Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

TomCat88 · Post by **TomCat88** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:06 pm

112-95. Unbelievable. That's one of the biggest upsets in NBA history. Held Curry to 1-10 3s. Thompson 0-8. Team 4-30.

RickRund · Post by **RickRund** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:03 pm

TomCat88 wrote:112-95. Unbelievable. That's one of the biggest upsets in NBA history. Held Curry to 1-10 3s. Thompson 0-8. Team 4-30.

Will definitely agree to that... The lakers are absolutely terrible.

John K · Post by **John K** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:14 pm

Will that game prevent the Warriors from breaking the record? Will it result in the Lakers losing their conditional draft pick? It's not often that a game between the best team in a league, and the 2nd worst team, could potentially have such significance. As a Lakers fan, I can't help but take some pride in them pulling off such a huge upset, and I haven't had much to be proud of for the last few seasons, but it might work against them in the big picture, if Phoenix catches them for the 2nd worst record.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:10 am

It's the NBA -- the worst player in the league is amazing and the worst team in the league is still packed with guys who can play. If any team has an off night they an easily lose to any team in the league. It would be a historical upset if the Lakers beat the Warriors in a playoff series, but in the regular season pretty much nothing is too big of a surprise.

John K · Post by **John K** » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:38 am

SonomaCat wrote:It's the NBA -- the worst player in the league is amazing and the worst team in the league is still packed with guys who can play. If any team has an off night they an easily lose to any team in the league. It would be a historical upset if the Lakers beat the Warriors in a playoff series, but in the regular season pretty much nothing is too big of a surprise.

I get what you're saying, and of course you're right, but this actually was considered an historic upset, even just for a regular season game. I heard/read somewhere that it was the largest differential in winning percentage, with the better team losing, in NBA history. Obviously that would have to be after X number of games, and I'm not sure what number that was, since you could have some of those early in the season, i.e. an 0-1 team beating a 1-0 team, in the most extreme example. The Warriors were favored by something like 18 points, and lost by 17. Again though, your point is valid. It's not the same as, say, Southern Utah beating Kansas, or something like that.

ilovethecats · Post by **ilovethecats** » Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:39 pm

John K wrote:
SonomaCat wrote:It's the NBA -- the worst player in the league is amazing and the worst team in the league is still packed with guys who can play. If any team has an off night they an easily lose to any team in the league. It would be a historical upset if the Lakers beat the Warriors in a playoff series, but in the regular season pretty much nothing is too big of a surprise.
I get what you're saying, and of course you're right, but this actually was considered an historic upset, even just for a regular season game. I heard/read somewhere that it was the largest differential in winning percentage, with the better team losing, in NBA history. Obviously that would have to be after X number of games, and I'm not sure what number that was, since you could have some of those early in the season, i.e. an 0-1 team beating a 1-0 team, in the most extreme example. The Warriors were favored by something like 18 points, and lost by 17. Again though, your point is valid. It's not the same as, say, Southern Utah beating Kansas, or something like that.

i see what he's saying too but that was an upset of epic proportions. sure, any team can beat any team on any given day. but we're talking about the worst team beating the best team with ease. it was crazy to watch.

sure, even a bench guy in the nba is amazing. that is true in any sport. it's all relative though. a role player or guy who never sees the field for the cleveland browns is damn good too. but if they hosted carolina panthers this season and beat them by 4 tds it's be considered a major upset. and this was too.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:55 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
John K wrote:
SonomaCat wrote:It's the NBA -- the worst player in the league is amazing and the worst team in the league is still packed with guys who can play. If any team has an off night they an easily lose to any team in the league. It would be a historical upset if the Lakers beat the Warriors in a playoff series, but in the regular season pretty much nothing is too big of a surprise.
I get what you're saying, and of course you're right, but this actually was considered an historic upset, even just for a regular season game. I heard/read somewhere that it was the largest differential in winning percentage, with the better team losing, in NBA history. Obviously that would have to be after X number of games, and I'm not sure what number that was, since you could have some of those early in the season, i.e. an 0-1 team beating a 1-0 team, in the most extreme example. The Warriors were favored by something like 18 points, and lost by 17. Again though, your point is valid. It's not the same as, say, Southern Utah beating Kansas, or something like that.
i see what he's saying too but that was an upset of epic proportions. sure, any team can beat any team on any given day. but we're talking about the worst team beating the best team with ease. it was crazy to watch.

sure, even a bench guy in the nba is amazing. that is true in any sport. it's all relative though. a role player or guy who never sees the field for the cleveland browns is damn good too. but if they hosted carolina panthers this season and beat them by 4 tds it's be considered a major upset. and this was too.

