Dan Lebatard: Warriors won't be any more great if they win the series, its a small

[IGOTGAME]

Sample. So this is what it comes down to. He argues that the NBA is a large representive sample and that is winning the series is irrelevant to their greatness. People with no background in stats should shut up, this guy is just acting silly because he has been nothing but wrong on this

[Legends66NBA7]

Who's this guy again ?

[IGOTGAME]

Who's this guy again ?
Fat guy from Miami that has a show with his dad.

[sportjames23]

Sample. So this is what it comes down to. He argues that the NBA is a large representive sample and that is winning the series is irrelevant to their greatness. People with no background in stats should shut up, this guy is just acting silly because he has been nothing but wrong on this

He also said KD and GOATbrook are better than any duo MJ faced in the Finals. He specifically mentioned Stockton & Malone and Kemp & Payton.

So, is he saying MJ's Bulls couldn't beat this OKC team?

[TheReal Kendall]

Umm I like his show with Bomani and his pops. Pops funny and they be clowning on there.

[IGOTGAME]

He also said KD and GOATbrook are better than any duo MJ faced in the Finals. He specifically mentioned Stockton & Malone and Kemp & Payton.

So, is he saying MJ's Bulls couldn't beat this OKC team?

This guy is a Stan. He won't even entertain the fact that Westbrook or Durant are better than Curry

[TheReal Kendall]

He also said KD and GOATbrook are better than any duo MJ faced in the Finals. He specifically mentioned Stockton & Malone and Kemp & Payton.

So, is he saying MJ's Bulls couldn't beat this OKC team?


Yeah the bulls would definitely beat the thunder.

I kinda agree with him about them being a better duo though.

[lilteapot]

Fat guy from Miami that has a show with his dad.
Still has more credibility than anyone here

[IGOTGAME]

Still has more credibility than anyone here

Because he is a fat guy on the radio. He has a cool job but he doesn't know more about basketball than top posters here. If we were gonna break down tape he'd be lost. He is just a personality with a platform, who is using that platform to say silly things.

I don't usually listen to sports radio, but if this is what he does everyday then he is a silly, sad man

[PJR]

He's right.


But the masses like to resort to the lazy and stupid basketball analysis of nothing matters, and evetything is irrelevant unless it results in a championship and dominance, so that's where we are.

[guy]

Yeah the bulls would definitely beat the thunder.

I kinda agree with him about them being a better duo though.

Shaq and Penny arguably are better. But yes, its not a crazy thing to say. People kinda forget that Stockton's best days were behind him when they faced the Bulls.

[Showtime80']

And here comes the overrating of KD-Russ!!! Guys who after YEARS IN THE NBA have finally gotten their head out of their a!ses in the LAST 8 GAMES!!!

Even though the mid to late 90's were watered down Jordan and the Bulls still beat teams BETTER THAN THE THUNDER in the decade:

Pistons
Knicks
Suns
Magic
Sonics
Jazz

[plowking]

He's right.


But the masses like to resort to the lazy and stupid basketball analysis of nothing matters, and evetything is irrelevant unless it results in a championship and dominance, so that's where we are.

Exactly.

People act as if they have to be unbeatable, and have to win the championship to be considered an all time great team. They don't, and neither were the 96 Bulls, or any other great 65+ win team.

They are statistically, and going by wins, one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever.

[plowking]

And here comes the overrating of KD-Russ!!! Guys who after YEARS IN THE NBA have finally gotten their head out of their a!ses in the LAST 8 GAMES!!!



What overrating of KD and Russ?

Name me 2 other PGs who have put up 24/10/8...
In fact, name me all the PGs who have put up at least 24 and 10.

[Showtime80']

The whole POINT OF THE NBA SEASON is to win the title!!!

Nice 73 REGULAR SESON WINS by the Warriors, if they don't win the title they can sit right next to this years Spurs, 07' Mavs and 09' Cavs in the PRETENDERS bench for all eternity!!!

[Showtime80']

Overrating yes, OVERRATING!!!

Like I said, nice numbers and very improved overall play from Russ in the LAST 8 GAMES!!! Aside from that he's been the MODEL of frustrating decision making inconsistency his whole career! For his sake and for the Thunder going forward I hope he keeps it up.

Let them win THEIR FIRST championship first before putting them in the same league as ANY of the duos Jordan faced!

Let's not even put them in the same league with the super teams of the 1980's and the Bulls of the 90's until they win MULTIPLE RINGS!

[NBAGOAT]

What overrating of KD and Russ?

