If the Cavs/Warriors beat the Spurs once or twice...

[ManuForever]

during the regular season, if the Warriors and Cavs beat the Spurs once or twice (maybe even more), will that change your current opinion of the Spurs (whatever it may be,) and make you think any differently of their chances against those teams in the playoffs?


Vice versa, as well. What I'm really asking is, how do regular season matchups between contenders really matter in your eyes? Does it depend on the margin of victory, or does it just not matter at all?

 

[OutlawImmortal]

Doesn't matter. Playoffs are a different beast in every sport. Popavich never shows his cards in the regular season anyway.

 

[bksballer89]

No

 

[bksballer89]

You have to take into consideration a lot of things for regular season meetings such as b2b, injuries, 3rd game in 4 nights or 5th in 7 nights, and etc

 

[trojanfan12]

If anything, it'll make me more certain that the Spurs are going to win.

 

[tsubibo]

I don't think the regular season meeting between the Spurs and Warriors will mean anything. I mean they will face each other late into the regular season. Chances are Pops will be resting his starters by then.

 

[tducey]

Meh, wouldn't matter, the playoffs are when it really counts.

 

[Hambombs]

I would say it matters to some degree. Not 100% but you don't want to lay a egg either and not try.

 

[WiggyRuss]

in 2007 I remember the Cavs beat the Spurs twice in the regular season- and LeBron has a ridiculous posterizing dunk over Duncan- but then got swept in the Finals....regular season does not mean much- especially when injuries and trade deadlines and everything else can totally change the complexion of a roster

 

[Shanemansj13]

Nah. Spurs are capable of beating anyone, especially in the playoffs. Warriors and Cavs when playing their best are also capable of beating anyone. The 3 best teams hands down.

 

[CitySushi]

Nope.

 

[gordontrue]

I think the games mean a lot in the moment. Both sides take them seriously and really want to win. It can serve as a litmus test for both sides on how they are doing and what they want to get better at. They can have an impact on momentum for the regular season.

But by the time we get deep into the playoffs the impact of these games will have dwindled to almost zero. They only matter insofar as they shaped the growth of each team during the season. The W-L outcome won't matter.

 

[CitySushi]

Honestly, the only team that would have it's image altered would be the Warriors if they lost to either of those teams. At least that would be a national opinion.

From the get-go the Warriors have been pegged as either fraudulent or a front running team. Their immediate success has altered that but the Warriors continually have to play well in order to sustain any sort of national respect.

Lets take two examples. If the Warriors beat the Spurs twice in the regular season, both teams at full health, by a good sized margin of 10-12. There wouldn't be any sense of "the Spurs can't beat the Warriors" talk. It would be reduced to "it's the regular season and Pop will find a way to have them ready come playoffs". No one would consider these wins to be indicative of any sort of playoff success.

If you look at it vice versa, the narrative would switch to, Warriors are overrated and Spurs will dominate them in the playoffs.

The Cavs already lost to the Warriors, but no one is talking about the Warriors win. They say Kyrie wasn't at full health and just wait until they're playoff ready. Cool, but the Warriors didn't have a full team either. If the Warriors lost, everyone would be back on the "Cavs would have beaten the Warriors if healthy last year".

It's really a no-win situation for only one team.

My perspective is no matter what happens in the regular season, the playoffs are a completely different animal. There's much more planning, scheming and scouting that would take place during a 7 game series. It would come down to adjustments, health and execution, more than anything else. If the Warriors beat the Spurs by 20 each game in the regular season, I would still be scared to face them in the Playoffs.

 

[trojanfan12]

Honestly, the only team that would have it's image altered would be the Warriors if they lost to either of those teams. At least that would be a national opinion.

From the get-go the Warriors have been pegged as either fraudulent or a front running team. Their immediate success has altered that but the Warriors continually have to play well in order to sustain any sort of national respect.

Lets take two examples. If the Warriors beat the Spurs twice in the regular season, both teams at full health, by a good sized margin of 10-12. There wouldn't be any sense of "the Spurs can't beat the Warriors" talk. It would be reduced to "it's the regular season and Pop will find a way to have them ready come playoffs". No one would consider these wins to be indicative of any sort of playoff success.

If you look at it vice versa, the narrative would switch to, Warriors are overrated and Spurs will dominate them in the playoffs.

The Cavs already lost to the Warriors, but no one is talking about the Warriors win. They say Kyrie wasn't at full health and just wait until they're playoff ready. Cool, but the Warriors didn't have a full team either. If the Warriors lost, everyone would be back on the "Cavs would have beaten the Warriors if healthy last year".

It's really a no-win situation for only one team.

My perspective is no matter what happens in the regular season, the playoffs are a completely different animal. There's much more planning, scheming and scouting that would take place during a 7 game series. It would come down to adjustments, health and execution, more than anything else. If the Warriors beat the Spurs by 20 each game in the regular season, I would still be scared to face them in the Playoffs.

There's some truth to this, but a lot of it is overblown by GSW fans and some of GSW's players. The Spurs have a long history of losing games they really shouldn't in the regular season and/or losing to teams that they are likely to see in the playoffs and then, when the playoffs start, they end up with at least a deep run or win the title.

Add to that the fact that Cleveland was without Kyrie and Love and some skepticism is understandable.

I'm not discounting what GSW has accomplished, they won the title and they deserve all of the accolades that come with it. But unless and until they get past a full strength Spurs and/or Cavs, some folks are going to question them.

