasses LeBron's total number of championships (could realistically happen, and soon) and, possibly, LeBron's total number of MVP awards (which he won't). 

I agree wholeheartedly with that overall take, even if I might disagree with some of the reasoning.  The main thing I take issue with is the implication that Curry is "just" a shooter.  He brings SO MUCH more to the table than that.  He has an incredibly well rounded skill set.  But that is a relatively minor quibble in the overall context of the discussion.  What he does not have is the specific skillset that allow him to singlehandedly take over a game, regardless of who is around him and what they are doing, on a predictable, sustained basis.  He can't do what, say, Butler was doing in the Miami/Boston series (I didn't watch any of the other regular season or playoff games, so I can't comment on those) or what LeBron regularly does.  I mean, nobody can do it completely alone.  And guys like Magic, Bird, LeBron, Jordan, etc. had guys around them that helped them win.  But they could physically dominate a game regardless.  That's a lot harder for a guy like Curry to do in the specific ways that make a player a "Mt. Rushmore" player.  That doesn't take away from his greatness at all.  And if I'm building a team around one player, I would love to have him as that cornerstone.  But just "keeping it real," so to speak.

[TAC]

I don't know... I fear Curry more than I did Durant, Giannis, or Butler.

[bosk1]

Well, I think there's good reason for that.  And I'm not trying to sell Curry short.  Far from it.  But I think the reason to "fear" isn't Curry alone--it's Curry coupled with the players and system that surround him. 

As for those other players:
-Durant:  Great player, but overrated, IMO. 
-Giannis:  Perhaps the best of the three.  He can truly put a team on his shoulders, take over a game, and dominate.  But he seems to be streaky, and seems to suffer an identity crisis and sometimes not know when to facilitate and get the team involved or to shoulder the burden himself.  And I'm not sure about his defensive game.
-Butler:  Probably doesn't really belong in the conversation, other than being an example in the recent series of how one guy can take a team on his shoulders and dominate.  I was using him mainly as a contrast to Curry's skillset, that's all.

[TAC]

Well, I think there's good reason for that.  And I'm not trying to sell Curry short.  Far from it.  But I think the reason to "fear" isn't Curry alone--it's Curry coupled with the players and system that surround him. 

But Curry is the top dog. If he has a good series, the Warriors will win. If he doesn't, they won't. Not that that's a controversial take or anything.

[King Postwhore]

When they need a score, I cringe when curry gets open.  Clutch.   I'm curious to see how the Celtics D him.  Who gets the switch because that's what the Celtics do.  Does that give Curry the advantage?  Tomorrow can't come fast enough.

[bosk1]

Well, I think there's good reason for that.  And I'm not trying to sell Curry short.  Far from it.  But I think the reason to "fear" isn't Curry alone--it's Curry coupled with the players and system that surround him. 

But Curry is the top dog. If he has a good series, the Warriors will win. If he doesn't, they won't. Not that that's a controversial take or anything.

I disagree with the bolded.  And it's not just a "subjective feeling," but something they have proved time and again.  This year alone, if you look at the box scores in the playoff games, there were 4 games that they WON where he was not the leading scorer.  And even where he was the leading scorer, you get maybe one game per series where he outscores the next best scorer by close to 10 or more.  Usually, it is him at #1, with at least one other player 5 points or less behind.  But again, I'm not downplaying him so much as playing up the strength of their entire roster.  Klay Thomson, Andrew Wiggins, and Jordan Poole are perfectly capable of outscoring him in any particular game, or at least being right there in the mix near the top.  In fact, in game 5 against the Mavs, all three of those guys, as well as Draymond Green, outscored Curry.  Despite that Curry led the team in points for the whole series, I was actually surprised he got the nod for finals MVP.  When you take the entire stat sheet into account, Wiggins was definitely the most dominant all around player on the Warriors for that series.  And that's an indicator of how deep and varied they are.  Yeah, Curry is the "top dog."  But they are more than capable of winning a series where he has a pedestrian performance because the team isn't built to thrive only when he is thriving.  It's built around sharing the wealth and getting more than one guy heavily involved at all times, and it has been that way since this Curry/Thompson/Green version of the team first started rolling back in 2014/2015. 

All that said, I would love it if he has a lights-out series, and not only gets another ring, but gets that elusive Finals MVP trophy as well. 