Name me 2 other PGs who have put up 24/10/8...
In fact, name me all the PGs who have put up at least 24 and 10.

haha ikr. It's pretty much Oscar and Magic. Shoutout to Tiny Archibald however and I had to use play index to find Michael Adams. Also can't believe some of the teams he claimed as definitely better than the Thunder, disrespectful.

[imdaman99]

And here comes the overrating of KD-Russ!!! Guys who after YEARS IN THE NBA have finally gotten their head out of their a!ses in the LAST 8 GAMES!!!

Even though the mid to late 90's were watered down Jordan and the Bulls still beat teams BETTER THAN THE THUNDER in the decade:

Pistons
Knicks
Suns
Magic
Sonics
Jazz
Hey dipshit, Durant and Westbrook are playoff beasts. They just were injured every year in the playoffs. The last time they were healthy, they made the Finals. So they are pretty damn good.

[NBAGOAT]

Overrating yes, OVERRATING!!!

Like I said, nice numbers and very improved overall play from Russ in the LAST 8 GAMES!!! Aside from that he's been the MODEL of frustrating decision making inconsistency his whole career! For his sake and for the Thunder going forward I hope he keeps it up.

Let them win THEIR FIRST championship first before putting them in the same league as ANY of the duos Jordan faced!

Let's not even put them in the same league with the super teams of the 1980's and the Bulls of the 90's until they win MULTIPLE RINGS!

this contradictory logic. You say the Thunder have to win a championship to be in the same category as duos Jordan faced even though none of those duos won a championship(not even the 2 years when Jordan was retired) and the Jazz were the only team to ever make the Finals twice so you can't say it was just because of Jordan they never won. The Jazz even had chances after Jordan retired but didn't win.

[K Xerxes]

Exactly.

People act as if they have to be unbeatable, and have to win the championship to be considered an all time great team. They don't, and neither were the 96 Bulls, or any other great 65+ win team.

They are statistically, and going by wins, one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever.

It's one thing to have a historically great season and lose in the playoffs in a tight match up against another great team that goes the distance, or sustain an injury and lose because of that. But they have been outplayed in this series so far, with two complete blowouts and counting. I think they can pull this back, but let's see.

[IGOTGAME]

Exactly.

People act as if they have to be unbeatable, and have to win the championship to be considered an all time great team. They don't, and neither were the 96 Bulls, or any other great 65+ win team.

They are statistically, and going by wins, one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever.

You have to win in the playoffs against competition to be mentioned among the greatest teams in history. You don't get to jump over Jordan's Bulls or Magics lakers because of a regular season record you gunned for. The object is to win a title and it looks like GSW team has failed the first legit test.

[Sarcastic]

He's right.


But the masses like to resort to the lazy and stupid basketball analysis of nothing matters, and evetything is irrelevant unless it results in a championship and dominance, so that's where we are.


The championship is what they play for. Every player knows it's the most important thing. Winning random games against unfocused inferior teams in February cannot compare to the intensity, and focus that you see in the playoffs. The post season gives us the highest level of basketball in the world. If you can't come through in that time, then you are not the best, and certainly have no case for best of all time.

[3ball]

The Warriors are statistically, and going by wins, one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever.


In the regular season.. yes..

But the playoffs are a different, higher level of competition - only the better teams make the playoffs, where the game-planning and effort level is on an entirely different level.

Within this different competitive environment and higher level of competition, many regular season teams have weaknesses exposed that weren't exposed in the regular season - many teams prove to not be as good as they were in the regular season.

If you can't understand this, than you have a very poor understanding of how basketball works.

Also, each playoff round isn't a 1-game series like the ncaa tournament - it's a 7-game series, so the better team almost always wins - and the best team ALWAYS wins when they're blowing the opponent out like OKC is doing the Warriors.

[tmacattack33]

Sample. So this is what it comes down to. He argues that the NBA is a large representive sample and that is winning the series is irrelevant to their greatness. People with no background in stats should shut up, this guy is just acting silly because he has been nothing but wrong on this

So 82 pre-season (regular season in the NBA is really pre-season for any elite team) games mean more than the Western Conference Finals? :roll:

[3ball]

So 82 pre-season (regular season in the NBA is really pre-season for any elite team) games mean more than the Western Conference Finals? :roll:
this.

the preseason is a completely different and lower competitive environment than the regular season.. and the regular season is a completely different and lower competitive environment than the playoffs.

By blowing the Warriors out at the highest competition level (playoffs), OKC has proven they're a FAR better team than the Warriors - that means the Warriors aren't an all-time great team.

