Skip to content

Spurs coach Popovich believes Warriors are ‘for real’

Nov 10, 2013, 8:00 PM EST

Gregg Popovich AP

When San Antonio made their run to the Finals last year, they swept the depleted Lakers in the first round of the playoffs, and did the same to a very good Grizzlies team in the Western Conference Finals.

The only team to give the Spurs any modicum of postseason trouble besides the eventual champion Heat was the Golden State Warriors, who were able to cause enough problems to push that second round series to six games.

Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich doesn’t believe that was a fluke, either. Speaking after beating a Warriors team playing without Stephen Curry by just two points on Friday, the tenured leader of basketball men gave his opponent the highest of praise.

From Sam Amick of USA Today:

“Well they’re for real,” Popovich said of the Warriors. “They’re really good offensively, (and) obviously they’re very talented. They’ve got an inside and outside game, and they’re really capable of scoring. If that was just it, then you’d call them a dangerous team where on any given night they can do you in. But they’re beyond that, because (Warriors coach) Mark (Jackson) has done a hell of a job in giving them a mentality, an aggressive, physical mentality defensively.

“He’s been demanding in that regard, and fortunately he’s got a group of character guys who want to do it right and get to the next level, and that’s what it takes. He initiated that last year. That takes them from a dangerous team to a solid, competitive team that can play with anybody. That’s who they are. Now it’s just a matter of being persistent and consistent about that, and reducing mistakes and understanding that it’s a long season. They’re definitely on the right path.”

Popovich has a history of being brutally honest, and isn’t ever in the business of giving out compliments when they’re not deserved.

Considering the success of the Spurs under Popovich as the league’s model franchise over the past 17 seasons, Golden State fans should be extremely optimistic about the future given his positive assessment.

  1. antistratfordian - Nov 10, 2013 at 8:13 PM

    Le Dubs currently stand 8th in the West, but here’s some of what Pop is talking about in a way fans can see statistically:

    Top Teams in West by Point Differential:

    1. Spurs +6.7
    2. Warriors +6.3
    3. Timberwolves +4.5
    4. Suns +3.8
    5. Clippers +3.7
    6. Blazers +3.5
    7. Thunder +2.8
    8. Rockets +2.0

    Typically, by the end of the season the best teams are going to have the highest average point differential.

  2. JHathwell - Nov 10, 2013 at 8:43 PM

    Point differential is a dumb stat, even more so when we’re talking 7 games in.

    • antistratfordian - Nov 10, 2013 at 9:50 PM

      “Point differential is a dumb stat”

      How eloquent. You know, the average point differential rank of the past 12 champions is 3rd. 10 of the last 12 champions finished in the top 5. 8 of the last 12 in the top 3. 6 of the last 12 in the top 2. It is not a predictor of champions, but a higher number there is definitely an indicator of quality.

      Right now the league leaders are San Antonio, Indiana, Miami, Golden State and Minnesota. More than half of those teams will be in the top 5 by the end of the season. Maybe even 4 out of 5 of them. We have at least one finals participant in this group almost assuredly.

      I don’t mind you dismissing it as being early, but you can dismiss the entire regular season if you want to. We still need something to talk about and this foreshadowing is relevant to Pop’s comments.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 10, 2013 at 9:56 PM

        “It is not a predictor of champions…”

        I meant to say that being the league leader doesn’t predict the champion – only 3 of the last 12 champions ranked 1st. But a higher ranking there does indicate contendership.

      • JHathwell - Nov 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM

        You are a formidably stupid person.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 5:13 PM

        Don’t take it personally, guy. And don’t be discouraged if you get owned in here – I do this for a living.

        Maybe if you just read more and type less for now…

      • JHathwell - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:02 PM

        You get paid to be stupid? How does one get that gig?

