We arent really a 48 win team

Sid the Squid · Post #1 » by **Sid the Squid** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:25 pm

Our point differential was +2 and we were one of the healthiest team in the conference...

Normal health year playing gimmick ball with this roster ? I'd guess 40 wins tops.

Just saying,,It's not like we're good.

DanLanghiOwnsAll · Post #2 » by **DanLanghiOwnsAll** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:29 pm

*Yawn*

Sid the Squid · Post #3 » by **Sid the Squid** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:31 pm

Of course if Webber had been healthy, we might of been good by playoff time.

St.Nick · Post #4 » by **St.Nick** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:53 pm

Do you have nothing else better to do?:nonono:

ajbry · Post #5 » by **ajbry** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:27 pm

The health argument is bogus. Baron was nicked up most of the year, Jack was hurt for a very long time and still played, Beans was out for several games, etc. Plus, being without Jack for the first 7 games can be thrown into the same type of scenario. There were no catastrophic injuries but health played a factor.

Winning 48 games with no bench, no in-game coaching adjustments, and after an 0-6 start in the toughest conference in the history of the NBA is nothing to be dismissed. Granted, they didn't accomplish anything but 48 wins is still solid. I personally feel they underachieved this year and felt there were tons of games where the effort and focus was severely lacking...

Post #6 » by **Sleepy51** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:36 pm

We are a 48 win team because we won 48 games. Trying to find a way to claim otherwise is a bunch of hooey.

And our guys played through their injuries all year. We didn't have any surgeries, but lots of games get missed by players every year with nicks and bumps. Our guys played through because they made a consious decision to. Also you can't discount the voluntary conditioning work everyone did all summer long in terms of injury prevention. They were healthier because they worked to be healthier.

giberish · Post #7 » by **giberish** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:39 pm

LF75 wrote:Our point differential was +2 and we were one of the healthiest team in the conference...

Normal health year playing gimmick ball with this roster ? I'd guess 40 wins tops.

Just saying,,It's not like we're good.

As big as I'm into stats, the point differential isn't as damning as it normally would be. GS's clutch play in close games happened too many times to be a fluke(and the same players did it the second half of last year as well). Meanwhile non-close games almost always went against GS at the end.

The health issue is significant. The Warriors were unusually healthy this year, which mitigated the thinness of the roster. If Cohan sticks to the no luxury tax idea next year's bench will have to consist entirely of rookies, 2nd year players and minimum salary players. Coupled with a return to 'normal' health and even with improvement by young players GS looks more like a .500 team than a .600 team.

The only reasonable options are to either pay the luxury tax for one year or rebuild. An extra $5-6M on the payroll next year (if used well) would improve the quality of the Warrior's bench and allow the team to compensate for a reduction in team health. With Foyle's contract off the books after that it would only be a one year deal. In a rebuilding trade, Davis is likely dealt for a draft pick (or cheap young player) + salary filler. The salary filler can then round out the Warriors bench for a year (and a step back would be expected with a rebuilding year anyway.

MightyReds2020 · Post #8 » by **MightyReds2020** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:06 pm

the way baron played the last few weeks, he might as well sit on the shelf. so yes we are a legit 48-win team.

Post #9 » by **Hopper15** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:08 pm

With the exception of Houston, every playoff team in the West was fairly healthy. The Lakers lost Bynum for most of the year, but they have one of the two best players in the NBA that helps mitigate that more than a normal team could.

Post #10 » by **floppymoose** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:39 pm

Not only that, but they gained Gasol. They're a friggen juggernaut.

Watching Gasol on the Lake show just confirms my opinion on how well he would have fit in GS.

I think whether I like the guy or not depends on the day of the week. Sometimes he bugs the crap out of me. But I loved his Olympic play and I also think he behaved well as a star on a Griz team that was going nowhere.

DanLanghiOwnsAll · Post #11 » by **DanLanghiOwnsAll** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:24 am

LF75 wrote:Of course if Webber had been healthy, we might of been good by playoff time.

This is where me and you are probably some of the only ones here that think that.

Post #12 » by **Sleepy51** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:08 pm

Well if Webber had been healthy he could have made layups and crossed the time line before the shot clock expired. But if that were the case he wouldn't really have been Chris Webber '08 then, would he?

The reason he was out of work mid season is becaue his body was done. There's no getting "healthy" from that.