GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT (semifinals) ##14 1983 Philadelphia 76ers v. #4 2017 Golden State Warriors

[pandrade83]

I don't understand why this discussion is focused on LeBron. According to the rosters, LeBron was not on the 17 Warriors or the 83 76ers so I don't see how he is even relevant to this match-up. There is no player on the 76ers who even played against LeBron, adding to the irrelevance.

So in this match-up, I am not considering LeBron at all. I see some match-ups that work in the Sixers favor. I don't think anyone can consistently stop KD one-on-one, but if I had to pick someone to try, Bobby Jones is as good a choice as anyone else. Cheeks was also a First Team All-Defense member; he has the tenacity to bother Curry and make him uncomfortable. But the biggest advantage is Moses. One of the few Achilles Heel spots for the Dubs is against strong offensive rebounders and Moses is as dominant there as anyone in history. He is too strong for Draymond and Green would likely be in foul trouble early and often if he had to defend Moses. West and Zaza have more size but I don't see either being able to guard Moses without fouling. Moses is just a very bad match-up for the Warriors. There are a few match-ups that can also favor the Warriors. I like putting Iguodala on Dr. J and I think Klay can post-up Toney. But these don't make up for the difference that Moses provides.

Playing under 1983 conditions also hurts the Warriors. The Spurs attempted more 3-pointers than any other team with 308 (the Sixers as a team only attempted 109!). Even if we assume the Warriors in 83 would attempt even more 3's than the Spurs, let's say 50% more, that would be 462 or 5.6 3's/game. If my math is right, the Dubs would be attempting about 82% fewer 3's than they did in 2017, which takes away a very big part of their strength. You are going from a team that averages 31 3's a game to attempting less than 6 a game!

Taking the 3-point shot largely away from the Warriors and dealing with Moses Malone are just too big of an obstacle to me. To a lesser degree, I don't see how wearing 1983 shoes and having 1983 trainers will somehow reduce the potential for injury to players like Curry, Iguodala, and Livingston. For those reasons, my vote is for the 83 Sixers.

Why are you assuming they are shooting < 6 3's a game?

This was discussed in a previous post along a similar theme; they are playing under the conditions of the older team. I've stated repeatedly that I do not believe in time machines, so if the Warriors were raised to play in 83, all teams shot far less 3's then than now. I am assuming that even in 83, Kerr would recognized that he has gifted shooters and thus I am saying that, even in 83, Kerr would have his team shoot far more 3's than anyone else. For this purpose, I am assuming that the Warriors would be shooting 50% more than any other team actually shot in 83. Likewise, if they were playing under 2017 conditions, and assuming time machines are still science fiction, I would assume the 76ers were born at a time that they were the ages they were in 83 in 2017. In that case, I think they would be shooting more 3's than they did then, but I still think it would be less than the Warriors actually shot. The rules allowed 3's in both eras, but the playing conditions are vastly different.

I disagree with your approach to this - but I respect it & think it's defensible. Thanks for the explanation.

[Samurai]

Why are you assuming they are shooting < 6 3's a game?

This was discussed in a previous post along a similar theme; they are playing under the conditions of the older team. I've stated repeatedly that I do not believe in time machines, so if the Warriors were raised to play in 83, all teams shot far less 3's then than now. I am assuming that even in 83, Kerr would recognized that he has gifted shooters and thus I am saying that, even in 83, Kerr would have his team shoot far more 3's than anyone else. For this purpose, I am assuming that the Warriors would be shooting 50% more than any other team actually shot in 83. Likewise, if they were playing under 2017 conditions, and assuming time machines are still science fiction, I would assume the 76ers were born at a time that they were the ages they were in 83 in 2017. In that case, I think they would be shooting more 3's than they did then, but I still think it would be less than the Warriors actually shot. The rules allowed 3's in both eras, but the playing conditions are vastly different.

I disagree with your approach to this - but I respect it & think it's defensible. Thanks for the explanation.

Fair enough. I've been very adamant all throughout these types of discussions that I simply do not believe time machines exist; if we go down this road, what happens if we draft Superman to one of the teams? This just makes it more appropriate for a science fiction board rather than a basketball discussion. So whenever a team has to play in a different time period, my standard approach is to say that the travelling team was born and raised in that era (i.e. Curry was born in 1955, Iguodala was born in 1950, etc.) so that they were raised under the same rules and conditions as the Sixers. That to me is the only fair way to do this type of analysis.

[trex_8063]

Why are you assuming they are shooting < 6 3's a game?