        Anyway, I don’t really have the time or the inclination to go out of my way to explain to you the many ways you are wrong, misinformed, biased, etc. I’d prefer it if you just stopped following me around the comments section and maybe put a little effort into actually learning something about the sport you seem to care about.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM

        “Anyway, I don’t really have the time or the inclination to go out of my way to explain to you the many ways you are wrong…”

        You shouldn’t try anyway because you can’t. Just say you’re right and I’m wrong and walk away… that’s the best you’re going to be able to do here.

      • JHathwell - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:14 PM

        I’ll do whatever you say, as long as you promise to stop engaging me with your ‘wit and wisdom”.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:39 PM

        You seem to have forgotten that you responded to my initial post with cheap criticism. I didn’t seek you out. If you don’t want the horns, don’t mess with the bull.

      • JHathwell - Nov 11, 2013 at 7:31 PM

        Well, you didn’t even have the slightest idea what I meant and still don’t, and i don’t have the time to hold your hand thru it. Thankfully, RedbaronX already explained it in terms simple enough for even you to understand.

        I believe the kids call it a “strawman”. Google it.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM

        I saw both of your comments down there and successfully countered them. Try again.

      • JHathwell - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:04 PM

        Erotic fan-fiction, bruh.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:56 PM

        Boring. Next!

    • eventhorizon04 - Nov 10, 2013 at 9:52 PM

      Agreed that point differential (like most stats) aren’t significant only 7 games into a season. However, point differential is more highly correlated with postseason success than win-loss record.

      By that, I mean it’s better to be a 55 win team that won a lot of blowouts and only narrowly lost in their defeats, than a 60 win team that won a a lot of narrow games but were blown out a few times.

    • redbaronx - Nov 10, 2013 at 10:46 PM

      @JHathwell – Agreed. Point differential says nothing. But telling Antistratforidan that point differential is a dumb stat 7 games in is like trying to enlighten a wall. His comeback (below) was that it predicts “contendership”. Duh! winning teams have a positive point differential.

      A positive point differential says one thing. It’s more likely the team is winning then losing…

      • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 5:26 PM

        “Duh! winning teams have a positive point differential.”

        That is not always true. Some winning teams have a negative point differential. Some losing teams have a positive point differential.

        Just having a positive point differential doesn’t make you a contender.

        But I was never talking about just having a “positive” point differential – I was talking about being among the league leaders in point differential. Big difference. Being a league leader positively says SOMETHING – not “nothing” as you’ve erroneously asserted.

        Let me know if you’re still having difficulty with these basics and I will be happy to assist.

      • redbaronx - Nov 12, 2013 at 1:01 PM

        @antistratfordian – Yes. Occasionally winning teams have a losing point differential, but it is marginal.

        But you again, missed the point as you normally do, and I think you do it on purpose because you can’t stand actually appreciating what other people say. Winning/contending teams are bound to have a positive point differential. That is the OBVIOUS point I made. But you’re not going to separate a psuedo contender from the real deal by looking at point differential.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 12, 2013 at 3:52 PM

        “Winning/contending teams are bound to have a positive point differential.”

        That was never in question. Again, no one was just talking about having a “positive point differential.” But a point differential among the league leaders is an absolute indicator for quality.

        In other words, a low positive point differential by itself won’t reveal a lot without considering other factors – but a top 3 point differential tells you so much without having to know anything else.

        I don’t know how many different ways I can say that.

        “But you’re not going to separate a psuedo contender from the real deal by looking at point differential.”

        Psuedo-contender? Ha. Well, there will be so many different reasons to remove a psuedo-contender from the championship discussion, and point differential is going to be one of those reasons. You may not be willing to separate them based on that alone, but I could. And I would be right.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 8:12 AM

        Again, you entirely miss the point as usual. Point differential doesn’t tell you jack about who is going to be winning the banner. I’ve predicted 23 out of the last 26 NBA Champions, and I didn’t do it with stats….

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        You don’t have a point. You’re wrong and a liar. Have a nice day!

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:32 PM

        @antistratfordian – Seriously. You need therapy.

      • JHathwell - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:12 PM

        Right. It’s like Speaking latin to a caveman.

