'15-16 RealGM version of GM survey

[Doctor MJ]

Wow... warriors really not getting much love:

> Fill in the blank: The Golden State Warriors will be __________________ at the end of the 2015-16 season.

David Aldridge, TNT analyst: Watching the Clippers and Cavs in The Finals.

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Tuckered out. Because they will play all the way through the conference finals and probably go six or seven games … before falling short against the Oklahoma City Thunder. That’s a long run, on top of their Finals celebration from June, so they’ll have earned a breather.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Runner-up to the Spurs in the Western Conference finals.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: Disappointed. The Warriors are obviously contenders, and I think they will have a good season with a lot of accomplishments. Just not the ultimate one.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: Respected. I wouldn’t take the Warriors over the field at this point and I understand the thinking that they caught some breaks on their way to the championship last season. But this was the best team in the league, by a WIDE margin, all year, finishing No. 1 in defense and No. 2 in offense. They brought back their entire rotation and they’re relatively young. I don’t know how you can pick any other team over them.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: Fighting it out until the final day. It’s strange to hear so many people, including the decision makers who barely acknowledged them in the GM survey, overlook a crew that was far and away the best team in the league in the regular season last year. All the Warriors did in the playoffs, good fortune or not, is confirm what we saw throughout the 82-game marathon that preceded their title run. They were the best team in the league from wire to wire.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Conference finalists. The Spurs, Clippers and Thunder — along with the Rockets, Grizzlies and Pelicans — are going to emerge as season-long obstacles to the defending champs. In the East the Cavaliers look like a sure thing to return to the NBA Finals; the West is much too competitive to assure a Golden State repeat.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: The champs (again). Having just returned from Warriors camp, and having spoken to many of their players and front office folk, they have assembled in the Bay with a quiet confidence. They’ve basically brought back the same team they had a season ago, and while I’m sure they’ll miss Steve Kerr while he recuperates from back surgery, I think this season the Warriors can focus a little more on the postseason than the regular season and look more at repeating than anything else. The hunger to repeat is definitely there. And I’m of the mind that until the champs aren’t the champs any longer, they remain on top.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2015/10/21/blogtable-predicting-the-warriors-season/

The disturbing thing to me is the sheer number of other teams in the West people are picking over the Warriors. I know not all of those guys are picking all of those teams over the Warriors, but when you've got one guy mentioning 6 teams as the reason why the Warriors won't win, when there's a good chance that none of those teams will ever have as dominant start-to-finish performance as the young Warriors ALREADY did, just seems crazy to me.

On a couple teams specifically:

The idea that the Clippers are going to surpass the Warriors just seems weird to me. I'm not saying it's impossible for them to sneak through the West with the right breaks, but the Clippers are older and considerably more established in terms of their identity. I don't see why anyone would think they'd take a big leap forward at this point.

The Thunder will be interesting. Picking them to win the title doesn't seem crazy. I do think it's fascinating though how the Thunder still seem to have the narrative of "the young, upcoming team" now that we've seen a younger team than them win the title. OKC's talent is undeniable, but there have always been and continue to be issues. Will a coach from college fix that? Seems to be asking a lot.

[JLei]

Wow... warriors really not getting much love:

> Fill in the blank: The Golden State Warriors will be __________________ at the end of the 2015-16 season.

David Aldridge, TNT analyst: Watching the Clippers and Cavs in The Finals.

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Tuckered out. Because they will play all the way through the conference finals and probably go six or seven games … before falling short against the Oklahoma City Thunder. That’s a long run, on top of their Finals celebration from June, so they’ll have earned a breather.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Runner-up to the Spurs in the Western Conference finals.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: Disappointed. The Warriors are obviously contenders, and I think they will have a good season with a lot of accomplishments. Just not the ultimate one.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: Respected. I wouldn’t take the Warriors over the field at this point and I understand the thinking that they caught some breaks on their way to the championship last season. But this was the best team in the league, by a WIDE margin, all year, finishing No. 1 in defense and No. 2 in offense. They brought back their entire rotation and they’re relatively young. I don’t know how you can pick any other team over them.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: Fighting it out until the final day. It’s strange to hear so many people, including the decision makers who barely acknowledged them in the GM survey, overlook a crew that was far and away the best team in the league in the regular season last year. All the Warriors did in the playoffs, good fortune or not, is confirm what we saw throughout the 82-game marathon that preceded their title run. They were the best team in the league from wire to wire.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Conference finalists. The Spurs, Clippers and Thunder — along with the Rockets, Grizzlies and Pelicans — are going to emerge as season-long obstacles to the defending champs. In the East the Cavaliers look like a sure thing to return to the NBA Finals; the West is much too competitive to assure a Golden State repeat.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: The champs (again). Having just returned from Warriors camp, and having spoken to many of their players and front office folk, they have assembled in the Bay with a quiet confidence. They’ve basically brought back the same team they had a season ago, and while I’m sure they’ll miss Steve Kerr while he recuperates from back surgery, I think this season the Warriors can focus a little more on the postseason than the regular season and look more at repeating than anything else. The hunger to repeat is definitely there. And I’m of the mind that until the champs aren’t the champs any longer, they remain on top.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2015/10/21/blogtable-predicting-the-warriors-season/

