2016-17 Running NBA Thread

36-6 after they squeaked by Oklahoma City last night.

 

All right. And last year they were 38-4.

I really don't know what the issue is here. Do you not want in-season coverage? This is what's happening with the team. It isn't as good as it was last year. Examining why that is doesn't seem all that inappropriate.

 

This pretty much covers it. Sportswriters gotta write about something. And when a team replaces Harrison Barnes with an MVP caliber superstar like Kevin Durant, yet their performance is worse instead of better than the year before, it is quite fair to ask and analyze why that might be.

But, at the same time, it is bizarre seeing all this kvetching over a team on a 70 win pace.

 

See also: Trout, Mike, trade him for prospects to rebuild farm system.

Ya wonder sometimes. There's always that one sportstalk caller that expects them to go 82-0, but still ...

 

Because the Warriors were supposed to be "historically good!!!111!!" I mean, somebody's computer projected they'd win 83 games. WHERE'S MY HISTORICALLY GOOD WARRIORS TEAM???

Oh, wait. There they are, 36-6 and playing tomorrow night in Houston.

 

Yeah, but even "worse" is a stretch. They've probably had some bad to average luck in games this year, vs. last year, when they probably were especially lucky. Well, at least until the playoffs, when one of their stars got hurt.

 

You don't blow a 24-point lead by bad luck.

And last year they were 38-4, then won in Chicago to go to 39-4.

They added the NBA's third-leading scorer, to go with the leading scorer, and their record is not as good and both players' averages are down and one of them is shooting significantly worse than he ever has and they are averaging a mere two points more per game. They're still the favorites to win the title, of course, but there is a feeling-out process.

I don't see how that isn't a story.

 

The only way they could better is if they were 39-3 or better, which is starting to get into 3:35-mile territory. As long as the other teams also are NBA teams, there's going to be an outer limit to how many games a team can actually win. And it's not ridiculous to think that Durant has at least changed the team's chemistry, and that said change might cost them a game or two here and there.

Not saying it's not a story. It's just not a compelling or particularly mysterious story.

 

That SI story about the Warriors would be worth reading if Rick Reilly wrote it.

 

Who remembers what the regular season records were for the 60's Celtics? 80's Lakers or Celtics? 90's Bulls? The regular season record matters very little (as last year shows); its about the title. Why worry about the regular season record now? Its all about whether the parts are fitting in; it sure looks like Durant and Pachulia are doing so and getting even more integrated as the season goes on.

 

72-10.

Everyone in Chicago remember that one.

Finished the job, too.

 

How can anyone say with a straight face that a 36-6 team isn't as good as its previous 38-4 iteration? That's a total random variable. Imagine if two different teams had those same records in the same season. Nobody would be digging into the 36-6 team's supposed flaws.