I don't know what went wrong

[Chris Porter's Hair]

If any of you are ever considering being a moderator here, allow me to give you a warning. Being a moderator means that you have to read just about all the nonsense that goes on here, just on the off chance that it strays out of bounds, people start misbehaving, etc. etc. You can't ignore posters. You can't ignore threads you know are going to end up being pointless.

This thread is a prime example. When yet another loss was followed with yet another thread to moan about the same old topics, I avoided it for a while. Then I took a deep breath and decided to do my job and wade in. Sure enough, all the usual suspects with all the usual takes on all the usual topics. Spiraling increasingly out of control, eventually people resorting to name calling, and very little interesting basketball discussion taking place. I think for me the thread may have hit rock bottom with this piece of work:

The players' effort last night was horrible. My hypothesis is that they played so poorly because they wanted the media to stop talking about being a better team without Lee. So they played a stinker and now people will claim, "see we need Lee." That worked for some. Their effort in that game though should have an adverse reaction towards Jackson because it shows that he can't get this team to play to it's potential.

It boggles the mind that this is being proposed seriously. Here we have a bunch of professional athletes. They busted their humps their entire life to try to get to the NBA. Now that they're here, they bust their humps trying to win a title. Every game they lose can hurt their seeding, and make that less likely. They could never have gotten here without being hyper competitive individuals. But the theory here is that they conspired to play badly, hurting their chance to win a title, hurting their future earning potential, etc. etc., so that the media (and why do they care what the media think?) will draw a convoluted conclusion and feel better about a guy who didn't even play. I honestly think if you could run this theory by any of the players, and they were free to respond honestly, their response would be... unflattering at best. The team has been widely ridiculed and criticized for this game, and rightly so. And we are to believe they are so worried about what the "media" allegedly thinks (when in fact I think it is mostly a handful of fans), that they are willing to do something completely asinine that will lead to not only the media, but lots of fans, ridiculing them.

I really should just make a thread entitled, "I don't know what went wrong, but this board can really be a fail"

[Onus]

If any of you are ever considering being a moderator here, allow me to give you a warning. Being a moderator means that you have to read just about all the nonsense that goes on here, just on the off chance that it strays out of bounds, people start misbehaving, etc. etc. You can't ignore posters. You can't ignore threads you know are going to end up being pointless.

This thread is a prime example. When yet another loss was followed with yet another thread to moan about the same old topics, I avoided it for a while. Then I took a deep breath and decided to do my job and wade in. Sure enough, all the usual suspects with all the usual takes on all the usual topics. Spiraling increasingly out of control, eventually people resorting to name calling, and very little interesting basketball discussion taking place. I think for me the thread may have hit rock bottom with this piece of work:

The players' effort last night was horrible. My hypothesis is that they played so poorly because they wanted the media to stop talking about being a better team without Lee. So they played a stinker and now people will claim, "see we need Lee." That worked for some. Their effort in that game though should have an adverse reaction towards Jackson because it shows that he can't get this team to play to it's potential.

It boggles the mind that this is being proposed seriously. Here we have a bunch of professional athletes. They busted their humps their entire life to try to get to the NBA. Now that they're here, they bust their humps trying to win a title. Every game they lose can hurt their seeding, and make that less likely. They could never have gotten here without being hyper competitive individuals. But the theory here is that they conspired to play badly, hurting their chance to win a title, hurting their future earning potential, etc. etc., so that the media (and why do they care what the media think?) will draw a convoluted conclusion and feel better about a guy who didn't even play. I honestly think if you could run this theory by any of the players, and they were free to respond honestly, their response would be... unflattering at best. The team has been widely ridiculed and criticized for this game, and rightly so. And we are to believe they are so worried about what the "media" allegedly thinks (when in fact I think it is mostly a handful of fans), that they are willing to do something completely asinine that will lead to not only the media, but lots of fans, ridiculing them.

I really should just make a thread entitled, "I don't know what went wrong, but this board can really be a fail"

Saying the players don't care about what the media writes about them is as asinine as my theory. Especially since before the nuggets game the entire storyline about the warriors was that they were a better team without lee. Some reporter even asked lee what he thought about it and then lee goes on to state he doesn't read that particular journalist and doesn't care about what he writes even though the reporter didn't bring up the journalist's name. Lee then goes on to tell the reporter that the +\- stat said he was 9th in the league. Meaning he read the article and was visibly annoyed and frustrated and had his rebuttal already planned.

To think players aren't human and don't get affected by what is written about them about a game as you say they dedicate their entire lives to just isn't true.

1 game of 82 isn't much, I don't think they meant to lose the game but just make it seem a bit tougher than it actually would have been. Truthfully I don't think Jackson himself has tried to win as many games as possible this year and created hurdles for the team to overcome and have more close games than was actually necessary to prep the team for the playoffs, which is why we lost so many games were we were up big but left the bench in the game so long that the other team could come back. This happened constantly throughout the season. It's not like Jackson could have mixed and blended the starters and bench.

The nuggets game was really odd because anyone watching the game could tell we were playing like ****. U could see the nuggets playing much harder throughout the entire game even though we had a comfortable lead for most of the game. I think I even wrote in the game thread that I wanted to complain about how we were playing even though we had a comfortable lead.

The next game against the lakers you could tell our intensity was at a different level than at the nuggets game. Your welcome to come up with another theory as to why our intensity was completely different from game to game. I know they were just tired from the game that they played on Sunday even though it was Thursday or maybe it's because they just had too much rest so they couldn't exert any effort. We will never know why they came out flat but it was quite obvious that they did.

[BScoreez]

So how,many wins did you predict for the season?

This. I predicted 50-55 wins.

Only reason why im mad this year is that we cant beat crap teams @ home. Cant take any game lightly.

We should be fine in the playoffs, but then again we play the 3rd best team in the West with argubaly 2 of the top 5-6 players in the league right now. Probably Clippers in 6. Not getting nr 4 or 5th seed will cost us early holidays. i hope im wrong though. Even if we beat them then KD-Russ. same story.

Huh? We have only 5 losses vs teams under .500. Only one team in the entire NBA has less losses against under .500 teams.

[BScoreez]

Man some peoples expectations for this year are crazy. The Iggy trade comparisons to the Lebron/Bosh acquisition and the Garnett/Allen acquisition. The Heat won 47 games the season before and then added Lebron AND Bosh. Lebron+Bosh >>>>>> Iggy.

I have even seen some people say they thought we might get close to 60 wins. You realize that on average 2 teams barely hit 60 wins a season. So if you expected anything close to 60 wins your assuming the Warriors are very close to a top 2 team in the league. Right now the Warriors have the 8th best record in the entire NBA and have the 3rd best record in the West since the all star game. Coming into the season I expected us to be similar to the Rockets and wouldn't you know we are only 3 games behind them. I expected that we would be something like a 50-55 win team (which we likely are) not a 55-60 win team. 55-60 wins is typically the 2nd tier elite teams, while the top 2 are 60+ wins.

For those of you that think this season was a fail did you expect us to be better then the Heat, Pacers, Spurs, Thunder, and Clippers? Because those are the only teams that have had a more successful season. A few extra wins that the Rockets and Blazers have is very little of a difference.

[JimmyTD3]

If any of you are ever considering being a moderator here, allow me to give you a warning. Being a moderator means that you have to read just about all the nonsense that goes on here, just on the off chance that it strays out of bounds, people start misbehaving, etc. etc. You can't ignore posters. You can't ignore threads you know are going to end up being pointless.

This thread is a prime example. When yet another loss was followed with yet another thread to moan about the same old topics, I avoided it for a while. Then I took a deep breath and decided to do my job and wade in. Sure enough, all the usual suspects with all the usual takes on all the usual topics. Spiraling increasingly out of control, eventually people resorting to name calling, and very little interesting basketball discussion taking place. I think for me the thread may have hit rock bottom with this piece of work:

The players' effort last night was horrible. My hypothesis is that they played so poorly because they wanted the media to stop talking about being a better team without Lee. So they played a stinker and now people will claim, "see we need Lee." That worked for some. Their effort in that game though should have an adverse reaction towards Jackson because it shows that he can't get this team to play to it's potential.