This was discussed in a previous post along a similar theme; they are playing under the conditions of the older team. I've stated repeatedly that I do not believe in time machines, so if the Warriors were raised to play in 83, all teams shot far less 3's then than now. I am assuming that even in 83, Kerr would recognized that he has gifted shooters and thus I am saying that, even in 83, Kerr would have his team shoot far more 3's than anyone else. For this purpose, I am assuming that the Warriors would be shooting 50% more than any other team actually shot in 83. Likewise, if they were playing under 2017 conditions, and assuming time machines are still science fiction, I would assume the 76ers were born at a time that they were the ages they were in 83 in 2017. In that case, I think they would be shooting more 3's than they did then, but I still think it would be less than the Warriors actually shot. The rules allowed 3's in both eras, but the playing conditions are vastly different.

I disagree with your approach to this - but I respect it & think it's defensible. Thanks for the explanation.

fwiw, the way Samurai has approached it IS in keeping with what penbeast0 suggested:

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era.

He appears to be clearly suggesting that players on the more modern team should be only as elite [or as much an outlier, if you will] relative to their match-up as they are/were to the league in their own "present day".
It was his means of avoiding too much recency bias in the voting.

Not sure if that shifts this in favor of the Sixers, but assuming Warriors will not be taking 30+ 3PA's at 38.5% shooting [or anything close to it] does appear to be pen's intent; unless I'm misunderstanding??.....

[pandrade83]

This was discussed in a previous post along a similar theme; they are playing under the conditions of the older team. I've stated repeatedly that I do not believe in time machines, so if the Warriors were raised to play in 83, all teams shot far less 3's then than now. I am assuming that even in 83, Kerr would recognized that he has gifted shooters and thus I am saying that, even in 83, Kerr would have his team shoot far more 3's than anyone else. For this purpose, I am assuming that the Warriors would be shooting 50% more than any other team actually shot in 83. Likewise, if they were playing under 2017 conditions, and assuming time machines are still science fiction, I would assume the 76ers were born at a time that they were the ages they were in 83 in 2017. In that case, I think they would be shooting more 3's than they did then, but I still think it would be less than the Warriors actually shot. The rules allowed 3's in both eras, but the playing conditions are vastly different.

I disagree with your approach to this - but I respect it & think it's defensible. Thanks for the explanation.

fwiw, the way Samurai has approached it IS in keeping with what penbeast0 suggested:

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era.

He appears to be clearly suggesting that players on the more modern team should be only as elite [or as much an outlier, if you will] relative to their match-up as they are/were to the league in their own "present day".
It was his means of avoiding too much recency bias in the voting.

Not sure if that shifts this in favor of the Sixers, but assuming Warriors will not be taking 30+ 3PA's at 38.5% shooting [or anything close to it] does appear to be pen's intent; unless I'm misunderstanding??.....

I took into account the rules, refs, equipment - it doesn't say styles of the older team though.

I didn't just assume that the Warriors would hop in a time machine and they start playing in 1983 shoes though - what I assumed is that the older squad has time to study the opponent's film, and the newer squad has time to practice under the opponent's rules.

I also assumed that the newer squad would have to work out with the same equipment of the older team - and play with their equipment.

However, there's the knowledge & team construction problem. I didn't just assume the Warriors would "unlearn" how to shoot 3's - moreover, a GM in 1983 might not be constructing a team the way the Warriors are constructed - even a good forward thinking GM might not do this. Think about how Auerbach constructed the Celtics & West constructed the Lakers.

I can wrap my head around the rest - but not the knowledge problem.

[Samurai]

I disagree with your approach to this - but I respect it & think it's defensible. Thanks for the explanation.

fwiw, the way Samurai has approached it IS in keeping with what penbeast0 suggested:

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era.

He appears to be clearly suggesting that players on the more modern team should be only as elite [or as much an outlier, if you will] relative to their match-up as they are/were to the league in their own "present day".
It was his means of avoiding too much recency bias in the voting.

Not sure if that shifts this in favor of the Sixers, but assuming Warriors will not be taking 30+ 3PA's at 38.5% shooting [or anything close to it] does appear to be pen's intent; unless I'm misunderstanding??.....

I took into account the rules, refs, equipment - it doesn't say styles of the older team though.

I didn't just assume that the Warriors would hop in a time machine and they start playing in 1983 shoes though - what I assumed is that the older squad has time to study the opponent's film, and the newer squad has time to practice under the opponent's rules.

I also assumed that the newer squad would have to work out with the same equipment of the older team - and play with their equipment.

However, there's the knowledge & team construction problem. I didn't just assume the Warriors would "unlearn" how to shoot 3's - moreover, a GM in 1983 might not be constructing a team the way the Warriors are constructed - even a good forward thinking GM might not do this. Think about how Auerbach constructed the Celtics & West constructed the Lakers.

