RealGM

Really depends on health.

Warriors 33-22 when Green played with a DRTG which would be top 7.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=warriors+record+with+draymond+green+2023-24+season


Curry being healthy most important.

I think warriors depth will be improved and hope young players get better

Warriors not about RS wins its about playoff seeding. I think if Curry and Green play 70gms each
They will be top 6 seed to avoid play in

cupcakesnake wrote:I think there's a chance they structurally improve with the young guys and the nice defensive fit of SloMo (I don't think people realize how good and versatile he is on that end) and Melton. I think Podz and Trayce are pretty legit and Kuminga still has a chance to hit on some of his upside.

But I don't trust the health (and/or decline) of Steph and Draymond enough to win 50 games in a brutal Western Conference where 13 teams are trying to win 50 games.

This is a fair assessment. If everything goes right for them - Steph and Dray don't significantly decline; Podz, Kuminga, Moody, TJD keep improving; no significant injuries - they can certainly hit 50+ wins. Last year they had 46 wins but I can recall at least 5 games off the top of my head where they had a 99% chance of winning in the 4th quarter and by sheer luck lost it (Nuggets with Jokic half court heave; OKC twice with Chet hitting a buzzer beater 3 the first time and 3 free throws the second time; Sacramento; Clippers), so they easily could've had 50 wins last season with a bit of luck, and that's with Draymond suspended for 26 games iirc.

The other end of the spectrum is that the above things don't break their way and they miss the play-in. So there's enough variance in the possible outcome that I will only be surprised by them being a top-2 seed or a bottom feeder. Any seed 3-11 I think is solidly within the realm of reasonable results.

Is this team going to be better than the 2013 team that won 47 games? I'm going to say yes. Is this team going to be better than the 2014 team that won 51 games? I'm going to say yes too.

I just don't feel comfortable betting against a guy who has led teams to 67 wins in multiple seasons.

Warriors not even making the playoffs ok, maybe and say maybe the playin

i like that they let go of Klay— addition by subtraction.

But 50 is way too high, if you said 40 you’d have a more balanced poll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there’s a small chance that we can be a top 3 team in the west which would mean 50+. That includes health and dray not being a moron. We should be better than last year just by subtraction and we also got a bunch of usable rotation players to fill in. Probably mostly depends on Kerr and if he is able to play the right players at the right time, which he hasn’t been able to do in his tenure. Because of that it’s more likely we’re a play in team.

People think of GSW as an old team, and that's true at the top end, Steph and Dray, but outside of those two they are actually a very young team, especially with the departure of Klay and CP3. They have 4 guys who can realistically take a big leap forward. Even if only two of them make a decent leap, and assuming that Steph and Dray don't fall off, they should be better than last year. The additions are also underrated. Hield should be a more than adequate replacement for the current version of Klay (without the maintenance) and Melton and SloMo at the very least should upgrade the defense, which was not great most of last season. Like I said above, nothing is guaranteed (progression, health, etc.) but I'm cautiously optimistic.

(edited for typo)

I just want to see Steph with guys who can hit open jumpers and make the right pass. I like our "litle 3" of Podz, JK, TJD to take a nice step after select team experience. Podz has been able to practice with 3 of the greatest guards ever so far in Curry, Clay and CP3. He's got to benefit.

I gotta see how their depth chart shakes out but doesn't seem like 50 wins is realistic.

I think a more interesting, better balanced poll would have been at 40 wins.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think our current roster is better than last season. I don't think we get to 50 wins, but I don't think 46-48 wins is a stretch either.

To those saying 40 wins is more realistic, 40 wins would be a colossal failure for a team that won 46 last season and at least on paper got marginally better. Sure, it could happen, but imo sub-40 is not more likely than 50+.

It's possible.

Klay is an addition by subtraction.

Stackhouse will be key. If kerr gets his way, he will ignore defense and play 4 guards. If the dubs go back to a switchy defense while having to hide only 1 low bbiq player at a time for long stretches, the defense can be stout.

floppymoose wrote:See poll.

Not a trap. Just want to see the mood of the board on this one.

Melton has to stay healthy.
Hield can not suck on defense.
Kuminga should take another step forward.
Draymond and Curry should not become significantly worse than they were last season due to aginging.
Wiggins can not suck for the 1st half season.

If all that goes well then the Warriors are a 50 plus win team even without Lauri.

Trade Looney, Payton, Santos and Moody and draft picks for Lauri and the team gets better than 50 wins because Lauri improves the offense more than losing Looney hurts the rebounding, defense, passing and screen setting.

Anderson also helps but there may not be many minutes for Anderson if the Warriors get Lauri. Since Lauri is not really a center I figure giving up Looney and getting Lauri decreases Anderson’s minutes but increases Trayce Davis’s minutes. How much will Trayce improve in his 2nd year? Trayce as a rookie was already pretty good.

Warriors played like crap 1st half of last season because Klay, Wiggins, and Looney had bad 1st half seasons and yet they still won 46 games because their 2nd half season was better.

