Any team in history you'd bet against the 2017 Warriors in a 7-game series?

[YogurtProducer]

Healthy 2019 raptors ez

lol

IF healthy they likely have one of the best shots. Best defensive team who is suited to guard a modern offense, and if healthy that means OG is playing, Kawhi is not dragging his leg up and down the floor, etc.

Lowry/Green/Kawhi/Siakam/Gasol/OG/Ibaka is legit 7 all-nba defense caliber guys, and that is not even counting FVV who is no slouch.

Realistically IMO no team can beat them, but the '19 Raps have possibly the best chance.

[Warriors Analyst]

Healthy 2019 raptors ez

lol

IF healthy they likely have one of the best shots. Best defensive team who is suited to guard a modern offense, and if healthy that means OG is playing, Kawhi is not dragging his leg up and down the floor, etc.

Lowry/Green/Kawhi/Siakam/Gasol/OG/Ibaka is legit 7 all-nba defense caliber guys, and that is not even counting FVV who is no slouch.

Realistically IMO no team can beat them, but the '19 Raps have possibly the best chance.

That 2019 Raptors team was better than the 2016 Cavs team. Best opponent the Warriors faced in any of their Finals.

[NyKnicks1714]

The 2017 Rockets, assuming sound officiating.

I came here to post exactly that.
The Rockets (with fair officiating) >>> The Warriors.

You both mean the 2018 Rockets right?
2017 Rockets were the pre-CP3 team that got spanked by the Spurs without Kawhi in game 6.

Oops. You know what we meant though

[cupcakesnake]

I came here to post exactly that.
The Rockets (with fair officiating) >>> The Warriors.

You both mean the 2018 Rockets right?
2017 Rockets were the pre-CP3 team that got spanked by the Spurs without Kawhi in game 6.

Oops. You know what we meant though

Yep the 2018 Rockets were beast.

[kuclas]

The 2001 Lakers I feel like would have the best chance. Both in terms of match up problems on the offensive end and defensive problems caused by who the hell is guarding Shaq?


Kobe and Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Ron Harper, Ty Lue...this team had some really good perimeter defenders. You swap out Hoarce Grant for Robert Horry in the starting line up for Match ups and I really like their chances.

Probably the best chance but Shaq would need to absolutely go off.

Yes the team did have good perimeter defenders for their era, but no one who had the skillset or experience to guard a modern pace and space offense.

Depends. If u play in 2000 era rules. Warriors have no one to guard shaq. Draymond can’t play center field cause u actually have to guard one defender with illegal defense

So defensive schemes would be different 2000 vs 2017

I also think warriors lose to 1996 bulls regardless of era played.

Rodman would actually be on KD. KD would still get his. No question.

Ron Harper would be on Klay. Harper very under rated defender.

Jordan on defense on curry. Jordan length on curry would harass curry. That’s a bad defensive matchup for curry.

Like how lebron defended curry in 2015 and 2016 when lebron actually tried on defense. Lebron length bothered curry

Harper would post up curry all day long with curry guarding him.

So curry would be the weak link defensively.

Klay chasing Jordan around. Ain’t no one stopping Jordan. This will affect Klay offensive production.

That’s brings us to Scottie pippen. He be guarding draymond as the help defender roamed. If Harper not able to defend curry. Pippen switches to curry. Bringing even more length to harass curry

So using 2000 rules. I have lakers winning in 6 games Vs 2017 warriors. Due to shaq dominating and no illegal defense putting warriors at significant disadvantage

Using 2017 rules. I see warriors winning in 6 games Vs lakers. For same reason. Spacing shaq out and spreading the court

1996 bulls. 4-2 also. With 1996 rules.

2017 rules. Very tough match up. Could go either way. Jordan never went 7 games in any nba finals. I say whichever team has the home court wins that title.

[Bornstellar]

The 2017 Spurs with a healthy Kawhi

[Finchination33]

2017 Warriors beats anyone in history pretty comfortably. They had a chip on their shoulder that year in the playoffs, which is something that's often forgotten.

[ReddoverKobe]

The 96 Bulls.

The same team that got taken to 6 games by a 6 1/2 man sonics team and that was on top of god awful coaching by Karl?

[ReddoverKobe]

The 2001 Lakers I feel like would have the best chance. Both in terms of match up problems on the offensive end and defensive problems caused by who the hell is guarding Shaq?


Kobe and Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Ron Harper, Ty Lue...this team had some really good perimeter defenders. You swap out Hoarce Grant for Robert Horry in the starting line up for Match ups and I really like their chances.

Probably the best chance but Shaq would need to absolutely go off.