I can wrap my head around the rest - but not the knowledge problem.

Interesting point. I'm not sure how the knowledge issue isn't another way to invite the latent recency bias. For example, if Team X from 1970 were to play Team Y in 2019, Team X may not have any players that we would consider to be "good 3-point shooters" since the 3-point shot didn't exist. But beyond the specific rule, the resulting style of play focused more on a packed-in offense revolving around a low-post offense; Team X's GM may figure that he needs to load up on big low-post threats and not include people like a Downtown Freddy Brown because of the prevailing style of play.

If a college student majoring in Physics went back to 1700 but still retains the basic knowledge he/she has learned, they would be a far greater physicist than Isaac Newton. That always favors the one who came later. The only fair way, to me, to have that hypothetical discussion is to say that the student was born in 1642. That goes beyond just saying the modern student gets "some time to be familiar with how Physics was taught then" as they would actually be raised in the same period. Otherwise it is still a variation of playing "time machine" which clearly tends to favor the newer person. Giving a player "time (say 6-12 months) to learn the rules and wear the equipment" of an older era is different than being raised their entire life then and knowing nothing beyond the schemes, styles, rules, nutrition, exercise methodology, and access to medical care. Otherwise, to me, it is still a version of "time machine".

[trex_8063]

.

Interesting point. I'm not sure how the knowledge issue isn't another way to invite the latent recency bias. For example, if Team X from 1970 were to play Team Y in 2019, Team X may not have any players that we would consider to be "good 3-point shooters" since the 3-point shot didn't exist. But beyond the specific rule, the resulting style of play focused more on a packed-in offense revolving around a low-post offense; Team X's GM may figure that he needs to load up on big low-post threats and not include people like a Downtown Freddy Brown because of the prevailing style of play.

If a college student majoring in Physics went back to 1700 but still retains the basic knowledge he/she has learned, they would be a far greater physicist than Isaac Newton. That always favors the one who came later. The only fair way, to me, to have that hypothetical discussion is to say that the student was born in 1642. That goes beyond just saying the modern student gets "some time to be familiar with how Physics was taught then" as they would actually be raised in the same period. Otherwise it is still a variation of playing "time machine" which clearly tends to favor the newer person. Giving a player "time (say 6-12 months) to learn the rules and wear the equipment" of an older era is different than being raised their entire life then and knowing nothing beyond the schemes, styles, rules, nutrition, exercise methodology, and access to medical care. Otherwise, to me, it is still a version of "time machine".

It's sort of how I've tried to think of it, too. I first sort of look at the best 3pt-shooting team in the league in '83, and use that as a starting point. I assume the '17 Warriors would be at least a little (and maybe a lot) more proficient in 3pt shooting than them, because as you've noted their very roster construction was forged with outside shooting in mind (in a way that no team in 1983 was). So I feel you have to give them some manner of "significant edge" over the best 3pt-shooting team of 1983.
I still assume Steph Curry would be the single-best shooter in the world, that he'd still have a lightning quick release, would still be great working off of screens, etc. I still assume Thompson would likewise be one of the best outside shooters with a lightning quick release. I still assume Kevin Durant is a deadly outside shooter, too. That right there is already more solid-to-"deadly" [however we define "deadly" relative to era] outside shooters than any team in '83 had in actuality, because teams just weren't constructed that way.

So it's fair to suggest they'd be a better outside shooting team than ANYTHING the '83 Sixers saw in real life; however, I'd not assume the EXACT same shooting as they managed in 2017 because---to some degree---I'm basically assuming they were born 3+ decades earlier.

Anyway, don't want to derail; though I guess this still is somewhat on point.


EDIT: btw, pen, I know you're wanting more votes. I do intend to get a vote in, just need to think on it awhile longer.
EDIT2: to Samurai and pandrade83, I should also add that I assume the Warriors in this match-up----even if not taking anywhere near their customary 30+ 3PA's [and perhaps not at their 38+% efficiency] would be by far the best shooting team from ~19-23'. Even though that's not a 3pter, it bears relevance [both to direct scoring, but also to their relative spacing].

[Samurai]

Spoiler:

.

Interesting point. I'm not sure how the knowledge issue isn't another way to invite the latent recency bias. For example, if Team X from 1970 were to play Team Y in 2019, Team X may not have any players that we would consider to be "good 3-point shooters" since the 3-point shot didn't exist. But beyond the specific rule, the resulting style of play focused more on a packed-in offense revolving around a low-post offense; Team X's GM may figure that he needs to load up on big low-post threats and not include people like a Downtown Freddy Brown because of the prevailing style of play.