        It’s sad that I even have to clarify this, but the point is that, much like +/-, point differential is an imperfect way of determining the quality of teams, especially when he start talking about separating the elite teams from one another. Like allot of stats, it exists to be a crutch for people who lack common sense or basic understanding of the game and need something to fall back on.

        I can look at the Warriors, see their unparalleled offensive firepower, their improved commitment to defense, the difference that a healthy Bogut and the addition of AI make to said defense and the additions to the bench and I can say to myself, “This team is poised to make a leap to the next level”. I can watch them play and my opinion is reinforced.

        I don’t need Greg Popvich to agree with me, although it makes perfect sense that he would, and I certainly don’t need a 7 game point differential stat to tell me the Warriors are good.

      • redbaronx - Nov 12, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        @JHathwell – Agreed. Plus Mark Jackson seems to be instilling a positive environment. I like how they work at it. The Warriors are reminding me of the Pacers from last year. They’re taking positive steps.

      • JHathwell - Nov 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM

        From day one I was convinced Jackson would be an utter failure as a coach and thus far I’d have to say I was totally wrong. Whether or not he is a moron (I believe him to be one), the fact is he has the type of leadership qualities that on the pro level can be more important than X’s and O’s proficiency, and he’s got these guys buying in to the utmost.

        I love your Pacer comparison. This team only needs good health to be serious contenders, and as of the start of the season I had them and the Clippers penciled in for the WCF, and what a series that would be.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 8:08 AM

        @JHathwell – I wouldn’t put too much on the Clippers being in the WCF. They remind me of Dallas who for years couldn’t learn how to play defense. Nowitzki had to seriously toughen up, and that’s what Blake has to do too on D. I don’t see that happening in year one with Doc. Maybe in another year. Blake and DeAndre and the whole team need to play fast rotating, in your face defense for the Clips to be contenders.

      • JHathwell - Nov 13, 2013 at 6:38 PM

        I think it’s more a reflection of the perennial contenders taking a step back than the Clippers being some unstoppable force of nature.

        Still, I think Doc makes a huge difference here, and I don’t think Blake is as important to their success as people think he is. This team will sink or swim in the playoffs based on how dominant Paul can be and where the defense is. Blake needs to be decent, not a world-beater.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:41 PM

        @JHathwell – I disagree with you on Blake. Paul is going to do his thing and we know what to expect. But if the Clippers want to go somewhere Blake, Jordan, and the rest of those guys are going to have to take their defense to another level. I love Doc, but I get the feeling that if it happens (better defensive effort), it’s going to take a year before Doc gets that to happen.

      • JHathwell - Nov 14, 2013 at 3:36 PM

        Couple of things. For one, the season is about a 100 game along for contending teams, which is plenty of time to get the Defense together. For what it’s worth I think people place too much emphasis on defense, especially when you are talking about a team with the Clippers’ offensive firepower. I mean, the object of the game is to outscore your opponents, is it not?

      • redbaronx - Nov 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

        @JHathwell – Yes, the season is long and the Clippers may yet improve. I just doubt they can get it straight in one year. There needs to be serious buy in. Yes the object is to outscore opponents, but no NBA Champion other then the Miami Heat in 2006 (17!) have been defensively ranked lower than five in the last 10 years. And while I haven’t researched it, I’m willing to bet there weren’t any in the 10 years before that either. 1992-2002 would have included the Bulls six times, Houston twice, San Antonio, and the Lakers twice. And there were plenty of offensively dominant teams who supposedly could outscore their way to the ring. 2005 Lakers come to mind (loss to Detroit). Phoenix in 1993.

        I really don’t count Miami’s 2006 win as they played Dallas which was a poor defensive team. So you could say 2006 is an aberration in the last 20 years of NBA Champions.

        That’s why I don’t give the Clippers a shot. You know whoever comes out of the East is going to be a good defensive team whether it is the Heat, Indiana, or the Bulls.