[3ball]

He's right.


But the masses like to resort to the lazy and stupid basketball analysis of nothing matters, and evetything is irrelevant unless it results in a championship and dominance, so that's where we are.
You stat bots don't understand the game - the preseason is a completely different and lower competitive environment than the regular season.. and the regular season is a completely different and lower competitive environment than the playoffs.

By blowing the Warriors out at the highest competition level (playoffs), OKC has proven they're a FAR better team than the Warriors - that means the Warriors aren't an all-time great team.

[OnFire]

Because he is a fat guy on the radio. He has a cool job but he doesn't know more about basketball than top posters here. If we were gonna break down tape he'd be lost. He is just a personality with a platform, who is using that platform to say silly things.

I don't usually listen to sports radio, but if this is what he does everyday then he is a silly, sad man

He's a longstanding widely repected sports journalist not just some guy whos new. Of course he isnt a super specialized basketball mind who can expertly break down film but how many of those can carry a daily 4 hour show.? Thats why those guys are typically guests and not hosts.

Sorry he doesnt argue back and forth about stans and shit all day with 3 other people pretending to be 40 people.

[IGOTGAME]

You stat bots don't understand the game - the preseason is a completely different and lower competitive environment than the regular season.. and the regular season is a completely different and lower competitive environment than the playoffs.

By blowing the Warriors out at the highest competition level (playoffs), OKC has proven they're a FAR better team than the Warriors - that means the Warriors aren't an all-time great team.

It's even worst, they have no understanding of statistical analysis. I'll explain the faulty reasoning later tonight

[IGOTGAME]

He's a longstanding widely repected sports journalist not just some guy whos new. Of course he isnt a super specialized basketball mind who can expertly break down film but how many of those can carry a daily 4 hour show.? Thats why those guys are typically guests and not hosts.

Sorry he doesnt argue back and forth about stans and shit all day with 3 other people pretending to be 40 people.

Is that what you assume I do? Because your far off...I post on off time during work if I'm bored. But the topic was in reference to his opinion on this series, not hosting a talk show.

[moongaze]

Exactly.

People act as if they have to be unbeatable, and have to win the championship to be considered an all time great team. They don't, and neither were the 96 Bulls, or any other great 65+ win team.

They are statistically, and going by wins, one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever.

You're only a great team if you win the championship. Regular season games is what were basing teams on now, really? It's not about what they do when it matters most? You just have to be hot when the chips aren't on the table?

[senelcoolidge]

He works for espn and disney that's been deep throating the warriors all season long, what do you expect..the excuses are coming. You have Stephen Ass Smith protecting Draymond and the Warriors at every corner.

[Legends66NBA7]

You're only a great team if you win the championship. Regular season games is what were basing teams on now, really? It's not about what they do when it matters most? You just have to be hot when the chips aren't on the table?

Simply untrue.

[Sarcastic]

Simply untrue.

It kind of is. Which teams are considered great without a ring?

[NBAGOAT]

It kind of is. Which teams are considered great without a ring?

Plenty of teams. 72 Bucks, plenty of Showtime and Celtics teams from the 80's, some 90's teams depending on who you like, 00 Blazers, 02 Kings, and 07 Suns.

[Sarcastic]

Plenty of teams. 72 Bucks, plenty of Showtime and Celtics teams from the 80's, some 90's teams depending on who you like, 00 Blazers, 02 Kings, and 07 Suns.


I think they get labeled as very good, not great. I've never seen them listed ahead of teams that actually won.

[NBAGOAT]

I think they get labeled as very good, not great. I've never seen them listed ahead of teams that actually won.

I've seen people say they were better than some championship teams for all of them. I could definitely see it for some of the weaker title teams for example 85 Celtics over 03 Spurs.

[Legends66NBA7]

I've seen people say they were better than some championship teams for all of them. I could definitely see it for some of the weaker title teams for example 85 Celtics over 03 Spurs.

Good point.

Not only is logic flawed, just think about it for a second...

All championship teams would have never faced a great team on their path to the title. Can anyone honestly believe that ? Maybe in a few cases (I doubt it), sure, but often that is not the case.

[miggyme1]

Shaq and Penny arguably are better. But yes, its not a crazy thing to say. People kinda forget that Stockton's best days were behind him when they faced the Bulls.



shaq and penny never reached their peaks together. if they had of then YES

[guy]

shaq and penny never reached their peaks together. if they had of then YES

It doesn't really matter though when we're comparing them. Non-peak Shaq is still probably better then peak Durant.