If a college student majoring in Physics went back to 1700 but still retains the basic knowledge he/she has learned, they would be a far greater physicist than Isaac Newton. That always favors the one who came later. The only fair way, to me, to have that hypothetical discussion is to say that the student was born in 1642. That goes beyond just saying the modern student gets "some time to be familiar with how Physics was taught then" as they would actually be raised in the same period. Otherwise it is still a variation of playing "time machine" which clearly tends to favor the newer person. Giving a player "time (say 6-12 months) to learn the rules and wear the equipment" of an older era is different than being raised their entire life then and knowing nothing beyond the schemes, styles, rules, nutrition, exercise methodology, and access to medical care. Otherwise, to me, it is still a version of "time machine".

It's sort of how I've tried to think of it, too. I first sort of look at the best 3pt-shooting team in the league in '83, and use that as a starting point. I assume the '17 Warriors would be at least a little more proficient in 3pt shooting than them, because as you've noted their very roster construction was forged with outside shooting in mind (in a way that no team in 1983 was). So I feel you have to give them some manner of "significant edge" over the best 3pt-shooting team of 1983.
I still assume Steph Curry would be the single-best shooter in the world, that he'd still have a lightning quick release, would still be great working off of screens, etc. I still assume Thompson would likewise be one of the best outside shooters with a lightning quick release. I still assume Kevin Durant is a deadly outside shooter, too. That right there is already more solid-to-"deadly" [however we define "deadly" relative to era] outside shooters than any team in '83 had in actuality, because teams just weren't constructed that way.

So it's fair to suggest they'd be a better outside shooting team than ANYTHING the '83 Sixers saw in real life; however, I'd not assume the EXACT same shooting as they managed in 2017 because---to some degree---I'm basically assuming they were born 3+ decades earlier.

Anyway, don't want to derail; though I guess this still is somewhat on point.


EDIT: btw, pen, I know you're wanting more votes. I do intend to get a vote in, just need to think on it awhile longer.
EDIT2: to Samurai and pandrade83, I should also add that I assume the Warriors in this match-up----even if not taking anywhere near their customary 30+ 3PA's [and perhaps not at their 38+% efficiency] would be by far the best shooting team from ~19-23'. Even though that's not a 3pter, it bears relevance [both to direct scoring, but also to their relative spacing].

I agree with your points about the Warriors. Without doing an exhaustive research, it seems that the biggest differential I can find in NBA history is around 15%. So I think making an assumption that the Dubs would blow way past that and shoot 50% more than any other team in 83 would make them a sufficiently historic outlier relative to that era, which to me seems reasonable. You could make them 75% or even 100% above any other team, as long as you have some data to support it or this no longer has any semblance of being a fact-based analysis. Even at 100%, they would still be shooting a fraction of the number of 3's that they did in 2017, which factors into the analysis of "who would win."

[pandrade83]

I think you made good points.

I guess for me - at the end - this isn't a "who is the GOAT TEAM" project anymore - it's a "how good would Steph Curry be if he had been born 35 years earlier" exercise - and then it very much gets away from the GOAT Team concept. But - like the Top 100 project which I was active in - everyone approaches these things differently.

[Samurai]

I think you made good points.

I guess for me - at the end - this isn't a "who is the GOAT TEAM" project anymore - it's a "how good would Steph Curry be if he had been born 35 years earlier" exercise - and then it very much gets away from the GOAT Team concept. But - like the Top 100 project which I was active in - everyone approaches these things differently.

To me, the key difference between this GOAT TEAM project and the Top 100 lies in the inherent goals of each. In the Top 100, you are listing your reasons for who you think is the 18th best player, the 63rd best player, etc. It is not a tournament; it isn't relevant whether Player X could beat Player Y in a one-on-one game. For me, that comes down largely to how well a particular player did against their peers, then factoring in things like the strength of that era, intangibles, or whatever factors a voter prefers (weight of peak, prime, longevity, rings, etc.) The GOAT TEAM project is a tournament where two teams are playing a hypothetical 7-game series against each other. Unlike the Top 100 project, these teams are competing against each other. In a 7-game series, there has to be certain ground rules to take into account. Being an actual tournament gives it, by its nature, a different goal than the Top 100 project.

[pandrade83]

I think you made good points.

I guess for me - at the end - this isn't a "who is the GOAT TEAM" project anymore - it's a "how good would Steph Curry be if he had been born 35 years earlier" exercise - and then it very much gets away from the GOAT Team concept. But - like the Top 100 project which I was active in - everyone approaches these things differently.