 

[CitySushi]

There's some truth to this, but a lot of it is overblown by GSW fans and some of GSW's players. The Spurs have a long history of losing games they really shouldn't in the regular season and/or losing to teams that they are likely to see in the playoffs and then, when the playoffs start, they end up with at least a deep run or win the title.

Add to that the fact that Cleveland was without Kyrie and Love and some skepticism is understandable.

I'm not discounting what GSW has accomplished, they won the title and they deserve all of the accolades that come with it. But unless and until they get past a full strength Spurs and/or Cavs, some folks are going to question them.

And this will be the underlying theme for the duration of the year. That's why the Warriors are the only team that can be negatively affected. For some reason it's on the Warriors burden of proof to show they are the better team. The Cavs and Spurs can just be assumed to be better, and even argued that way even if the Warriors win in the regular season. If the Warriors lose, they become second class citizens again.

 

[WiggyRuss]

And this will be the underlying theme for the duration of the year. That's why the Warriors are the only team that can be negatively affected. For some reason it's on the Warriors burden of proof to show they are the better team. The Cavs and Spurs can just be assumed to be better, and even argued that way even if the Warriors win in the regular season. If the Warriors lose, they become second class citizens again.

well...lets just say in the Finals the Cavs were full healthy- and the Warriors were missing their 2nd, 3rd and like 7th best player.

No one in their right mind would believe the Warriors win a series vs. the Cavs without say like Klay Thompson, Draymond Green and David Lee against a totally healthy Cavs team. I think SOME of it is warranted- ESPECIALLY since you didnt have to play the Spurs- but as is so often the case- you can only play the schedule in front of you and they did that and won teh title so they deserve a bunch of credit----- but its clear that despite this historic run of the Warriors- no one thinks they are unbeatable and i believe the Spurs AND Cavs would believe themselves to be favorites if they were healthy.

 

[CitySushi]

well...lets just say in the Finals the Cavs were full healthy- and the Warriors were missing their 2nd, 3rd and like 7th best player.

No one in their right mind would believe the Warriors win a series vs. the Cavs without say like Klay Thompson, Draymond Green and David Lee against a totally healthy Cavs team. I think SOME of it is warranted- ESPECIALLY since you didnt have to play the Spurs- but as is so often the case- you can only play the schedule in front of you and they did that and won teh title so they deserve a bunch of credit----- but its clear that despite this historic run of the Warriors- no one thinks they are unbeatable and i believe the Spurs AND Cavs would believe themselves to be favorites if they were healthy.

You don't have to keep making excuses why the Cavs lost. The Cavs were clearly at a disadvantage with their injuries. The Warriors would not have won either missing their players, so the point is moot. Cavs should not have won without those players and they did not win.

Everyone talks about how the Warriors have to beat certain teams to be legitimate. The playoffs are always about matchups and exploiting advantages. The Warriors didn't have to play the Spurs last year because the Spurs were not good enough last year to make it far enough to play them. That's the truth. In a seven game series could the Spurs have beaten the Warriors last year? Absolutely. But if the Spurs can't beat the Clips in a series, then they don't deserve to be mentioned as a team the Warriors didn't have to face.

If the Warriors lost in the second round for some reason this year, without playing the Spurs, and the Spurs go on to win the championship, NO ONE will be talking about how the Spurs didn't have to face the Warriors though.

 

[trojanfan12]

well...lets just say in the Finals the Cavs were full healthy- and the Warriors were missing their 2nd, 3rd and like 7th best player.

No one in their right mind would believe the Warriors win a series vs. the Cavs without say like Klay Thompson, Draymond Green and David Lee against a totally healthy Cavs team. I think SOME of it is warranted- ESPECIALLY since you didnt have to play the Spurs- but as is so often the case- you can only play the schedule in front of you and they did that and won teh title so they deserve a bunch of credit----- but its clear that despite this historic run of the Warriors- no one thinks they are unbeatable and i believe the Spurs AND Cavs would believe themselves to be favorites if they were healthy.

^^^THIS^^^ Every word of it.

Can't believe I just typed that.

 

[trojanfan12]

You don't have to keep making excuses why the Cavs lost. The Cavs were clearly at a disadvantage with their injuries. The Warriors would not have won either missing their players, so the point is moot. Cavs should not have won without those players and they did not win.

Everyone talks about how the Warriors have to beat certain teams to be legitimate. The playoffs are always about matchups and exploiting advantages. The Warriors didn't have to play the Spurs last year because the Spurs were not good enough last year to make it far enough to play them. That's the truth. In a seven game series could the Spurs have beaten the Warriors last year? Absolutely. But if the Spurs can't beat the Clips in a series, then they don't deserve to be mentioned as a team the Warriors didn't have to face.

If the Warriors lost in the second round for some reason this year, without playing the Spurs, and the Spurs go on to win the championship, NO ONE will be talking about how the Spurs didn't have to face the Warriors though.

That's the thing, it's not moot. It's the reason that GSW isn't getting the respect they likely deserve. It's certainly not the Warriors fault that the Cavs were injured and the Spurs decided last year was a good time for one of their first round flops. Like Wiggy said, you can only play the teams on the schedule. But those things happened and that's why they are questioned.

I'm not sure I agree about no one saying the Spurs didn't have to play the Warriors. I don't think the Spurs will be questioned like the Warriors have been, but I think most realize that the Warriors style of play makes them a matchup problem for the Spurs. Especially for Timmy and Parker. So I think there will be some questions about that.