Mossburg Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Just now, J-ALL-DAY said: "Weak title" means exactly what? It's a title period. This is why all this talk of having asterisk next to titles is laughable to me. There is no such thing of that. If I talked to you about the Spurs title against the Nets, you probably wouldn't be able to remember what happened in that series aside from the Spurs winning. Same with the Lakers against the Nets or the Spurs against the Knicks etc. Point is, most of these titles don't get talked about years down the line, only the truly memorable ones. Details are lost, folks just know which team won the title in that particular year. It depends on if people perceive a team to be worse and getting lucky because of injury against a better team. All 3 Warriors titles have been benefited by a key injury from the best team they faced that year, but nobody cares because they think the Warriors would have won anyway. Maybe true, but if Kyrie got hurt in game 1 again next year people would still expect them to win and think nothing of it too. I dunno, I feel like it's a grey area. There has to be some asterisk spectrum between FRAUD TITLE and TRUE CHAMPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Bullet Club said: You know exactly what I mean by weak title. No one cares what a casual fan thinks. Those are the same people saying Kobe > LeBron and other nonsense like that. I don't why you're getting offended. No one will care about this if they win. Toronto fans will be over the moon and then get the "yeah but" for years to come. It counts as a title but for a team winning their first ever it would probably be the weakest or least respected ever. Offended? Why would I be offended? I'm arguing against the "weak title" or "asterisk title" since we hear that damn near every year....And it means absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mox Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said: Offended? Why would I be offended? I'm arguing against the "weak title" or "asterisk title" since we hear that damn near every year....And it means absolutely nothing. If they win, no one outside of Toronto will care. It will feel cheap. People will downgrade it for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mossburg said: It depends on if people perceive a team to be worse and getting lucky because of injury against a better team. All 3 Warriors titles have been benefited by a key injury from the best team they faced that year, but nobody cares because they think the Warriors would have won anyway. Maybe true, but if Kyrie got hurt in game 1 again next year people would still expect them to win and think nothing of it too. I dunno, I feel like it's a grey area. There has to be some asterisk spectrum between FRAUD TITLE and TRUE CHAMPS. That's only using hindsight with the Warriors. When they won the title in 2015, people were saying they got lucky with the Kyrie/Love injuries. Then they ended up becoming a dynasty and the story line changed. If the Raptors go to the finals in the next three years and win say two rings, the story line once again gets flipped. They would have proven to be legit and folks would give them more respect. The Lakers were a dynasty so people don't talk about Peja's injury. But if he plays that series...And don't give me the crap of the three games he played badly hurt, but if he plays that series, little to NO chance the Kings don't win that series. But because the Lakers were already the back to back champs? They are seen differently. The Kings healthy that year were the better team. NO ONE ever talks about Peja's injury, only the ref issues in games 6 and 7. We could go down the line year by year and make the injury argument. Who is to say the Lakers win those two back to back titles in 09-10 if KG doesn't get hurt or then Perkins doesn't get hurt in the following year? What if Kyrie plays the entire series do the Cavs win? What if Green doesn't get suspended the following year? What if Duncan doesn't miss the playoffs in 2000? That's why I don't care much for the injuries excuses. End of the day the team that wins....Well, wins. And we will remember them being winners years down the line and not details of the actual series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champ11 Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 I think it should be discussed how bad of a signing Boogie was. I said it at the time. The Warriors could have a functional basketball player with that money right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossburg Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Just now, Bullet Club said: If they win, no one outside of Toronto will care. It will feel cheap. People will downgrade it for years to come. If you're going to focus on the details, then it will depend on how dominant Toronto was in the series. Honestly what I don't understand about some fans crowning the Warriors as an unbeatable force is they perceive a certain level of play based on past years and the roster on paper, but that level of play rarely manifests on the court. Year 3 Warriors were that team, all the other teams were very beatable and rarely played to their potential. The current team is overrated by the Portland series (who basically didn't show up and apparently won their SB in game 7 vs Denver). They show flashes of legendary dominance in stretches, but those don't happen often enough. In other words, they are a beatable team that is easier to beat when they are missing key players. If all players are present, they are still beatable and if the other team plays well it becomes a competitive series. Toronto IS playing well. This could easily be a competitive series if Toronto plays well and the Warriors at full health do not play up to their potential...which is what has been happening all post season. If Toronto pulls it off and injuries aide them yet they still win comfortably, I will remember this championship as Toronto playing well yet being helped by injuries and it could have been a close series where I would pick the Warriors....but I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bullet Club said: If they win, no one outside of Toronto will care. It will feel cheap. People will downgrade it for years to come. LIS, you are severely overestimating how much fans care about the details of the finals PERIOD. So how many people to this day talk about the Spurs win over the Knicks? How many people bring up the injuries the Lakers faced against the Pistons in 89? Does anyone say man, game 1 or game 2 of the Lakers/Nets series was so awesome!! What a great game that was!! No...No, they don't. Only memorable moments/performances get talked about. People talk about the Lakers/76ers finals more so because of Iverson's game 1 performance and how the Lakers only lost one game in that playoff run. If the Lakers were say 15-5 in that playoff run and Iverson doesn't have a memorable game 1? Guess what, another finals that pretty much gets forgotten down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mox Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Mossburg said: If you're going to focus on the details, then it will depend on how dominant Toronto was in the series. Honestly what I don't