To me, the key difference between this GOAT TEAM project and the Top 100 lies in the inherent goals of each. In the Top 100, you are listing your reasons for who you think is the 18th best player, the 63rd best player, etc. It is not a tournament; it isn't relevant whether Player X could beat Player Y in a one-on-one game. For me, that comes down largely to how well a particular player did against their peers, then factoring in things like the strength of that era, intangibles, or whatever factors a voter prefers (weight of peak, prime, longevity, rings, etc.) The GOAT TEAM project is a tournament where two teams are playing a hypothetical 7-game series against each other. Unlike the Top 100 project, these teams are competing against each other. In a 7-game series, there has to be certain ground rules to take into account. Being an actual tournament gives it, by its nature, a different goal than the Top 100 project.

I get that it's different from the Top 100 project - if you read my posts from other threads, I'm not just saying Team A is > Team B - I'm trying to take the rule/equipment changes into account and keep the spirit of the project.

But at the same time, I don't think it's an "if Steph Curry were born 35 years earlier would he still be as great as he was"? Had he played in the 70's, I'm not at all confident that Steph would be better than Frazier & I'd bet against it - even though it's consensus that Steph is > Frazier on everyone's ATG list. And the knowledge problem is really tough for me to overcome personally. Appreciate your perspective though

[trex_8063]

Some thoughts.....

Despite earlier discussion with Samurai and pandrade83 (see prior posts), I still think this Warriors team would be better at outside shooting than any team the '83 Sixers faced in reality [probably by far]: the highest in 3pt volume and efficiency they've ever faced, the best 18-23' shooting team they've ever faced, with the best spacing they've ever faced.
Bobby Jones is a nice defensive option for Durant, and Mo Cheeks is a very nice defensive option for Steph Curry. However, Klay Thompson may be a wildcard factor here: I could easily see him going off in this series, being guarded by Andrew Toney (especially given Toney's giving up 3-4" to Klay).
The Warriors have a little better play-makers in general, too.

Moses is certainly going to be a challenge for them, both on the boards and with getting to the line. I don't see the Warriors going small-ball much [if at all], but they do have big guys they can floor to deal with Philly's frontline. Zaza's going to be playing significant minutes, and he's a physical [dirty] player and a legit 6'11", so might not be a bad match-up against Moses. JaVale will also be getting relevant minutes, as will David West; even Kevon Looney may see regular minutes in this series, just to occasionally absorb the foul burden.
The Warriors' high-energy and swarming/moving team defense [lots of mobile and active defenders on this team which included '17's DPOY and were the #2 defense in the league] comes into play against Moses: the Sixers spacing is going to be very poor, as Toney is really the only particularly relevant outside shooter on the team, and Moses is a bit of a black-hole anyway (I once saw him shoot a 10' turnaround from the elbow/baseline out of a triple-team with a teammate cutting wide open thru the lane).......this gives a certain degree of freedom to double [or even triple?] team Moses on the block. I could see this resulting in a lot of turnovers, as Malone frequently brings the ball down low and has a sort of high turnover rate in general. Guys like Dray and Iggy in particular [also Curry] have some very quick and active hands; and again, I don't think Moses will make them pay by hitting the open man.

I mentioned the nice covers the Sixers have for Durant and Curry, but there's a flip-side: I don't see Toney going off at all in this series if being guarded by Klay. When in the game, Iguodala is an excellent defensive option for Dr. J, too, and Durant actually may do an OK job as well. Draymond can cover Jones and/or sort of play free safety out there.


I ultimately see this as being a close series, with Philly winning the battle of the boards and likely getting to the FT-line more. They've got awfully nice transition finishers in Erving and Jones, too. But I see the Warriors probably slightly exceeding them in eFG% nonetheless with their far superior outside shooting, better spacing and ball-movement, and marginally better passing/playmaking. I also see the Warriors winning the battle of the turnovers for reasons mentioned above (though even just looking at their respective league ranks in TOV% and opp TOV% may suggest a marginal edge to the Warriors). I generally like their 1-on-1 scoring options slightly better (Durant maybe the linchpin there), and with the HCA too.......

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the '17 Warriors, probably tight 7-game series.

[penbeast0]

With pandrake and trex, the momentum shifts to Golden State who is leading 4-3

[Hal14]

The Sixers. They swept the Lakers in the Finals in 83 and they would beat the Warriors too.

Moses. Dr J, Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones. That's 4 Hall of Famers. They could rebound, defend, they were tough, they could run the break or play half court. Good luck to anyone beating this squad. Fo Fo Fo!