Yes the team did have good perimeter defenders for their era, but no one who had the skillset or experience to guard a modern pace and space offense.

Depends. If u play in 2000 era rules. Warriors have no one to guard shaq. Draymond can’t play center field cause u actually have to guard one defender with illegal defense

So defensive schemes would be different 2000 vs 2017

I also think warriors lose to 1996 bulls regardless of era played.

Rodman would actually be on KD. KD would still get his. No question.

Ron Harper would be on Klay. Harper very under rated defender.

Jordan on defense on curry. Jordan length on curry would harass curry. That’s a bad defensive matchup for curry.

Like how lebron defended curry in 2015 and 2016 when lebron actually tried on defense. Lebron length bothered curry

Harper would post up curry all day long with curry guarding him.

So curry would be the weak link defensively.

Klay chasing Jordan around. Ain’t no one stopping Jordan. This will affect Klay offensive production.

That’s brings us to Scottie pippen. He be guarding draymond as the help defender roamed. If Harper not able to defend curry. Pippen switches to curry. Bringing even more length to harass curry

So using 2000 rules. I have lakers winning in 6 games Vs 2017 warriors. Due to shaq dominating and no illegal defense putting warriors at significant disadvantage

Using 2017 rules. I see warriors winning in 6 games Vs lakers. For same reason. Spacing shaq out and spreading the court

1996 bulls. 4-2 also. With 1996 rules.

2017 rules. Very tough match up. Could go either way. Jordan never went 7 games in any nba finals. I say whichever team has the home court wins that title.

I could go over most of this but the main thing is the bulls are spotting the warriors 18 points in threes and the whole Jordan on Curry things is lunacy. Not to mention Jordan was being guarded by much worse defenseive teams then that warriors team, who can throw more then a few solid defenders on him, at least better then 6'3, 190 pound Hersey Hawkins the first three games.

[kuclas]

Probably the best chance but Shaq would need to absolutely go off.

Yes the team did have good perimeter defenders for their era, but no one who had the skillset or experience to guard a modern pace and space offense.

Depends. If u play in 2000 era rules. Warriors have no one to guard shaq. Draymond can’t play center field cause u actually have to guard one defender with illegal defense

So defensive schemes would be different 2000 vs 2017

I also think warriors lose to 1996 bulls regardless of era played.

Rodman would actually be on KD. KD would still get his. No question.

Ron Harper would be on Klay. Harper very under rated defender.

Jordan on defense on curry. Jordan length on curry would harass curry. That’s a bad defensive matchup for curry.

Like how lebron defended curry in 2015 and 2016 when lebron actually tried on defense. Lebron length bothered curry

Harper would post up curry all day long with curry guarding him.

So curry would be the weak link defensively.

Klay chasing Jordan around. Ain’t no one stopping Jordan. This will affect Klay offensive production.

That’s brings us to Scottie pippen. He be guarding draymond as the help defender roamed. If Harper not able to defend curry. Pippen switches to curry. Bringing even more length to harass curry

So using 2000 rules. I have lakers winning in 6 games Vs 2017 warriors. Due to shaq dominating and no illegal defense putting warriors at significant disadvantage

Using 2017 rules. I see warriors winning in 6 games Vs lakers. For same reason. Spacing shaq out and spreading the court

1996 bulls. 4-2 also. With 1996 rules.

2017 rules. Very tough match up. Could go either way. Jordan never went 7 games in any nba finals. I say whichever team has the home court wins that title.

I could go over most of this but the main thing is the bulls are spotting the warriors 18 points in threes and the whole Jordan on Curry things is lunacy.

And warriors would be sporting Jordan 20 free throws a game with him making 17-18 of
Them. Considering how soft the whistle is these days.

Jordan shot over 40% from shorten 3 point line. It’s not like he couldn’t shoot similar percentage a couple of feet out.

Bulls defense better than the warriors.

You have 3 all world all time defenders in Chicago with Jordan pippen and Rodman. Along with Harper who’s just as good as peak Klay Thompson defensively. Don’t forget they got a prime Steve Kerr off the bench shooting more than 50% from the 3 point line. So we all know he can shoot regardless if they move the 3 point line back.

[Bobbymcgee]

If the Warriors were the ones that had to go back in time to play in the era of the team they are facing then I think quite a few teams in their prime could beat them:

Showtime Lakers
80's Celtics
Bad Boy Pistons
Rodman era Bulls
Prime Shaq Lakers

[rtiff68]

2007 Spurs
1996 Bulls
1998 Jazz
2004 Pistons
2005 Pacers
2014 Spurs
2019 Raptors
2001 Lakers
1995 Magic
1995 Rockets
2008 Celtics
1986 Celtics
1983 76ers

All would stand a chance.