It would be an upset, sure, but I wouldn't be shocked by it ... at the pro level the difference in talent levels really isn't that large. The worst MLB team beats the best MLB team all the time. The worst NHL team beats the best NHL team all the time. The worst NBA team beats the best NBA team all the time. Those sports with lots of games in particular see this all the more often. It's a long season and teams have off-games (especially in sports like basketball where a bad shooting night pretty much ends your chance of winning).

I agree that the Lakers beating the Warriors was an upset in terms of betting lines and expectations, but I can tell you that I wasn't the least bit surprised by it. The Warriors have only lost a few games all year, but most of those losses have been to "bad" teams. It's just the nature of an NBA season.

ilovethecats · Post by **ilovethecats** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:22 pm

SonomaCat wrote:
ilovethecats wrote:
John K wrote:
SonomaCat wrote:It's the NBA -- the worst player in the league is amazing and the worst team in the league is still packed with guys who can play. If any team has an off night they an easily lose to any team in the league. It would be a historical upset if the Lakers beat the Warriors in a playoff series, but in the regular season pretty much nothing is too big of a surprise.
I get what you're saying, and of course you're right, but this actually was considered an historic upset, even just for a regular season game. I heard/read somewhere that it was the largest differential in winning percentage, with the better team losing, in NBA history. Obviously that would have to be after X number of games, and I'm not sure what number that was, since you could have some of those early in the season, i.e. an 0-1 team beating a 1-0 team, in the most extreme example. The Warriors were favored by something like 18 points, and lost by 17. Again though, your point is valid. It's not the same as, say, Southern Utah beating Kansas, or something like that.
i see what he's saying too but that was an upset of epic proportions. sure, any team can beat any team on any given day. but we're talking about the worst team beating the best team with ease. it was crazy to watch.

sure, even a bench guy in the nba is amazing. that is true in any sport. it's all relative though. a role player or guy who never sees the field for the cleveland browns is damn good too. but if they hosted carolina panthers this season and beat them by 4 tds it's be considered a major upset. and this was too.
It would be an upset, sure, but I wouldn't be shocked by it ... at the pro level the difference in talent levels really isn't that large. The worst MLB team beats the best MLB team all the time. The worst NHL team beats the best NHL team all the time. The worst NBA team beats the best NBA team all the time. Those sports with lots of games in particular see this all the more often. It's a long season and teams have off-games (especially in sports like basketball where a bad shooting night pretty much ends your chance of winning).

I agree that the Lakers beating the Warriors was an upset in terms of betting lines and expectations, but I can tell you that I wasn't the least bit surprised by it. The Warriors have only lost a few games all year, but most of those losses have been to "bad" teams. It's just the nature of an NBA season.

sorry, I just saw this. and now that the game was weeks ago it's lost its luster!

to be clear, I wasn't implying that I was totally shocked by what happened. anymore, i'm not truly "shocked" by anything in sports because of some of the reasons you laid out. but in terms of historical stats, this was an incredible upset. I do a lot of sports betting and games like these never happen. but to your point, the worst nba team doesn't beat the best nba team all the time. that was my whole point. I doubt you care to take the time for this matter but if you looked back, even over the last 5-10 years you'd see that the worst team in the nba almost never beats the best team.

for this particular game, we are talking about maybe the best team to ever take the court in the history of the nba (record-wise) got beat by the worst team in the league this season. the only thing that would have been more shocking would be if they lost this game at home.

so again, it's not like I expected this to be breaking news that evening on all of the stations, or that I was calling everyone I knew because I was so blown away by the upset. but what they were able to do that night is something no team has done before. it's the same as the warriors record this year. I won't be "shocked" when they beat the bulls wins record. but the season as a whole is very surprising because I thought 72-10 would last a very long time. what the warriors are about to do is something no team has ever done.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:21 am

Now that this topic is open again, I'll backtrack a bit. I just heard a reference from Tom Tolbert on local radio about how the Laker win over the Warriors was, in his words, "the biggest upset in NBA history" when you compare the winning % of each team. So since somebody has quantified that in such a rock-solid way, I have no choice but to admit that I was wrong -- the numbers don't lie. It really was a historic upset.

John K · Post by **John K** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:44 am

John K wrote:
SonomaCat wrote:It's the NBA -- the worst player in the league is amazing and the worst team in the league is still packed with guys who can play. If any team has an off night they an easily lose to any team in the league. It would be a historical upset if the Lakers beat the Warriors in a playoff series, but in the regular season pretty much nothing is too big of a surprise.
I get what you're saying, and of course you're right, but this actually was considered an historic upset, even just for a regular season game. I heard/read somewhere that it was the largest differential in winning percentage, with the better team losing, in NBA history. Obviously that would have to be after X number of games, and I'm not sure what number that was, since you could have some of those early in the season, i.e. an 0-1 team beating a 1-0 team, in the most extreme example. The Warriors were favored by something like 18 points, and lost by 17. Again though, your point is valid. It's not the same as, say, Southern Utah beating Kansas, or something like that.