[guy]

Exactly.

People act as if they have to be unbeatable, and have to win the championship to be considered an all time great team. They don't, and neither were the 96 Bulls, or any other great 65+ win team.

They are statistically, and going by wins, one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever.

The year is regular season+playoffs. If we are too assess them as a team you have to take both into account.

Assuming they lose, they have absolutely no argument for greatest team ever, or even one of them.

Statistics don't take into account that not all games are as important as each other. For example, how much are we really supposed to factor in that they blew out Cleveland on the road in some random January game, when they are getting destroyed by OKC right now in really important playoff games that matter? What happens when things are really on the line should matter much more then anything in the regular season.

And if you want to say that this is all happening because Steph is injured or whatever, so what? Part of being a great team is health, even if its due to luck. And part of being a great team is playing well while injured. And who knows, maybe them draining themselves going after the record is what caused this? Well, thats on them. You can't really have it both ways. I'd probably pick a bunch of teams that coasted/rested/worked through chemistry issues throughout the regular season and had a much worse record but still won the title.

They are a great team, arguably better then some championship teams that lucked out due to weaker competition, and they're arguably the greatest team to not win a title. But one of the greatest teams ever? No.

[Overdrive]

Exactly.

People act as if they have to be unbeatable, and have to win the championship to be considered an all time great team. They don't, and neither were the 96 Bulls, or any other great 65+ win team.

They are statistically, and going by wins, one of the greatest, if not the greatest team ever.

What's the greatest of the 3-peat Lakers teams?

[knicksman]

You're only a great team if you win the championship. Regular season games is what were basing teams on now, really? It's not about what they do when it matters most? You just have to be hot when the chips aren't on the table?

So we agree then that bran isnt an all time great

[knicksman]

The year is regular season+playoffs. If we are too assess them as a team you have to take both into account.

Assuming they lose, they have absolutely no argument for greatest team ever, or even one of them.

Statistics don't take into account that not all games are as important as each other. For example, how much are we really supposed to factor in that they blew out Cleveland on the road in some random January game, when they are getting destroyed by OKC right now in really important playoff games that matter? What happens when things are really on the line should matter much more then anything in the regular season.

And if you want to say that this is all happening because Steph is injured or whatever, so what? Part of being a great team is health, even if its due to luck. And part of being a great team is playing well while injured. And who knows, maybe them draining themselves going after the record is what caused this? Well, thats on them. You can't really have it both ways. I'd probably pick a bunch of teams that coasted/rested/worked through chemistry issues throughout the regular season and had a much worse record but still won the title.

They are a great team, arguably better then some championship teams that lucked out due to weaker competition, and they're arguably the greatest team to not win a title. But one of the greatest teams ever? No.


Youre expecting too much from plowking bro. The guy is a bran stan for a reason

[guy]

Lebatard is a condescending moron. I heard his rant earlier. He basically criticized and made fun of everyone who thought and still thinks that their historical regular season record should be downplayed. Well, doesn't it look like they are going to be right that it should be downplayed?

[moongaze]

Plenty of teams. 72 Bucks, plenty of Showtime and Celtics teams from the 80's, some 90's teams depending on who you like, 00 Blazers, 02 Kings, and 07 Suns.

Those are good teams. Greatness is completing the ultimate goal.

[KiiiiNG]

For teams, greatness is only important in the post-season. Dan is in denial, and he's embarrassed he jumped on the bandwagon. He tries his best to be funny/edgy about sports, but fails 99% of the time. He's awful

[tmacattack33]

Plenty of teams. 72 Bucks, plenty of Showtime and Celtics teams from the 80's, some 90's teams depending on who you like, 00 Blazers, 02 Kings, and 07 Suns.

2000 Blazers...No...they are maybe a top 30 team of the past 20 years.

02 Kings...yes, some people think they are great because they think they actually won the series vs the Lakers but had it taken away from by the refs. So for these people they actually did win so this can't be used as an example.

07 Suns...this team is laughed at and is used as a perfect example of a team that relied on fast-breaks and stuff that doesn't matter as much in the post-season once games are played with more structure.

[plowking]

You're only a great team if you win the championship. Regular season games is what were basing teams on now, really?

Umm no. If you're only a great team if you win, then we wouldn't watch basketball. Some of Bird's Celtics that lost in the finals? Clearly not great teams.

I guess in a series like 2013, where game 7 was decided by 4 points or whatever it was, makes or breaks the Spurs as a great or not so great team.