If I believed Ray Allen was better than Steph Curry, I’d agree with you.

Good to know. Thanks for sharing.

You could just admit to a bad take. We’ve all had them.

Or, you can quadruple down on a bad take forever out of anonymous internet pride.

Your call.

[ReddoverKobe]

Depends. If u play in 2000 era rules. Warriors have no one to guard shaq. Draymond can’t play center field cause u actually have to guard one defender with illegal defense

So defensive schemes would be different 2000 vs 2017

I also think warriors lose to 1996 bulls regardless of era played.

Rodman would actually be on KD. KD would still get his. No question.

Ron Harper would be on Klay. Harper very under rated defender.

Jordan on defense on curry. Jordan length on curry would harass curry. That’s a bad defensive matchup for curry.

Like how lebron defended curry in 2015 and 2016 when lebron actually tried on defense. Lebron length bothered curry

Harper would post up curry all day long with curry guarding him.

So curry would be the weak link defensively.

Klay chasing Jordan around. Ain’t no one stopping Jordan. This will affect Klay offensive production.

That’s brings us to Scottie pippen. He be guarding draymond as the help defender roamed. If Harper not able to defend curry. Pippen switches to curry. Bringing even more length to harass curry

So using 2000 rules. I have lakers winning in 6 games Vs 2017 warriors. Due to shaq dominating and no illegal defense putting warriors at significant disadvantage

Using 2017 rules. I see warriors winning in 6 games Vs lakers. For same reason. Spacing shaq out and spreading the court

1996 bulls. 4-2 also. With 1996 rules.

2017 rules. Very tough match up. Could go either way. Jordan never went 7 games in any nba finals. I say whichever team has the home court wins that title.

I could go over most of this but the main thing is the bulls are spotting the warriors 18 points in threes and the whole Jordan on Curry things is lunacy.

And warriors would be sporting Jordan 20 free throws a game with him making 17-18 of
Them. Considering how soft the whistle is these days.

Jordan shot over 40% from shorten 3 point line. It’s not like he couldn’t shoot similar percentage a couple of feet out.

Bulls defense better than the warriors.

You have 3 all world all time defenders in Chicago with Jordan pippen and Rodman. Along with Harper who’s just as good as peak Klay Thompson defensively. Don’t forget they got a prime Steve Kerr off the bench shooting more than 50% from the 3 point line. So we all know he can shoot regardless if they move the 3 point line back.

And this is why I cant stand the Jordan cult.

Made up ft numbers

Some odd three point stat about a shortened line, in which case the helps the warriors even more. Not to mention his % is largely based on his volume of threes, which was 3 a game.

Maybe the bulls were better on defense, but the warriors were always very good on that end, something no one seems to acknowledge.

Then your talking about Stever Kerr as some sort of trump card.

Just do me a favor, go look at the sonics roster and who was getting minutes in the finals, now compare it to the warriors. It's an insane take to think anything but the warriors are at worst even odds to beat them, but in reality would be the favorites.

[CIN-C-STAR]

GS was down by 20 after the 1st half of game 1. Such a small sample size to speculate that SA would've gone onto win the series.

Same scenario with the Heat and Bulls in the 2011 ECF. Bulls swept season series and then won by 20 the first game of the series, then proceeded to lose 4 in row. Most thought the Bulls were going to advance after the game 1 blowout.

The entire thread is speculation so it is absurd to say oh it is speculation… great insight amigo.

So the score after one half of play in game 1, means the Spurs had a good chance of winning the series as the underdog?

I mean, generally when the team with the 2nd-best record in the league steals home court advantage in a series from the team with the best record in the league, and does so in convincing fashion, yes most people would agree they have a good chance of winning the series.
Is that even controversial?
Of course Zaza did what he was brought in to do, which was "break the code" when needed, so we'll never know, but that Spurs team had arguably the best player in the series and the best coach in the series and weren't the least bit intimidated.

[LakersLegacy]

Jordan-Pippen Bulls
Shaq-Kobe Lakers

With the caveat that’s obvious, those teams would get a year to shoot 3s and play in a modern offense

If the rules were old school for their era, many more teams

[MrBigShot]

The 2001 Lakers I feel like would have the best chance. Both in terms of match up problems on the offensive end and defensive problems caused by who the hell is guarding Shaq?


Kobe and Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Ron Harper, Ty Lue...this team had some really good perimeter defenders. You swap out Hoarce Grant for Robert Horry in the starting line up for Match ups and I really like their chances.