Warriors probably improved their coaching staff. Adjusting to Kuminga as the 2nd option scorer was a bit disruptive. I think the Warriors will probably gel as a team better than last year.

Lmao. The Warriors roster is garbage. I say this as a Warriors fan. Its a soon to be 37 year old Steph surrounded by role players and kids. Its over. Anyone who believes otherwise is straight up delusional.

We will be a bottom 5 team in the west, and hopefully get a top 5 pick.

DaPessimist wrote:Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think our current roster is better than last season. I don't think we get to 50 wins, but I don't think 46-48 wins is a stretch either.

46 win team last year after going 19 and 22 for the 1st half season.

Biggest differences between 1st half season and 2nd half season were Wiggins getting back to almost normal after a horrible start to his season and Draymond playing more center and not missing games to suspensions.

Looney and Klay also had bad seasons. What was wrong with Looney and will Looney get back to his usual standards?
The team needed Klay to be Klay of the past or at least 2022 playoffs Klay but Klay’s legs were not right.

Losing Klay helps because waiting for Klay to return to form stopped the team from reaching their potential because Klay could not return to being a better version of Klay. The Klay Curry back court was bad defensively. Healthy Melton which may not happen would improve the Warriors guards defensively. Melton improves team speed.

Payton is aging and Moody is not what Warriors fans dream of Moody being. Better to rely on Curry, Melton and Heild and forget about Moody and Payton.

46 to 48 wins is too low if the Warriors and Wiggins are healthy mentally and physically.

I'm a Warriors fan and frankly 50 wins seems like a longshot, an awful lot would have to right(no decline, suspensions, or major injuries from Curry/Dray, Wiggins bouncing back and having a good year, the young players all taking major steps forward)to hit that mark.

Also, the players added to replace Klay and Paul(Hield/Melton/Anderson) are solid but are all bench-quality players and not major difference makers IMO. And just like last year, the roster absolutely needs more size and a bigger defensive presence at the rim. There isn't one player on the squad over 6'9" in a conference with Jokic, AD, Minnesota's size, etc. I just don't understand their apparent disinterest in having a real center on the team.

Low-to-mid 40's seems like a more reasonable baseline, and under 40 wins(if some of the things I listed above don't happen) honestly seems more likely than 50+.

Of course picking up a competent true center or a Markkanen trade could definitely change my calculus.

MindState wrote:Lmao. The Warriors roster is garbage. I say this as a Warriors fan. Its a soon to be 37 year old Steph surrounded by role players and kids. Its over. Anyone who believes otherwise is straight up delusional.

We will be a bottom 5 team in the west, and hopefully get a top 5 pick.

No, you are having a negative delusion.
The Warriors if healthy with Curry and Draymond not declining significantly from age is definitely not garbage. The Warriors are a deep team if they are healthy.

Warriors won 27 games their 2nd half season which was a 54 win pace.

Melton and Heild should be an upgrade over Klay, Moody and Payton.
Anderson is a nice role player who has a high basketball IQ.

Kuminga might be a stud.
Wiggins will be better than last year.

Rookies Trayce and Podz were good but may be better as 2nd year players.
So you are apparently betting on significant declines from Curry and Draymond.

Warriors with 35 year old Curry and role players won a championship.
I count Poole as a role player because Poole was only good at scoring. Kuminga can replace Poole’s scoring.


When Curry starts looking his age then the Warriors will have a problem but Curry looked younger than 36 last year.

FeatheryTouch wrote:I'm a Warriors fan and frankly 50 wins seems like a longshot, an awful lot would have to right(no decline, suspensions, or major injuries from Curry/Dray, Wiggins bouncing back and having a good year, the young players all taking major steps forward)to hit that mark.

Also, the players added to replace Klay and Paul(Hield/Melton/Anderson) are solid but are all bench-quality players and not major difference makers IMO. And just like last year, the roster absolutely needs more size and a bigger defensive presence at the rim, I don't understand their apparent disinterest in having a real center on the team.

Low-to-mid 40's seems like a more reasonable baseline, and under 40 wins(if some of the things I listed above don't happen) honestly seems more likely than 50+.

Of course picking up a competent true center or a Markkanen trade could definitely change my calculus.

Warriors won 27 games the 2nd half of last year after Wiggins stopped sucking and Draymond stopped being suspended.
27 wins in a half season equals 54 wins for a season.

They did not look good in the play in games.
Counting on Klay to be better than he was hurt the team but won’t happen this season.

If Curry and Draymond are as good as last year this should be a 50 win season.

playoffs wrote:To those saying 40 wins is more realistic, 40 wins would be a colossal failure for a team that won 46 last season and at least on paper got marginally better. Sure, it could happen, but imo sub-40 is not more likely than 50+.

It’s not that the Warriors will not improve (they will, very slightly) it’s the fact that the West has improved a lot.

Top 4 is known already; then you got the Pels and Suns a tier below. Warriors, Lakers, Grizzlies, Kings, Rockets, among others will be battling for those playin spots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk