Regular Season Record for the Warriors Without Curry

Left*My*Heart · Post #1 » by **Left*My*Heart** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:13 pm

So my hypothetical: The Warriors don't have Steph Curry for the entire 2015/2016 season, what do you think their record is?

I personal think that the Warriors are underrated without Curry and they still win close to 60 games this season. I think that mainly hinges on how I view Draymond Green and Klay Thompson as legitimate stars in this league, along with an extremely deep and talented bench. You don't win 73 games without Curry or not having an excellent team around him.

I have friends telling me the Warriors are a lottery team without Curry and I'm nuts to think otherwise.

Curious what the basketball minds out there think.

baldur · Post #2 » by **baldur** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:16 pm

3rd or 4th in the west. they would compete with Lac for the 3th spot. So i guess that makes around 55-56 wins.

ishoy123 · Post #3 » by **ishoy123** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:17 pm

Curry's win shares was 18, so they would have been a 55 win team without him.

Blackfyre · Post #4 » by **Blackfyre** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:33 pm

ishoy123 wrote:Curry's win shares was 18, so they would have been a 55 win team without him.

You say that with certainty. 05-06 Kobe's win shares was 15. You think that team without him would win 30 games ?

PG: Smush Parker/Aaron McKie
SG: Sasha Vujacic/Laron Profit
SF: Lamar Odom/Luke Walton/Devean George
PF: Kwame Brown/Brian Cook
C: Chris Mihm/Andrew Bynum (18 years old)

MisterHibachi · Post #5 » by **MisterHibachi** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:35 pm

55-60.

Teen Girl Squad · Post #6 » by **Teen Girl Squad** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:53 pm

50-55.

datstockton · Post #7 » by **datstockton** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:25 pm

55-60

sanitylaker · Post #8 » by **sanitylaker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:28 pm

I think they could win 55-60

They're stacked. Livingston might be the best backup PG in the NBA, they have the best 6th man and a top 3 SG and PF.

tarantism · Post #9 » by **tarantism** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:32 pm

They would be good, I'll say 50-55 wins.

SideshowBob · Post #10 » by **SideshowBob** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:45 pm

2015 Atlanta Hawks won 60 last year. Warriors w/o Steph are a better version of those Hawks. Granted the East was weaker last year than now, but that's an apt model. They'd win mid-50s with a chance for 60.

Curry lifting them from high 50s to low 70s is still around GOAT level - every win added is harder; going from 30 > 40 is easier than going from 40 > 50 and so on.

Fico92 · Post #11 » by **Fico92** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:56 pm

So are we just taking him off the team but not replacing him with a player who has a $12million salary (roughly)? I'd say 53-55 games if that's the case. If he was to be replaced with a player of equal salary, probably 62-63.

Johnny Firpo · Post #12 » by **Johnny Firpo** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:19 pm

Anything from 50 to 60 wins, that's the only comfortable guesstimate I can make, fully realizing that it's not much of a guess. :lol:

HeartBreakKid · Post #13 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:24 pm

SideshowBob wrote:2015 Atlanta Hawks won 60 last year. Warriors w/o Steph are a better version of those Hawks. Granted the East was weaker last year than now, but that's an apt model. They'd win mid-50s with a chance for 60.

Curry lifting them from high 50s to low 70s is still around GOAT level - every win added is harder; going from 30 > 40 is easier than going from 40 > 50 and so on.

50-60 win is good, but I think we need to clarify on whether they're a pretender 50-60 win team or not.

For instance, last years Hawks were not playoff built. This years Raptors aren't playoff built. 2013 Denver Nuggets won 57 games and only lost 3 times at home, and they lost to a team that had a legit star (2013 Warriors).

The Warriors have good depth, which equates to good record, but the record in these types of teams often transcend their actual talent (ie how well they do in the post season).

RCM88x · Post #14 » by **RCM88x** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:57 pm

55-60 probably, 3rd-4th seed.

likashing · Post #15 » by **likashing** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:03 pm

5-8 seed. Instead of facing and beating a heartless Rockets team without Curry, and have people wonder whether they can win 60 games without Curry, they would be exposed by the #1 seed, the Spurs, OKC, or even a health Clippers team in the 1st round. Welcome to the West playoffs.

The Realist · Post #16 » by **The Realist** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:58 pm

ThumbsUpBaby · Post #17 » by **ThumbsUpBaby** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:00 am

I honestly don't see them having a better record than OKC. In that case, they'd be the 4th seed tops.

Protoss · Post #18 » by **Protoss** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:05 am

There is no way they get 60 wins without Curry. People are underrating him and what he does for the team. He makes the whole system work. If we do not use the salary from Curry to replace him, the Warriors immediately lose depth. It is very difficult to be consistent through 82 games without that 30+ minutes per game from one of the most efficient seasons of all time.

-They lose close games
-They lose more on the road
-They lose to CLE/SAS/OKC/LAC
-They'd likely lose to decent teams like the Raptors and Jazz also

50 wins, 5th seed at best without Curry. Way easier to defend for the top-5 teams

Post #19 » by **Domejandro** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:08 am

48-52 wins, in my opinion. Everything they do is based primarily around his abilities.