Probably the best chance but Shaq would need to absolutely go off.

Yes the team did have good perimeter defenders for their era, but no one who had the skillset or experience to guard a modern pace and space offense.

Is each team playing as they did at the time: the Lakers are playing 2001 style basketball and the Warriors are playing 2017 style basketball? If that's the case the Warriors win pretty easily.

2000-01 Lakers 3pt attempts (playoffs): 15.9fga, 38.6%

2016-17 Warriors 3pt attempts (playoffs): 32.9fga, 38.6%

LAL 2001 ppg: 103.4

GSW 2017 ppg: 119.3

No matter how much they gave the ball to Shaq they'd never be able to make up that scoring difference. That was also the last good Draymond shooting year: 4.6 3's per game @ 41% in the playoffs. How does Shaq guard that when he's never faced a barrage of perimeter shooting at anywhere near that level? The Lakers would get 3pt volumed to death.

In a game where 2 teams are taken in a time machine to a neutral location and are forced to play immediately almost no team is going to beat the Warriors because their 3pt shooting volume and efficiency is going to dwarf their opponent. Every team prior to 2010 would be at a huge disadvantage.

You realize these are in large part the result of pace and play style shift towards shooting more threes league wide right? The warriors average more points (as every team in 2017 did) because there are so many more possessions than in 2001. You can't just do a 1:1 comparison like that.

The 2001 Lakers have the personnel to increase their 3pt volume, and Shaq would fare very well against the lack of size. I dunno if they'd win but the 2001 lakers and 96 Bulls have the best chance of any team.

Someone mentioned the 2004 pistons, but nah. They simply wouldn't have the offensive firepower to keep up.

[wegotthabeet]

The 96 Bulls.

The same team that got taken to 6 games by a 6 1/2 man sonics team and that was on top of god awful coaching by Karl?

i hate this argument. who gives a **** how many games it took to beat the other team. it's a 7 game series and they won. teams don't get two championships for sweeping the finals or any series.

[ReddoverKobe]

The 96 Bulls.

The same team that got taken to 6 games by a 6 1/2 man sonics team and that was on top of god awful coaching by Karl?

i hate this argument. who gives a **** how many games it took to beat the other team. it's a 7 game series and they won. teams don't get two championships for sweeping the finals or any series.

because if that Sonics teams takes two games off of them what do you think a team that is another galaxy from them would do?

[Jkam31]

The 2001 Lakers I feel like would have the best chance. Both in terms of match up problems on the offensive end and defensive problems caused by who the hell is guarding Shaq?


Kobe and Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Ron Harper, Ty Lue...this team had some really good perimeter defenders. You swap out Hoarce Grant for Robert Horry in the starting line up for Match ups and I really like their chances.

Probably the best chance but Shaq would need to absolutely go off.

Yes the team did have good perimeter defenders for their era, but no one who had the skillset or experience to guard a modern pace and space offense.

Shaq would get 50 a game and foul out the whole GSW frontcourt

[Jkam31]

The 2001 Lakers I feel like would have the best chance. Both in terms of match up problems on the offensive end and defensive problems caused by who the hell is guarding Shaq?


Kobe and Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Ron Harper, Ty Lue...this team had some really good perimeter defenders. You swap out Hoarce Grant for Robert Horry in the starting line up for Match ups and I really like their chances.

Probably the best chance but Shaq would need to absolutely go off.

Yes the team did have good perimeter defenders for their era, but no one who had the skillset or experience to guard a modern pace and space offense.

Is each team playing as they did at the time: the Lakers are playing 2001 style basketball and the Warriors are playing 2017 style basketball? If that's the case the Warriors win pretty easily.

2000-01 Lakers 3pt attempts (playoffs): 15.9fga, 38.6%

2016-17 Warriors 3pt attempts (playoffs): 32.9fga, 38.6%

LAL 2001 ppg: 103.4

GSW 2017 ppg: 119.3

No matter how much they gave the ball to Shaq they'd never be able to make up that scoring difference. That was also the last good Draymond shooting year: 4.6 3's per game @ 41% in the playoffs. How does Shaq guard that when he's never faced a barrage of perimeter shooting at anywhere near that level? The Lakers would get 3pt volumed to death.

In a game where 2 teams are taken in a time machine to a neutral location and are forced to play immediately almost no team is going to beat the Warriors because their 3pt shooting volume and efficiency is going to dwarf their opponent. Every team prior to 2010 would be at a huge disadvantage.

Green can’t get off 4 threes a game when he’s watching on the sidelines with foul trouble