understand about some fans crowning the Warriors as an unbeatable force is they perceive a certain level of play based on past years and the roster on paper, but that level of play rarely manifests on the court. Year 3 Warriors were that team, all the other teams were very beatable and rarely played to their potential. The current team is overrated by the Portland series (who basically didn't show up and apparently won their SB in game 7 vs Denver). They show flashes of legendary dominance in stretches, but those don't happen often enough. In other words, they are a beatable team that is easier to beat when they are missing key players. If all players are present, they are still beatable and if the other team plays well it becomes a competitive series. Toronto IS playing well. This could easily be a competitive series if Toronto plays well and the Warriors at full health do not play up to their potential...which is what has been happening all post season. If Toronto pulls it off and injuries aide them yet they still win comfortably, I will remember this championship as Toronto playing well yet being helped by injuries and it could have been a close series where I would pick the Warriors....but I'm not sure. I agree with the majority of this. It seems pretty clear to me thus far that injuries thus far have been the difference though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossburg Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said: That's only using hindsight with the Warriors. When they won the title in 2015, people were saying they got lucky with the Kyrie/Love injuries. Then they ended up becoming a dynasty and the story line changed. If the Raptors go to the finals in the next three years and win say two rings, the story line once again gets flipped. They would have proven to be legit and folks would give them more respect. The Lakers were a dynasty so people don't talk about Peja's injury. But if he plays that series...And don't give me the crap of the three games he played badly hurt, but if he plays that series, little to NO chance the Kings don't win that series. But because the Lakers were already the back to back champs? They are seen differently. The Kings healthy that year were the better team. NO ONE ever talks about Peja's injury, only the ref issues in games 6 and 7. We could go down the line year by year and make the injury argument. Who is to say the Lakers win those two back to back titles in 09-10 if KG doesn't get hurt or then Perkins doesn't get hurt in the following year? What if Kyrie plays the entire series do the Cavs win? What if Green doesn't get suspended the following year? What if Duncan doesn't miss the playoffs in 2000? That's why I don't care much for the injuries excuses. End of the day the team that wins....Well, wins. And we will remember them being winners years down the line and not details of the actual series. True, but I think this series is kinda unique because the Raptors aren't very respected historically, and the Warriors are perceived to be better than how they actually play. So it creates a different dynamic that I don't know if it existed in any of the other series you mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, champ11 said: I think it should be discussed how bad of a signing Boogie was. I said it at the time. The Warriors could have a functional basketball player with that money right now. You truly have no shame huh! Just one game after you were praising Boogie for his game 2 SMH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champ11 Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: You truly have no shame huh! Just one game after you were praising Boogie for his game 2 SMH. He had a good game! I had to give him props after killing him! You know I show up regardless. But he looked terrible physically in game 2 (he's not right, obviously) and he's been bad/borderline terrible the other two games. I said from the jump that it was a bad/unnecessary signing and unfortunately that's showing itself 100% with the injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amac Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 16 minutes ago, Bullet Club said: You know exactly what I mean by weak title. No one cares what a casual fan thinks. Those are the same people saying Kobe > LeBron and other nonsense like that. I don't why you're getting offended. No one will care about this if they win. Toronto fans will be over the moon and then get the "yeah but" for years to come. It counts as a title but for a team winning their first ever it would probably be the weakest or least respected ever. I’m with this. You don’t just throw out all nuance when talking about a title because some fans will forget the circumstances. Credit to the Raptors for getting to this point but not all titles are equal accomplishments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mossburg said: True, but I think this series is kinda unique because the Raptors aren't very respected historically, and the Warriors are perceived to be better than how they actually play. So it creates a different dynamic that I don't know if it existed in any of the other series you mentioned. To be honest, they are no different than the Lakers in the early 00 dynasty. That team was looked upon as this unstoppable force, yet they very well could have lost multiple series during that run. This is why I say hindsight makes things look a whole a lot differently down the road. You're saying this about Toronto, but would you be saying this if they win another title say next year and go to the finals again in 2021? Then they become a historic team themselves right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, champ11 said: He had a good game! I had to give him props after killing him! You know I show up regardless. But he looked terrible physically in game 2 (he's not right, obviously) and he's been bad/borderline terrible the other two games. I said from the jump that it was a bad/unnecessary signing and unfortunately that's showing itself 100% with the injuries. No, he wasn't terrible in game 1. Still was solid in his limited time. Was bad yesterday no doubt and really good in game 2. And the value of getting Boogie for one year 5M was something any good team would have taken. He just suffered that unfortunate quad injury that really has slowed him down. Oh well, still better than Jerebko and Bell lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champ11 Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: No, he wasn't terrible in game 1. Still was solid in his limited time. Was bad yesterday no doubt and really good in game 2. And the value of getting Boogie for one year 5M was something any good team would have taken. He just suffered that unfortunate quad injury that really has slowed him down. Oh well, still better than Jerebko and Bell lol. Not for the Warriors. There was a slim chance he would come back healthy or close to 100% and a 100% Boogie was a decent fit with the Warriors but had complete diminishing returns. There was no reason to take that gamble when they could have paid a good role player like Ed Davis. And this honestly isn't hindsight. It was an arrogant play and it really didn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.