Sonoma - This was my post from March 9, in which I pointed out the very same fact that Tom Tolbert cited. Apparently stats like this have more credibility, when they come from a former NBA player?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:28 pm

Well yeah.

TomCat88 · Post by **TomCat88** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:05 pm

I, unlike Tolbert, made my statement without consulting a record book.

Lord it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in ev-er-y way.
I cain't wait to look in the mirror,
I get better looking each day.
(Name that artist)

Warriors need to go 7-2 the rest of the way to break the record. They have two left with San Antonio. Very fun to follow.

John K · Post by **John K** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:20 am

TomCat88 wrote:I, unlike Tolbert, made my statement without consulting a record book.

Lord it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in ev-er-y way.
I cain't wait to look in the mirror,
I get better looking each day.
(Name that artist)

Warriors need to go 7-2 the rest of the way to break the record. They have two left with San Antonio. Very fun to follow.

GS got upset by the T-Wolves in OT last night, so they need to go 4-0 to get the record, with 2 of those games against SA. Who knows how many, if any, of SA's best players will play in either or both of those games though. No room for error now. GS has lost more games against average/bad teams, than they have against the other top teams.

ilovethecats · Post by **ilovethecats** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:41 am

John K wrote:
TomCat88 wrote:I, unlike Tolbert, made my statement without consulting a record book.

Lord it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in ev-er-y way.
I cain't wait to look in the mirror,
I get better looking each day.
(Name that artist)

Warriors need to go 7-2 the rest of the way to break the record. They have two left with San Antonio. Very fun to follow.
GS got upset by the T-Wolves in OT last night, so they need to go 4-0 to get the record, with 2 of those games against SA. Who knows how many, if any, of SA's best players will play in either or both of those games though. No room for error now. GS has lost more games against average/bad teams, than they have against the other top teams.

guess it just depends on how much pop and the spurs value home court advantage. they could actually win the west and get home court throughout the playoffs with wins down the stretch. especially two against golden state. or he won't care because he knows you need to win on the road anyway so being healthy and rested trumps home court. think he would have rested all his guys this time yesterday. after that loss by the warriors last night, i'm curious now.

John K · Post by **John K** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:49 am

ilovethecats wrote:
John K wrote:
TomCat88 wrote:I, unlike Tolbert, made my statement without consulting a record book.

Lord it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in ev-er-y way.
I cain't wait to look in the mirror,
I get better looking each day.
(Name that artist)

Warriors need to go 7-2 the rest of the way to break the record. They have two left with San Antonio. Very fun to follow.
GS got upset by the T-Wolves in OT last night, so they need to go 4-0 to get the record, with 2 of those games against SA. Who knows how many, if any, of SA's best players will play in either or both of those games though. No room for error now. GS has lost more games against average/bad teams, than they have against the other top teams.
guess it just depends on how much pop and the spurs value home court advantage. they could actually win the west and get home court throughout the playoffs with wins down the stretch. especially two against golden state. or he won't care because he knows you need to win on the road anyway so being healthy and rested trumps home court. think he would have rested all his guys this time yesterday. after that loss by the warriors last night, i'm curious now.

No...that's not gonna happen. GS is still up 3 in the loss column, and they have 4 games left, while SA has 5. While it's still mathematically possible for SA to catch them, GS only needs to go 2-2 to keep the #1 seed, even if SA wins out. I can't imagine a team that lost only 8 times in their first 77 games, losing 4 of their final 5 (since they lost last night).

John K · Post by **John K** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:08 am

So...who are you watching tonight? GS going for win #73, or Kobe's last game?

allcat · Post by **allcat** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:33 pm

John K wrote:So...who are you watching tonight? GS going for win #73, or Kobe's last game?

I'm going with the team from Modern Family.

TomCat88 · Post by **TomCat88** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:34 pm

What an unbelievable performance by Kobe Bryant tonight. Especially the fourth quarter. Wow!!! The Warriors got the wins record, but Kobe stole the show.

LongTimeCatFan · Post by **LongTimeCatFan** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:27 am

TomCat88 wrote:I, unlike Tolbert, made my statement without consulting a record book.

Lord it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in ev-er-y way.
I cain't wait to look in the mirror,
I get better looking each day.
(Name that artist)

Warriors need to go 7-2 the rest of the way to break the record. They have two left with San Antonio. Very fun to follow.

Mac Davis

http://youtu.be/mYKWch_MNY0

Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors

Re: Lakers?!? beat the Warriors