[LithoJazzoSphere]

The point of it is that Curry's mere presence, due to his historical reputation, generates a whole engine of offense regardless of whether he himself can get open or knock down his own shots.  As soon as he crosses half court he is a threat to score, and this constant attention leads to needing double teams, complex switching assignments, and creates mistakes and overlooked rotations that the other Warriors can capitalize on.  There's a reason that he can make non-allstars like Looney (and previously Javale) look like Wilt Chamberlain at times, because players are forced to pay so much attention to Steph's constant motion that there are inevitable lapses to exploit.  Klay, Draymond, Wiggins, Poole and others are also good players, but he elevates their stature as well due to his gravity. 

[KevShmev]

And I think we all know that when discussing legacy and whatnot, all championships are not created equal, otherwise Bill Russell would be called the GOAT all the time instead of MJ.

Yeah, this is the other side of it, giving context to all of them.  In that sense I tend to have Hakeem higher than most, his '94 title is possibly the most impressive playoff run ever.

True, but it seems like some love to dismiss the Hakeem titles as "he only won those cause Jordan retired." Granted, those are the same people who literally thought that MJ could walk on water back then. 

If anything, I think we could see a pretty wild swing where Curry goes from being a bit underrated to being a bit overrated. I've seen a couple of media members preemptively pronounce him as a Mount Rushmore player assuming that Golden State wins the championship. In my opinion, Curry is easily one of the most revolutionary players in history but his overall impact/quality is more in the 10-15 range.

The problem with putting Curry in the top 10 any time soon is, who are you taking out?

I never saw Wilt or Russell play, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are no-brainers for the top 10 still.

Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Russell
Wilt
Duncan
Bryant
Shaq

I don't see how a realistic argument can be made, even two weeks from now if Curry has 4 rings and his first finals MVP, that he is as good or better than any of those guys all-time. And then of course there are fringe top 10 guys like Hakeem, Oscar, West, Dr J, etc. 

Again, I think Curry is awesome, and I think his leadership skills and knack for being an unselfish superstar are intangibles that some guys on that list did not have (*cough* Kobe Bryant *cough*), but top 10 all-time?  I cannot go there.

[bosk1]

If anything, I think we could see a pretty wild swing where Curry goes from being a bit underrated to being a bit overrated. I've seen a couple of media members preemptively pronounce him as a Mount Rushmore player assuming that Golden State wins the championship. In my opinion, Curry is easily one of the most revolutionary players in history but his overall impact/quality is more in the 10-15 range.

The problem with putting Curry in the top 10 any time soon is, who are you taking out?

I never saw Wilt or Russell play, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are no-brainers for the top 10 still.

Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Russell
Wilt
Duncan
Bryant
Shaq

I don't see how a realistic argument can be made, even two weeks from now if Curry has 4 rings and his first finals MVP, that he is as good or better than any of those guys all-time. And then of course there are fringe top 10 guys like Hakeem, Oscar, West, Dr J, etc. 

Again, I think Curry is awesome, and I think his leadership skills and knack for being an unselfish superstar are intangibles that some guys on that list did not have (*cough* Kobe Bryant *cough*), but top 10 all-time?  I cannot go there.

I agree.  Ask me again when he's ready to retire, and I might have a different answer if he has a ring on each finger or something.  But as much as I love him as a player, I wouldn't put him there, and I don't think most level-headed fans would either.

[KevShmev]

Yeah, but some (for real) already think Kevin Durant is a top 10 player all-time , so never underestimate how prisoner of the moment many can be in 2022.

[LithoJazzoSphere]

I'm curious why you still find that so laughable.  We kind of talked about this a few pages ago, but where would you rank him all time?  I wouldn't have him in the top 10, no, but I think he's in a tier right outside of that, which would make him fairly close.  If anything I think it's being prisoner of the moment in '22 that has made him look weaker than he used to since he struggled against the Celtics in the first round.  Just a year ago he was outplaying Giannis in the semis, almost single-handedly willing the hobbled Nets to the conference finals, and then won an Olympic gold medal and was still looking like the best player on the planet.  Add to that two titles and finals MVPs, an MVP (and numerous top 5 finishes), 12x all-star (2x MVP), 6x all-NBA first team, 4x second team, four scoring titles, etc., and he already has both the resume and the eye test of one of the all-time greats, and he's still playing.  Whether he's #12 or #19 when all is said and done (and I'd argue it's probably closer to the former), it's still been a really impressive career in spite of a few flaws.