It boggles the mind that this is being proposed seriously. Here we have a bunch of professional athletes. They busted their humps their entire life to try to get to the NBA. Now that they're here, they bust their humps trying to win a title. Every game they lose can hurt their seeding, and make that less likely. They could never have gotten here without being hyper competitive individuals. But the theory here is that they conspired to play badly, hurting their chance to win a title, hurting their future earning potential, etc. etc., so that the media (and why do they care what the media think?) will draw a convoluted conclusion and feel better about a guy who didn't even play. I honestly think if you could run this theory by any of the players, and they were free to respond honestly, their response would be... unflattering at best. The team has been widely ridiculed and criticized for this game, and rightly so. And we are to believe they are so worried about what the "media" allegedly thinks (when in fact I think it is mostly a handful of fans), that they are willing to do something completely asinine that will lead to not only the media, but lots of fans, ridiculing them.

I really should just make a thread entitled, "I don't know what went wrong, but this board can really be a fail"

Saying the players don't care about what the media writes about them is as asinine as my theory. Especially since before the nuggets game the entire storyline about the warriors was that they were a better team without lee. Some reporter even asked lee what he thought about it and then lee goes on to state he doesn't read that particular journalist and doesn't care about what he writes even though the reporter didn't bring up the journalist's name. Lee then goes on to tell the reporter that the +\- stat said he was 9th in the league. Meaning he read the article and was visibly annoyed and frustrated and had his rebuttal already planned.

To think players aren't human and don't get affected by what is written about them about a game as you say they dedicate their entire lives to just isn't true.

1 game of 82 isn't much, I don't think they meant to lose the game but just make it seem a bit tougher than it actually would have been. Truthfully I don't think Jackson himself has tried to win as many games as possible this year and created hurdles for the team to overcome and have more close games than was actually necessary to prep the team for the playoffs, which is why we lost so many games were we were up big but left the bench in the game so long that the other team could come back. This happened constantly throughout the season. It's not like Jackson could have mixed and blended the starters and bench.

The nuggets game was really odd because anyone watching the game could tell we were playing like ****. U could see the nuggets playing much harder throughout the entire game even though we had a comfortable lead for most of the game. I think I even wrote in the game thread that I wanted to complain about how we were playing even though we had a comfortable lead.

The next game against the lakers you could tell our intensity was at a different level than at the nuggets game. Your welcome to come up with another theory as to why our intensity was completely different from game to game. I know they were just tired from the game that they played on Sunday even though it was Thursday or maybe it's because they just had too much rest so they couldn't exert any effort. We will never know why they came out flat but it was quite obvious that they did.

My theory is that the players sometimes give less effort because Andrew Bogut banged Curry's wife and they are trying to cover it up.

Let me explain.

The locker room knows what happened, and they also know that when the team goes on a long winning streak, the media is more prone to ask personal questions because they don't have as many on-court issues to talk about. The team also know that if people start snooping around and someone finds out truth, there will be a lot of negative press coverage and management will have to start shipping people out (probably Bogut, as Curry is our franchise guy).

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) Bogut has some dirt on Mark Jackson messing around with some blow and hookers, so MJ can't have Bogut disgruntled or else he'll spill the beans to the media. This is also why Bogut often plays less minutes - he doesn't feel like playing a lot of the time and has MJ in the palm of his hand. Call it laziness *sigh*...

When the team is winning too much, the players hot-dog it a bit and toss a game to Cleveland or Denver. That way, coach is happy because his secret stays with Bogut. Bogut is happy because he can just chill. Curry is as happy as he can be given the circumstances because word hasn't gotten out, which would obviously be embarrassing. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Players are only human, after all. It's impossible that some nights they have it and some nights they don't, just like every other NBA team in the history of the league. No, something is amiss, and I've outlined the answers above.

Youre welcome.

[BScoreez]

Yea the Warriors are so good they played poorly on purpose in the middle of a playoff chase where there are three teams chasing them and there was a chance (although small) that they could potentially miss the playoffs just to prove a point.

It's not like the Heat have lost 5 of a 6 game stretch or the Pacers have lost 9 of there last 12 or the Spurs lost 5 of a 7 game stretch… oh wait they all did.

Well it's not like they ever play poor games and lose to bad teams… oh wait they do too.