Absolute garbage.

Losses happen. It is life. They are still a great team, and one of the greatest of all time. Put them up against any team in NBA history, and they're more than likely the favourites going in. Same thing if you cleaned the slate with this series and started again. Warriors would be favourites once more.

They're a great team regardless. A little greater if they win? Sure.
You don't win 73 games by accident, and you sure as hell don't "gun" for the record any more than any other team "guns" for a win every night they play.

[plowking]

I think they get labeled as very good, not great. I've never seen them listed ahead of teams that actually won.

There isn't a single Heat fan in the world that thinks the 06 Heat that won were better than the 05 Heat that lost.

[guy]

Umm no. If you're only a great team if you win, then we wouldn't watch basketball. Some of Bird's Celtics that lost in the finals? Clearly not great teams.

I guess in a series like 2013, where game 7 was decided by 4 points or whatever it was, makes or breaks the Spurs as a great or not so great team.

Absolute garbage.

Losses happen. It is life. They are still a great team, and one of the greatest of all time. Put them up against any team in NBA history, and they're more than likely the favourites going in. Same thing if you cleaned the slate with this series and started again. Warriors would be favourites once more.

They're a great team regardless. A little greater if they win? Sure.
You don't win 73 games by accident, and you sure as hell don't "gun" for the record any more than any other team "guns" for a win every night they play.

Ummm no they wouldn't. The Thunder are dominating them. There's no reason to think if they played again that the Warriors would win. Thunder would clearly be the favorites. There's really no logical reason to favor the Warriors after watching this.

They are a great team, and they are probably better then some of the weaker champions from the past. One of the greatest teams ever? No. One of the greatest usually means something like top 10 or so, at least to me. Unless we're talking something like one of the top 20-30 greatest teams ever, then sure maybe. But they're showing an incredible lack of mental toughness in this series and plenty of great teams could manhandle them the way the Thunder have been so I don't see why they should be higher then that.

[RedBlackAttack]

Because he is a fat guy on the radio. He has a cool job but he doesn't know more about basketball than top posters here. If we were gonna break down tape he'd be lost. He is just a personality with a platform, who is using that platform to say silly things.

I don't usually listen to sports radio, but if this is what he does everyday then he is a silly, sad man
Lebatard is an entertainer posing as an expert. Anyone who thinks he is capable of analyzing the game on any respectable level -- within true basketball junky standards -- doesn't know anything about basketball.

The top posters here would absolutely school him on the game. He's OK if you are looking for sports-related entertainment, even though I don't find him funny or interesting. But on a purely analytical level? He's a novice at best.

[tmacattack33]

Umm no. If you're only a great team if you win, then we wouldn't watch basketball. Some of Bird's Celtics that lost in the finals? Clearly not great teams.

I guess in a series like 2013, where game 7 was decided by 4 points or whatever it was, makes or breaks the Spurs as a great or not so great team.

Absolute garbage.

Losses happen. It is life. They are still a great team, and one of the greatest of all time. Put them up against any team in NBA history, and they're more than likely the favourites going in. Same thing if you cleaned the slate with this series and started again. Warriors would be favourites once more.

They're a great team regardless. A little greater if they win? Sure.
You don't win 73 games by accident, and you sure as hell don't "gun" for the record any more than any other team "guns" for a win every night they play.

You are arguing against yourself here. You are saying the Spurs in 2013 are great because they came 2 seconds away from winning the championship.

When you are trying to claim that the playoffs don't matter apparenty (which is an absolutely ridiculous claim by the way).

According to you, the 2013 Spurs would have been just as great even if they had been swept in round 1 that year.

[NBAGOAT]

2000 Blazers...No...they are maybe a top 30 team of the past 20 years.

02 Kings...yes, some people think they are great because they think they actually won the series vs the Lakers but had it taken away from by the refs. So for these people they actually did win so this can't be used as an example.

07 Suns...this team is laughed at and is used as a perfect example of a team that relied on fast-breaks and stuff that doesn't matter as much in the post-season once games are played with more structure.

I was arguing more about teams that didn't win championships that had decent cases over other teams that won championships. Also thought most people thought the 00 Blazers and 02 Kings were close.

[LAZERUSS]

Still has more credibility than anyone here

:roll: :roll: :roll:

The man is an opinionated jack-ass.

He and Bill Simmons know FAR less about basketball than a sizable amount of posters here.

And his entire show is built around ripping Lebron. Well, I should say that is the key topic every day...but he constantly goes off on worthless tangents that no one really cares about.