        See this page for the last 10 NBA Champions offensive/defensive rankings: http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nba/offense-and-defensive-efficiency-of-nba-champions.aspx

      • JHathwell - Nov 16, 2013 at 6:09 PM

        Let me say this much. If I trust any coach to get them right in one year, Doc is high on list. Also worth noting that Boston won a title in their first year and they stumbled horribly in the first round of the playoffs on the way there.

        Otherwise, I think you are leaning on history too much. First of all, any team leading the league in scoring isn’t going to rate high defensively by the very nature of their style of play. Yes, It’s true that when the playoffs come the game slows down, so they’ll need to be at least above-average defensively, but I think they can get there.

        Look, I said at the start of the year that I thought Indiana was going to win the title and I have no reason to change that opinion right now. I think the Clippers are serious candidates to come out of the West and I firmly believe that. Instead of insisting their defense isn’t good enough 9 games into the season, i’ll take the wait-and-see approach and just let the season play out. I really think this team can get there.

      • redbaronx - Nov 16, 2013 at 6:26 PM

        @JHathwell – I’m with you on Indiana…. :-)

      • JHathwell - Nov 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM

        It was crazy to em that everyone seemed to focus on the Bulls this year and ignore the Pacers. One team is coming off being one game short of the Finals and made significant roster additions, the other is counting on a guy whose game depends 100% on athleticism to come back from a devastating injury right away?

        Weird.

      • redbaronx - Nov 17, 2013 at 5:41 PM

        @JHathwell – I wasn’t sure the Bulls were ready two years ago before Rose was injured. I think they need more pieces. Another scorer at least. Better bench help.

        The Pacers….like you said, one game short of the Finals last season and they strengthened the bench in the offseason. Danny Granger isn’t even healthy, and if he can contribute? Lots of upside for them. I’m really looking forward to seeing another Heat / Pacers matchup!

      • JHathwell - Nov 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM

        And on top of that, Lance and PG have taken giant steps forward already. This team is poised for greatness.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:45 PM

        It is nothing like +/-, JHathwell. You’re making very misguided generalizations.

        What you’re seeing with the Warriors – in regards to their improvements – is reflected in their point differential, and in other places as well.

        No where have I said that point differential was a final word on anything – in fact in my initial post I said “some of what Pop is talking about” can before found in that stat. And that is without question 100% true.

      • redbaronx - Nov 12, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        @antistratfordian – The problem is that stats are the backdrop to every argument you make, and basketball is not baseball. All sorts of things happen on the court that can’t be quantified by stats like defensive effort, court coverage, team chemistry.

        If stats could have predicted banners, you would have had Denver winning rings in the 80’s…

      • antistratfordian - Nov 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM

        ”The problem is that stats are the backdrop to every argument you make.”

        You know what you’re saying here? “The problem is that facts are the backdrop to every argument you make.”

        You cannot support an argument without facts, redbaronx. I know that may be difficult for you to understand… ;) But when I say that LeBron is the best in the game, I can also prove that with an overwhelming waterfall of data. I’ve been doing that since at least 2008 – and you simpletons have only just come around to agree with me in 2013 even though the statistical story proving it remained the same.

        Or would you rather I just state my opinions with no data? If I did that you’d say, “the problem is that you never provide us facts to go along with your opinions.”

        Perhaps your problem is that you do not like what the facts are saying so you dismiss them and say immature things like, “basketball is not baseball! watch a game!” This is very similar to what Kobe Bryant fans do with almost every advanced statistic.

        And let me tell you something else, friend – you better get used to my approach to the game, because it is the inevitable future of basketball analysis. The train is leaving the station, you can either get on board or get left behind.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 1:52 PM

        @antistratfordian – I know writing long books on a post thread makes you feel good and smart, but when you say “Pau Gasol is the reason the Lakers won their banners”, and other stupid comments that are “stat based” you lose all credibility.

        Go play fantasy baseball!

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM

        Pau Gasol IS the reason the Lakers won. Before Gasol – crap team. After Gasol – finals. Overnight. Pretty simple.