The disturbing thing to me is the sheer number of other teams in the West people are picking over the Warriors. I know not all of those guys are picking all of those teams over the Warriors, but when you've got one guy mentioning 6 teams as the reason why the Warriors won't win, when there's a good chance that none of those teams will ever have as dominant start-to-finish performance as the young Warriors ALREADY did, just seems crazy to me.

On a couple teams specifically:

The idea that the Clippers are going to surpass the Warriors just seems weird to me. I'm not saying it's impossible for them to sneak through the West with the right breaks, but the Clippers are older and considerably more established in terms of their identity. I don't see why anyone would think they'd take a big leap forward at this point.

The Thunder will be interesting. Picking them to win the title doesn't seem crazy. I do think it's fascinating though how the Thunder still seem to have the narrative of "the young, upcoming team" now that we've seen a younger team than them win the title. OKC's talent is undeniable, but there have always been and continue to be issues. Will a coach from college fix that? Seems to be asking a lot.

Because the Clippers have been right here. In terms of quality how far behind have they really been these last 2 years? My opinion is they've been about as good as anybody. They choked like hell against OKC and had a incomprehensible meltdown against Houston but beat the team playing the best basketball in the second half of the year (Spurs) other than the Cavs. 2nd in SRS these last 2 years with the theory that Blake and CP3 take something off during long breaks in exertion during the regular season and go balls to the wall in the playoffs.

The gap in quality between the 15 Warriors/ Clips/ Spurs and the 14 Thunder come second half of the season (last 30-40 games)/ playoff time really isn't big at all. At least to me.

Start to finish is a nice book end story but really matters is when the teams peak in the playoffs how do they look. Warriors are not really that much above everyone else. As they were +12 per 100 possessions for the first 42 games and +8 for the last 40 games.

+10 overall is godly but +8 isn't the best team of all time. And that to me would be more predictive of playoff performance.

[Doctor MJ]

Because the Clippers have been right here. In terms of quality how far behind have they really been these last 2 years? My opinion is they've been about as good as anybody. They choked like hell against OKC and had a incomprehensible meltdown against Houston but beat the team playing the best basketball in the second half of the year (Spurs) other than the Cavs. 2nd in SRS these last 2 years with the theory that Blake and CP3 take something off during long breaks in exertion during the regular season and go balls to the wall in the playoffs.

The gap in quality between the 15 Warriors/ Clips/ Spurs and the 14 Thunder come second half of the season (last 30-40 games)/ playoff time really isn't big at all. At least to me.

Start to finish is a nice book end story but really matters is when the teams peak in the playoffs how do they look. Warriors are not really that much above everyone else. As they were +12 per 100 possessions for the first 42 games and +8 for the last 40 games.

+10 overall is godly but +8 isn't the best team of all time. And that to me would be more predictive of playoff performance.

You make some good points here but it has to be noted: The Warriors lapped the freaking field in the regular season. It's pretty traditional for teams in such situations to take their foot off the accelerator a bit.

Again I find myself just marveling: This is a team that won 67 games in the regular season, and in the post-season if any team won 2 games on them, they destroyed that team the rest of the way. They did this with a young core that basically didn't exist the year before. But the overwhelming feeling on them somehow is that they're fun to watch but not any kind of serious dynasty threat. It's weird.

[JLei]

Because the Clippers have been right here. In terms of quality how far behind have they really been these last 2 years? My opinion is they've been about as good as anybody. They choked like hell against OKC and had a incomprehensible meltdown against Houston but beat the team playing the best basketball in the second half of the year (Spurs) other than the Cavs. 2nd in SRS these last 2 years with the theory that Blake and CP3 take something off during long breaks in exertion during the regular season and go balls to the wall in the playoffs.

The gap in quality between the 15 Warriors/ Clips/ Spurs and the 14 Thunder come second half of the season (last 30-40 games)/ playoff time really isn't big at all. At least to me.

Start to finish is a nice book end story but really matters is when the teams peak in the playoffs how do they look. Warriors are not really that much above everyone else. As they were +12 per 100 possessions for the first 42 games and +8 for the last 40 games.