Even the 72 win Bulls team lost to and expansion Raptors team that finished the season with only 21 wins.

[HiRez]

Before the season I picked them to win 52 games and be the #5 seed. It appears they will win 47-50 games and be the #6 seed, so not really that far off. Calling the season a "fail" is completely ridiculous, I guess I would just call it a minor disappointment because I do think this team has the talent to get a higher seed. But, seeing as how I don't think playing Houston is a much more difficult assignment than playing LAC, it probably won't matter much.

[DynastySS]

If this was a fail, what would you describe the past 20 years as?

[Mylie10]

Steaming pile.............of fun

[Sleepy51]

So how,many wins did you predict for the season?

This. I predicted 50-55 wins.

Only reason why im mad this year is that we cant beat crap teams @ home. Cant take any game lightly.

We should be fine in the playoffs, but then again we play the 3rd best team in the West with argubaly 2 of the top 5-6 players in the league right now. Probably Clippers in 6. Not getting nr 4 or 5th seed will cost us early holidays. i hope im wrong though. Even if we beat them then KD-Russ. same story.

Huh? We have only 5 losses vs teams under .500. Only one team in the entire NBA has less losses against under .500 teams.

Is that number correct? Really? Because if so, everyone handwringing over the team "underperforming" is completely and thoroughly bonkers and really needs a stuff cup of get your head out of your ass. Can you double check that again because if it's true it needs to be the center point if this discussion.

[Northx57]

Looks like its true. Lakers, Nuggets twice, Cavs, and Knicks. But this stat doesn't really mean anything. They also have losses against teams that are barely over .500 like the Bobcats x 2, Wizards, and Twolves. They definitely could have done a bit better.

[Sleepy51]

Looks like its true. Lakers, Nuggets twice, Cavs, and Knicks. But this stat doesn't really mean anything. They also have losses against teams that are barely over .500 like the Bobcats x 2, Wizards, and Twolves. They definitely could have done a bit better.

.500 isn't just an arbitrary line. It's wining teams vs. Losing teams. Getting caught up in the reputation of the jerseys is wrong headed. Those teams are better than in their past and are winning teams this year.

That doesn't mean I don't want those wins, but if you look at our schedule, I'm pretty sure there are a similar number of our wins that the opponent felt they were supposed to get.

It's why they actually play the games.

[bakesale]

Before the season I picked them to win 52 games and be the #5 seed. It appears they will win 47-50 games and be the #6 seed, so not really that far off. Calling the season a "fail" is completely ridiculous, I guess I would just call it a minor disappointment because I do think this team has the talent to get a higher seed. But, seeing as how I don't think playing Houston is a much more difficult assignment than playing LAC, it probably won't matter much.

52 wins and the 5th seed is still possible. Win all 3 and Portland lose to us and LAC.

The game vs Portland is the biggest game of the season. I think our best chance to get to the second round is to play Houston instead of LAC.

At first I thought LAC might rest their players in their last game vs Portland as they have now secured 3rd. BUT! On further thought, I think LAC might want to beat Portland if it means there's a potential that they could play them in the 1st Round. I think they'd rather play Portland than us.

[FNQ]

The real season hasn't even started yet.. IDGAF about the pre-season.

We got Iguodala in an effort to be better in the playoffs, and to not allow teams to do what San Antonio did to us. So, in the event that we are all healthy and we are on fire like we were last year, we could go farther. But being completely honest, getting out of the 1st round is going to be a nightmare by itself. While Iguodala is worlds better than Barnes, if teams still insist on suffocating Curry and even Klay with their better perimeter defenders, we've been neutered.

Which means teams like OKC (Russ/Thabo/Durant), SA (Green/Kawhi), MEM (Allen/Prince) and HOU (Beverly/Lin) are teams to avoid, in descending order of we're-fu**ed-ness. I'm not that scared of LAC/POR/DAL at all, because they simply don't have the perimeter defense and length necessary to bottle up Curry.

[PlayTheD]

Fail is trading away Chris Webber. Enjoy watching good players play heard in the playoffs.

[Golden Angel]

If we won't get 50 wins and end up playing OKC in first round this season will be a massive fail, and i'd be willing to trade everybody not named Steph or Klay.