        Now, there are stats that show you why that is – but you don’t want to hear it. That’s fine with me if you want to remain ignorant.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:33 PM

        Again, that says nothing about who the better Gasol brother is now. Of course you still use Pau’s stats from 3 years ago, because it’s easier to follow stats then to actually use your brain…

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:37 PM

        Pau has skills and talent that Marc will never have. Pau is never going to be used properly with D’Antoni so his stats now don’t really matter. Remember what he was doing on Spain though – that’s the real Pau Gasol.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:49 PM

        Yap Yap Yap. Stats Stats Stats. D’Antoni, D’Antoni, D’Antoni. I love how you keep making excuses for avoiding the reality that Marc is a better player at this point in his career! You just can’t admit when you’re wrong! It’s freaking hilarious!

        Try looking up these stats! How many wins did the Lakers have last season? How many did the Grizzlies have? Who does Pau play with on the Lakers??? Compute that! End of freaking discussion! Who cares if freaking Kermit the Frog was coaching the Lakers last season? Kobe was there most of the season. The Lakers technically have more talent and the Grizzlies win more.

        Marc is the better team player at this point in his career. End of discussion! We both know it so give it up!

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM

        “Try looking up these stats! How many wins did the Lakers have last season? How many did the Grizzlies have? Who does Pau play with on the Lakers??? Compute that!”

        That would require the consideration of statistics just the same, genius. Wins and losses are also statistics. How do you think we decide the winner of a game? By statistics – who scores the most points.

        So what we’ve learned here is that there are statistics you’re comfortable with and statistics you’re not comfortable with, and the difference there is just level of familiarity and length of exposure.

        In other words, you’re a caveman.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 11:18 PM

        @antistratfordian – I am a genius compared to you!!! I just destroyed you and you don’t even know it because you can’t admit ZIP. We both know the Grizzlies went to the playoffs last year. We both know the Lakers record. We both know who plays on the Lakers. So stop your BS. You’ve been completely dismantled! You’re just too much of a wimp to acknowledge the ass beatings you’re regularly receiving.

        Since stats is the only thing you understand, I used stats to destroy your “top 3″ defense argument for NBA champs. Mauled! Of course you would only use the stats YOU want to use. Throw out the 2006 Miami Heat and compute the average NBA Champions defensive ranking in the last 10 years. Mauled again! That’s 3.3 in case you decide to avoid my points as usual!

        Don’t mess with the bear if you don’t want to be regularly embarrassed!

      • antistratfordian - Nov 14, 2013 at 3:52 PM

        “I am a genius compared to you!!!”

        Very moving argument. I’m completely bored by you.

      • redbaronx - Nov 16, 2013 at 3:23 PM

        @antistratfordian – We can all see how “bored” you are.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM

        @antistratfordian – I’m happy you have been doing this since 2008. I’ve been predicting champions since 87. I’ve been wrong three times. THREE. So keep yapping your yapper at your stats. Pick the team with the best point differential to win, and just as you said, you’re more likely to be wrong in the end. The team with the best point differential has won the Finals how many times in the last 20 years??? LOL

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM

        “Pick the team with the best point differential to win, and just as you said, you’re more likely to be wrong in the end.”

        Are you trying hard to be this unnecessarily dense? We were never talking about predicting champions. We’re talking about statistical indicators of high quality.

        So I never said anything about picking the team with the “best point differential” for any reason at all. I said a high ranking there is a very strong indicator of quality – and it is. One should use it along with other strong indicators to make whatever decision it is that they need to make. Common sense. This is what NBA franchises do with their analytics departments.

        But we’re all soooooo happy for you that you can say “I don’t need no dad gum stats to predict winners” – but guess what? No one cares about your opinion just because it’s your opinion – just you and maybe your mother. So all of your balderdash is utterly useless unless you can find a way to prove your prescience with data.

