Skip to main content

What is with the Golden State bashing?

I have to say it's been a strange year in sports, especially when it comes to teams striving to break records. Almost exactly a year ago, the Kentucky men's basketball team finished an unbeaten regular season by winning the SEC tournament, yet questions came pouring in about how good this team was compared to previous John Calipari coached teams, how they would have ranked amongst the best teams of all time, and whether or not playing in the mediocre SEC detracted from their accomplishments. The Clemson Tigers went to the national championship game as the only remaining unbeaten team in all of college football, yet since they played in the ACC, they were often met with skepticism. When the Carolina Panthers started the year 14-0 and seemed to be well on their way to an unbeaten regular season, they were also met by plenty of doubters, in large part due to their division, the NFC South. Now we have the Golden State Warriors, who, at 52-5, are currently one game ahead of the '95-'96 Chicago Bulls for the best record in NBA history (72-10). For whatever reason, they have their share of detractors as well. I've heard sportswriters on Around the Horn, as well as Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon on Pardon The Interruption cast their doubts on whether or not the Warriors could beat the San Antonio Spurs in a best-of-7 series. Not only that, but several former NBA players have also cast their doubts on this team:

- "Steph Curry, unbelievable shooter, but [Kevin] Johnson was a point guard's nightmare because he was so strong and he loved going to the basket. That's one thing these teams don't do: they do not expose Steph and the way he plays defense. I don't think we would have a problem with this Golden State team." - Cedric Ceballos

- "I just don't think coaches today in basketball understand the game of basketball. They don't know anything about defenses. They don't know what people are doing on the court. [Curry] has shot well because of what's going on in basketball today. ...When I played years ago, if you shot a shot outside and hit it, the next time I'm going to be up on top of you. I'm going to pressure you with three-quarters, half-court defense. But now they don't do that. These coaches do not understand the game of basketball, as far as I'm concerned." - Oscar Robertson

In response to these comments and others, Warriors head coach Steve Kerry sarcastically shot back, "Because athletes, you know, 50 years ago, were much bigger, stronger and faster, more finely tuned. So Steph might not have made it in the league."

Whether people want to believe it or not, sports evolve. Rules change, trends change, strategies change. That doesn't make one era of a sport better or worse than another, but it does make it next to impossible to accurately compare the two. The key is for players and coaches to adapt to the times, make the proper adjustments, and find a way to be successful. There's absolutely no way of knowing how dominant Stephen Curry and this Warriors team would have been prior to the implementation of the 3-point shot, so why even discuss it? This Warriors team has simply adapted to the times, made the proper adjustments, and from a regular season standpoint, are on pace to become the most successful team in NBA history. It doesn't matter whether or not former NBA players and coaches approve of their style of play. At the end of the day, the Golden State Warriors are 52-5 and 21 wins away from setting the NBA record. Also, let's not look at this like it's an aberration. Unlike before-mentioned Kentucky, Clemson, and Carolina, who all fell short in winning a championship during their tremendous regular seasons, Golden State went 67-15 last year on their way to winning an NBA championship. Love them or loathe them, the Golden State Warriors are the best team in basketball right now, on their way to a record-breaking season, and should simply be appreciated and respected for being the team that they are, as opposed to not being a team from the past.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14857175/golden-state-warriors-stephen-curry-finds-bashing-retired-stars-annoying

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"