+10 overall is godly but +8 isn't the best team of all time. And that to me would be more predictive of playoff performance.

You make some good points here but it has to be noted: The Warriors lapped the freaking field in the regular season. It's pretty traditional for teams in such situations to take their foot off the accelerator a bit.

Again I find myself just marveling: This is a team that won 67 games in the regular season, and in the post-season if any team won 2 games on them, they destroyed that team the rest of the way. They did this with a young core that basically didn't exist the year before. But the overwhelming feeling on them somehow is that they're fun to watch but not any kind of serious dynasty threat. It's weird.

They aren't seen as a team with multiple potential hall of fame players. Heat Big 3, Spurs Big 3, Shaq and Kobe, Kobe and Gasol, Celtics Big 3.

Those were the potential "dynastys". Let's just say that there is a rather large skepticism of whether Draymond Green is a star player much less a future hall of famer. And he's the 2nd best player on this team.

And they damn sure don't think that Curry is Lebron, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe (he's on Kobe's level IMO).

I think they are definitely a potential dynasty. But also fair that there is some scepticism on whether they can do it.

[Dr Spaceman]

Because the Clippers have been right here. In terms of quality how far behind have they really been these last 2 years? My opinion is they've been about as good as anybody. They choked like hell against OKC and had a incomprehensible meltdown against Houston but beat the team playing the best basketball in the second half of the year (Spurs) other than the Cavs. 2nd in SRS these last 2 years with the theory that Blake and CP3 take something off during long breaks in exertion during the regular season and go balls to the wall in the playoffs.

The gap in quality between the 15 Warriors/ Clips/ Spurs and the 14 Thunder come second half of the season (last 30-40 games)/ playoff time really isn't big at all. At least to me.

Start to finish is a nice book end story but really matters is when the teams peak in the playoffs how do they look. Warriors are not really that much above everyone else. As they were +12 per 100 possessions for the first 42 games and +8 for the last 40 games.

+10 overall is godly but +8 isn't the best team of all time. And that to me would be more predictive of playoff performance.

You make some good points here but it has to be noted: The Warriors lapped the freaking field in the regular season. It's pretty traditional for teams in such situations to take their foot off the accelerator a bit.

Again I find myself just marveling: This is a team that won 67 games in the regular season, and in the post-season if any team won 2 games on them, they destroyed that team the rest of the way. They did this with a young core that basically didn't exist the year before. But the overwhelming feeling on them somehow is that they're fun to watch but not any kind of serious dynasty threat. It's weird.

They aren't seen as a team with multiple potential hall of fame players. Heat Big 3, Spurs Big 3, Shaq and Kobe, Kobe and Gasol, Celtics Big 3.

Those were the potential "dynastys". Let's just say that there is a rather large skepticism of whether Draymond Green is a star player much less a future hall of famer. And he's the 2nd best player on this team.

And they damn sure don't think that Curry is Lebron, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe (he's on Kobe's level IMO).

I think they are definitely a potential dynasty. But also fair that there is some scepticism on whether they can do it.

Mmm, obviously criteria can differ within a certain margin (i.e. You and I just may think differently of Kobe and value different things)... But what Doc is talking about here is a HUGE chasm between what the Warriors have accomplished and how they're perceived.

The facts are the facts. They won 67 games, had one of the five best point differentials ever, and won the title. We can quibble about where exactly that puts them, but even if you're lower on them than me you're still talking about them as a potential dynasty. The point is many aren't.

At this point any hypothesis striving for maximum parsimony basically requires labeling Curry as a generational talent at least in the ball park of Shaq/LeBron and Draymond as a star-level impact guy in this context. The way they're being looked at as an asterisked or joke champion is downright bizarre, and squares with nothing based in reality. It takes some massive mental effort to come up with reasons the Dubs will fail in spite of their dominance, hence the cognitive dissonance accusation. I'm not saying everyone needs to pick them to win, but the dismissal we're seeing is a weird historical artifact and should be documented.

[JLei]

You make some good points here but it has to be noted: The Warriors lapped the freaking field in the regular season. It's pretty traditional for teams in such situations to take their foot off the accelerator a bit.

Again I find myself just marveling: This is a team that won 67 games in the regular season, and in the post-season if any team won 2 games on them, they destroyed that team the rest of the way. They did this with a young core that basically didn't exist the year before. But the overwhelming feeling on them somehow is that they're fun to watch but not any kind of serious dynasty threat. It's weird.

They aren't seen as a team with multiple potential hall of fame players. Heat Big 3, Spurs Big 3, Shaq and Kobe, Kobe and Gasol, Celtics Big 3.

Those were the potential "dynastys". Let's just say that there is a rather large skepticism of whether Draymond Green is a star player much less a future hall of famer. And he's the 2nd best player on this team.

And they damn sure don't think that Curry is Lebron, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe (he's on Kobe's level IMO).

I think they are definitely a potential dynasty. But also fair that there is some scepticism on whether they can do it.

Mmm, obviously criteria can differ within a certain margin (i.e. You and I just may think differently of Kobe and value different things)... But what Doc is talking about here is a HUGE chasm between what the Warriors have accomplished and how they're perceived.

The facts are the facts. They won 67 games, had one of the five best point differentials ever, and won the title. We can quibble about where exactly that puts them, but even if you're lower on them than me you're still talking about them as a potential dynasty. The point is many aren't.

At this point any hypothesis striving for maximum parsimony basically requires labeling Curry as a generational talent at least in the ball park of Shaq/LeBron and Draymond as a star-level impact guy in this context. The way they're being looked at as an asterisked or joke champion is downright bizarre, and squares with nothing based in reality. It takes some massive mental effort to come up with reasons the Dubs will fail in spite of their dominance, hence the cognitive dissonance accusation. I'm not saying everyone needs to pick them to win, but the dismissal we're seeing is a weird historical artifact and should be documented.

Thing is for those fans it really isn't. It's very easy to make the argument that they got really lucky. Watching the Finals only reinforces that notion.

It goes back to Docs point that a lot of NBA fans still don't want to believe you can win in the playoffs the way they play. The fact that they did get lucky as hell only gives them reasons to dismiss the title.

They see a team that played a gimmick style of ball that got lucky they ran into no teams that could not punish them for it. Which I kind of agree with. Kevin Love and Tristan would have eaten that Draymond at C lineup. No way Barnes is gonna keep Love off the glass enough for the benefits on the other end to make a difference IMO since Tristan and Love have very good mobility on D unlike Mozgov.

And for the record I think 15 Curry was better than any version of Kobe. But they are roughly on the same level of impact. I wouldn't curse you out if you said Kobe was better or the same like I would if you compared him to peak Lebron or MJ.

[Texas Chuck]

I think the reason for Clipper optimism this year is the bench upgrades. Their starting lineup has matched up with any team in the league for a couple years now, but when a toast Jamal Crawford is the only guy on your bench that's really tough to win with. Now they have one of Lance/Truth, Prigs, Josh Smith, Wesley Johnson.

It's still a weak bench for a contender, but its light years ahead of where its been. With their bench I put them in that group of teams right behind the Warriors: Houston, San Antonio, and OKC included. Now I have them fairly low in that list:

GSW
SAS
Houston
LAC
OKC

so 4th of the 5 teams that have a least a puncher's chance of getting out of the West.

[Leslie Forman]

The supposed "problems" the Warriors had in last season's playoffs should only make teams fear them more. They lose a couple games against Cleveland and Memphis? Well let's just make a little tweak aaaaand…bam, beat them three straight times by 15 points a game.

But no, they're some gimmick sissy girls' team while that Clippers team that has consistently failed in the playoffs - now that's a real basketball team.

[Doctor MJ]

The supposed "problems" the Warriors had in last season's playoffs should only make teams fear them more. They lose a couple games against Cleveland and Memphis? Well let's just make a little tweak aaaaand…bam, beat them three straight times by 15 points a game.

But no, they're some gimmick sissy girls' team while that Clippers team that has consistently failed in the playoffs - now that's a real basketball team.

Yeah my thoughts are in line with yours. A friend of mind who is a casual Warrior and basketball fan (he's the most knowledgeable baseball guy I know though), asked me if the Warriors would be able to keep it up in the playoffs. I told him that in general they were legit, but the true test would be how they adapted when faced with teams looking to use their small ball tendencies against them. Memphis was the specific team I referenced, but by the time of the finals it was clear the Cavs would be in the same category.

This is why those two 4-2 series to me do quite the opposite of make the team look lucky: We were basically seeing good teams systematically look to exploit the Warriors weakness with mismatches...and what we saw was that all it took was a pivot of strategy and the Warriors didn't simply survive but made the mismatch a further advantage. Realistically at this point, I don't know what type of team people should be thinking would be a "Warrior killer", because the obvious choice to me has been shown to be quite solvable by them.

Now as I say this, I did also note to my friend that if the Spurs played as well as they had the previous playoffs they were a major, major threat. Then as now I'm not saying the Warriors can't possibly lose, it just seems to me that the Warriors need to be seen as a juggernaut who if healthy will probably only be beaten by fellow juggernauts...and in a typical year you have somewhere between 0 and 2 of those. There's no freaking way that you'll have 6 of them in the West...