        In other words, you’re not going to get hired by an NBA franchise just by putting “I predicted 23 of the last 26 champions without the use of stats” on your resume. Owners and GMs don’t have time for that. They need something tangible that they can wrap their hands and heads around – something with proven predictability that they can use to get an edge. Your ego isn’t the answer there. (Nearly every prominent basketball analytics person has been snatched up by the NBA. John Hollinger is the Vice President of Basketball Operations for the Grizzlies for crying out loud.)

        But you are stuck in 1987 and completely oblivious to the sea change in basketball. The very things I’m talking about here are discussed within franchises. They’re not sitting around saying “well let’s see what redbaronx’s opinion is before we move on this.” No, they’re crunching some of the same numbers that I’m crunching.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35 PM

        @antistratfordian – SEEK THERAPY! I can’t even read your stupidity anymore.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 PM

        Then stop reading my posts. PLEASE! I can’t stand talking to you.

        But it’s inevitable that you will reply to me again. So… until next time!

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:49 PM

        YOU RESPONDED TO MY POST YOU FREAKING MORON!!!!

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:54 PM

        No. You posted about me – you even bothered to type out my name and capitalize the first letter (thanks). I didn’t talk about you. I have no interest in anything that you’re doing unless you’re talking about me or talking about something I posted.

        So… for your own benefit, I suggest you keep my name out of your mouth and me out of your thoughts. I know it will be hard for you, but you can do it! You’ll be a happier camper. :)

      • redbaronx - Nov 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

        @antistratfordian – You’re a complete idiot. I was responding to JHathwell. YOU replied to me.

        Your IQ is lower than my shoe size!!!

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

        @antistratfordian – One more thing to completely destroy you. I have no problem with FACTS. Facts does not = Stats. The problem in your world is that is all you have. When comparing Pau Gasol to Marc Gasol, you think Pau is the better player. But guess what? The Grizzlies won more than the Lakers last (and will this) season, because of one thing that doesn’t appear on a stat sheet that is beyond your comprehension. TEAMWORK.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 3:50 PM

        Teamwork does appear in the stat sheet (depends on where you look). And the Grizzlies won more games because of Kobe’s stats.

        All of that is in the statistics somewhere.

      • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35 PM

        @antistratfordian – The Grizzlies won more because of Kobe??? Are you smoking crack cocaine? Seriously dude, get help!

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 10:41 PM

        No, the Lakers lost more because of Kobe. Try to keep up.

        The Grizzlies hired the biggest stat guru around to head up their basketball operations, fyi. That’s why they got rid of Rudy Gay.

        Do you drink when you post here? It seems like you might be drunk half the time. Don’t drunk post, bro.

      • redbaronx - Nov 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

        You ARE smoking crack! I just want people to see your stupidity so I’ll put in caps:

        antistratfordian – THE GRIZZLIES WON MORE BECAUSE OF KOBE!!

        You’re an idiot!!!

      • antistratfordian - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        You asked me why the Lakers only won 45 games (compared to the Grizzlies 56). It’s because the Lakers were going nowhere with Kobe’s attitude on that specific team. His “I don’t want to get into the, ‘Well, we share …’ No, it’s MY team” attitude sabotaged them from day 1. That much is obvious.

        There is no good reason for anyone on a team like the 2012-13 Lakers to lead the league in field goal attempts.

      • redbaronx - Nov 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        @antistratfordian – OK I get your view. According to YOU: Pau Gasol is the best player on the Lakers, Kobe is a chump, Pau was a better player than Marc Gasol last year despite his team (with lesser talent last year I might add) won more than the Lakers.

        And according to YOU: Santa is real, you know the tooth fairy personally, and you ARE Peter Pan.

        I get it…..I really get it. You don’t need to say anything more.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 16, 2013 at 5:42 PM

        I never said Kobe is a chump. He’s been in my all-time top 20 for years. My issue with Kobe is mostly about his more zany fans who put him in the top 5, top 3 etc. Sometimes even Kobe himself will hint at him being in the top 3. There is where we really have an issue. There is a guy on here who argues that Kobe isn’t even in the top 20, and I’d argue with him about that the same way I’d argue against someone who says he’s in the top 5.

        About Pau – he is simply more naturally talented than Marc. Pau was born for the game, Marc has to work hard at it. Pau’s problem the last three years has been the two Mikes. But his skills haven’t waned much since 2010 – they’re still there, being untapped. You would’ve been on board with me about this if Phil Jackson came back instead of D’Antoni. So blame the Busses for screwing that up. But I don’t deserve to be attacked for touting the merits of a hall of famer who still has it.

        Remember what Pau did last summer in the gold medal game? That was against one of the best teams the United States has ever put together and Pau was a absolute monster. As Chris Mannix from CNNSI said: “Whenever the U.S. tried to pull ahead, Gasol was there, spinning, twisting and driving, completely overwhelming every defender the U.S. stuck on him. It was a masterful performance.”

        Where has that guy been since the 2012 Olympics? He’s been under appreciated and underused on the Lakers. Somewhere Phil Jackson is shedding a tear for him.

      • redbaronx - Nov 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

        @antistratfordian – Sorry. You don’t get do overs on your comments. You been making it out like Pau is the reason the Lakers won their rings and Kobe is a chump. Keep kissing Pau’s ass…..

      • antistratfordian - Nov 16, 2013 at 9:08 PM

        I’ve been perfectly consistent.

        Pau is the reason they won. That’s clear. A simple before and after observation will tell you that – Phil Jackson said as much in “Eleven Rings.” Without Pau they probably wouldn’t have made it out of the first round since 2004 and Kobe would be in Chicago.

      • redbaronx - Nov 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

        This message will be copied and pasted to your stupid ass comments as your idiocy does not merit responses. Thank you for wasting your time! :-)

      • redbaronx - Nov 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

        @antistratfordian – Try keeping your comments straight! If you make a statement, explaining it later isn’t going to help. It just makes you look….well, the way you look.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:43 PM

        Smh. Look at you…

        Didn’t I tell you that you wouldn’t be able to stop replying to me? What happened to “I can’t even read your stupidity anymore”?

        You’re addicted. That’s fine. You’re not the first. ;)

      • redbaronx - Nov 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

        OK. Here we go.

        This message will be copied and pasted to your stupid ass comments as your idiocy does not merit responses. Thank you for wasting your time! :-)

  3. miamiheatdynasty - Nov 10, 2013 at 9:59 PM

    lol

  4. mimaiheatdynasty - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    wow

  5. skinsfanwill - Nov 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    Stats don’t mean crap when playoff time comes. It’s defense that wins championships. If you can stop your opponent from scoring you have a great chance at winning. All previous champions had one thing in common, they played good defense.

    • antistratfordian - Nov 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM

      You might be surprised to learn that only 4 of the last 12 champions ranked in the top 3 in defensive rating, whereas 8 of the last 12 champions ranked in the top 3 in point differential.

    • redbaronx - Nov 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM

      @skinsfanwill – Your point was 100% valid. antistratfordian is the most dishonest POS. He posts response like the one to you, using pseudo stats just to make his point spreading his skewed viewpoint. Here’s the real picture if we’re going to go by stats!:

      1) In 10 years since 2002 the AVERAGE defensive ranking of NBA champions is 4.7. If you throw out the 2006 Miami Heat (who had a ranking of 17!!!!) that drops to the average champion defensive ranking at 3.3. So that destroys his stupid response to you.

      2) Point differential is stupid to begin with. Champions or runners up are typically going to be the best in the league, so it is completely irrelevant.

      Like you said, defense wins championships. Antistratfordian should thinks offense and point differential wins championships. He should stick to playing Bingo.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Jabari Parker injury latest for disappointing rookie class
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. C. Bosh (7308)
  2. K. Martin (7301)
  3. K. Durant (6848)
  4. R. Rondo (6732)
  5. T. Parker (6633)
  1. T. Jones (6462)
  2. A. Bogut (6353)
  3. M. Smart (6335)
  4. D. Rose (6093)
  5. D. Favors (6080)